Re: How soon should you speed up
Nate Nagel
> When can you legally begin to speed up?
>
> For example:
> You're driving in a 30mph zone. You see an upcoming sign that says
> 45mph. According to the law, can you begin to speed up as soon as you
> can read that sign, or should you maintain 30mph until you are right
> at, or past that sign? Just curious?
>
> I've been driving many years but I have never known how the law
> interprets this if they wanted to be picky about it.
>
> Personally, I usually start to gain speed as soon as I can read the
> sign and it's less than a city block away, but I never really reach
> the higher speed until I am past the sign. (unless it's one of those
> rare places where the speed increase is rediculously small, like going
> from 25 to 30).
>
> LM
>
If you're ever in an area where they get a lot of revenue from a speed
trap, e.g. road going through a small town where the limit drops from 55
or 60 to 35 or lower and then goes back up again on the other side of
town, they generally interpret it that the limit is whatever the last
sign said until you are physically at the sign for the higher limit,
that is, if you are traveling at the 35 limit you can't increase your
speed above 35 until you pass the 55 sign.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <gvffq...@news6.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel
> <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >If you're ever in an area where they get a lot of revenue from a speed
> >trap, e.g. road going through a small town where the limit drops from 55
> >or 60 to 35 or lower and then goes back up again on the other side of
> >town, they generally interpret it that the limit is whatever the last
> >sign said until you are physically at the sign for the higher limit,
> >that is, if you are traveling at the 35 limit you can't increase your
> >speed above 35 until you pass the 55 sign.
>
> Which can't be right, because that would mean the same section of road
> has two different speed limits depending on which side of it you
> happen to be driving.
>
> 65
> --------------------------------------
>
> ======================================
>
> --------------------------------------
> 55
>
> In the example above, the eastbound side has a 65 MPH speed limit,
> whereas the westbound side has a 55 MPH limit.
Why is that the way it must be?
|65----1 mi-----|55 (speed signs for westbound)
--------------------------------------
<-------65---------|<-------55-------- (legal speed in zone)
======================================
--------65-------->|--------55-------> (legal speed in zone)
--------------------------------------
65|-----1 mi---->55| (speed signs for eestbound)
Westbound traffic's speed is controlled by signs on the north side of
the road and eastbound traffic's by signs on the south side. Such signs
are only readable from one direction, so where does your scenario
actually play out?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Brent
> Which can't be right, because that would mean the same section of road
> has two different speed limits depending on which side of it you
> happen to be driving.
I drive a road that looks like this:
40 35
--------------------------------------
<-
======================================
->
--------------------------------------
40 35
By the sign theory NB is 40mph and SB is 35mph.
Most roads IME are set up like this:
40 35
------------------------------------------------------------
<-
============================================================
->
------------------------------------------------------------
40 35
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <alangbaker-4DE65...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
> Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <tkpm15lqdsf4i2l7n...@4ax.com>,
> > Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <gvffq...@news6.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel
> >> <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you're ever in an area where they get a lot of revenue from a speed
> >> >trap, e.g. road going through a small town where the limit drops from 55
> >> >or 60 to 35 or lower and then goes back up again on the other side of
> >> >town, they generally interpret it that the limit is whatever the last
> >> >sign said until you are physically at the sign for the higher limit,
> >> >that is, if you are traveling at the 35 limit you can't increase your
> >> >speed above 35 until you pass the 55 sign.
> >>
> >> Which can't be right, because that would mean the same section of road
> >> has two different speed limits depending on which side of it you
> >> happen to be driving.
> >>
> >> 65
> >> --------------------------------------
> >>
> >> ======================================
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> 55
> >>
> >> In the example above, the eastbound side has a 65 MPH speed limit,
> >> whereas the westbound side has a 55 MPH limit.
> >
> >Why is that the way it must be?
>
> Because in the real world they seldom place two SL signs directly
> opposite each other.
>
> >where does your scenario actually play out?
>
> Lots of places. In this example, there is a 65 MPH sign for the NB
> side at A and a 55 MPH sign for the SB side at B. Thus, the stretch
> between A and B has an asymmetric speed limit.
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Irvine+Blvd&daddr=33.662396,-
> 117.706404&geocode=FXC0AQIdTfH7-A%3B&hl=en&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=15&sll=33.664032
> ,-117.711511&sspn=0.018645,0.038624&ie=UTF8&z=15
No. There is no such sign at the NB location. You know about Google
Street View, right?
And even if there were, so what? What is inherently dangerous about
traffic on the other side of the street traveling at a different speed?
jtc...@gmail.com
anything in the vehicle code that explicitly states it, but have
always understood, and conservatively assumed, that a speed limit
takes effect at the sign.
When you think about it, this has to be the case -- it's the only
sharp, objective criterion in sight (no pun intended and not much of
one achieved). No judgement calls, no individual differences in
distance vision (which can be considerable), no fudge factors for
weather conditions or lighting, no nothin' -- reach the sign, obey
the sign. (Or the Basic Speed Law, whichever triggers the more
conservative speed, of course.)
One legal layman's opinion, worth what you paid if your ISP is
inexpensive,
--Joe
SeaWoe
My favourite example comes from England.- A45 to be exact.
West bound, just after the traffic lights at the airport freight
terminal access, the SL drops from 60 to 30, when you transition from
country to city build-up. It's about 100 yards of country road west of
the freight entry traffic lights. This happens on a curve.
Heading the other way, you have 100 yards of 60 MPH road (after the 30
mph bit) before before the traffic lights.
A friend in that section of the city governement explained that there
was less wordage this way.
Remember this when something involving govenmenbt arises. ....and it
ain't just England
MLOM
> In message <gvffqv0...@news6.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel
>
> <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >If you're ever in an area where they get a lot of revenue from a speed
> >trap, e.g. road going through a small town where the limit drops from 55
> >or 60 to 35 or lower and then goes back up again on the other side of
> >town, they generally interpret it that the limit is whatever the last
> >sign said until you are physically at the sign for the higher limit,
> >that is, if you are traveling at the 35 limit you can't increase your
> >speed above 35 until you pass the 55 sign.
>
> has two different speed limits depending on which side of it you
> happen to be driving.
>
> 65
> --------------------------------------
>
> ======================================
>
> --------------------------------------
> 55
>
> In the example above, the eastbound side has a 65 MPH speed limit,
> whereas the westbound side has a 55 MPH limit.
> Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
> It might be a factor but it's not the father.
Actually Nate is right. The sign (in case of a speed zone change) is
the actual start point at which that posted speed is the highest legal
speed. Generally where there is a change in speed limit, say from 55
to 35, the sign for the 35 zone will be directly across the road from
the opposite-facing 55 zone sign. General rule is that when the
posted SL drops, you have to be slowed to that speed or below by the
time you reach that sign, and if it's increasing, it's illegal to
speed up until you are past that sign. Most drivers have the habit of
speeding up early, and I have been stopped twice (both times by local
cops) for that bad habit (in both cases radared for 8 over).
In MO, most of the SL decreases over 10 mph are at city limits, in
which there's an advisory sign warning of such reduction. Al least
Oklahoma is reasonable: the SL drops in 10-mph increments until
reaching the slowest zone, then increases in 10-mph increments at the
end of the slow zones. That probably doesn't help the brake shop
industry. :)
I have seen some exceptions to the alignment of speed zones. North of
Springfield, part of MO 13 is posted 65 southbound and 60 northbound
due to the northbound lanes being on the old cowpath alignment (a
future project is expected to fix that). On the north side of Milan,
route OO (as in double Oscar), a 2-lane road (which is adequate in a
town of 2,000), is posted 35 southbound from the city limit to the
overpass over MO 5 & 6, and 25 northbound. The only reason I see for
that is that the housing density is higher on the east side of the
road.
MLOM
>
> MLOM <gr...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >Actually Nate is right. The sign (in case of a speed zone change) is
> >the actual start point at which that posted speed is the highest legal
> >speed. Generally where there is a change in speed limit, say from 55
> >to 35, the sign for the 35 zone will be directly across the road from
> >the opposite-facing 55 zone sign.
>
Also true in Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas...and certainly many
other locations.
>
> Examples abound. Here's another one, this time with full Street View
> coverage:
>
> EB Portola Parkway changes from 55 MPH to 60 MPH here:
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&geocode=FXC0AQIdTfH7-A%3B&...
>
> WB Portola changes from 60 MPH to 55 MPH here:
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&geocode=FXC0AQIdTfH7-A%3B&...
>
> My theory is they're just too damn cheap to put up more signs.
Could be. This gives another factor on why I only visited California
*once*. :) Just like emissions standards, there's the California
standard and the standard applicable to the other 49 states.
>
> Which leads me to a question: suppose a speed limit sign falls down,
> gets stolen, becomes illegible, some incompetent worker puts up the
> wrong sign, etc. Does this magically change the speed limit at that
> location? Or is there some authoritative source (e.g. a map book filed
> away at the DOT) for the speed limit along any particular road
> segment?
> --
It just might be the difference between a warning or a citation.
Locals familiar with the area would be more likely to obey the missing
SL than visitors. It would make a very tempting speed trap setup for
local authoritah.
Case in point: when the tornadoes hit Novinger and Kirksville, some of
the signs affected included the 55-mph speed limit sign at the exiting
side of the Novinger city limit on eastbound MO 6. It wasn't a big
deal; the posted limit right before it was also 55 (the reduction/
increase to/from 45 is 1/2 mile west).
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
In my little town (2,000 pop) there was (I think still is, been
awhile) a stretch of about 1/2 mile where W bound is 35 or 25
depending upon which leg of a T you came off of. E bound is 35. I
never heard of anyone getting ticketed in that stretch...or at least
getting ticketed and fighting it.
Harry K
Ashton Crusher
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In message <alangbaker-4DE65...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
>Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <tkpm15lqdsf4i2l7n...@4ax.com>,
>> Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <gvffq...@news6.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel
>>> <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >If you're ever in an area where they get a lot of revenue from a speed
>>> >trap, e.g. road going through a small town where the limit drops from 55
>>> >or 60 to 35 or lower and then goes back up again on the other side of
>>> >town, they generally interpret it that the limit is whatever the last
>>> >sign said until you are physically at the sign for the higher limit,
>>> >that is, if you are traveling at the 35 limit you can't increase your
>>> >speed above 35 until you pass the 55 sign.
>>>
>>> Which can't be right, because that would mean the same section of road
>>> has two different speed limits depending on which side of it you
>>> happen to be driving.
>>>
>>> 65
>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ======================================
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> 55
>>>
>>> In the example above, the eastbound side has a 65 MPH speed limit,
>>> whereas the westbound side has a 55 MPH limit.
>>
>>Why is that the way it must be?
>
>Because in the real world they seldom place two SL signs directly
>opposite each other.
>
>>where does your scenario actually play out?
>
>Lots of places. In this example, there is a 65 MPH sign for the NB
>side at A and a 55 MPH sign for the SB side at B. Thus, the stretch
>between A and B has an asymmetric speed limit.
>
>http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Irvine+Blvd&daddr=33.662396,-117.706404&geocode=FXC0AQIdTfH7-A%3B&hl=en&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=15&sll=33.664032,-117.711511&sspn=0.018645,0.038624&ie=UTF8&z=15
Regardless, the controlling factor is where the sign is at and what it
says. You won't get out of a ticket by saying "The speed limit in the
OTHER direction was higher." anymore then you'd be able to say "the
speed on the OTHER highway was higher."
gpsman
>
> In MO, most of the SL decreases over 10 mph are at city limits, in
> which there's an advisory sign warning of such reduction. Al least
> Oklahoma is reasonable: the SL drops in 10-mph increments until
> reaching the slowest zone, then increases in 10-mph increments at the
> end of the slow zones. That probably doesn't help the brake shop
> industry. :)
If there is an advisory sign you might be surprised how often lifting
off the throttle at it results in arriving at the reduced speed limit
sign ±1 mph of that reduced speed.
I know a lot of people don't have that kind of time to waste, but I
found it curious when I discovered it circa 1970.
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <alangbaker-22983...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
> Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >No. There is no such sign at the NB location.
>
> Care to place a small wager on that?
>
> >You know about Google Street View, right?
>
> Yes, and I also know that the Street View coverage ends before
> reaching the sign. Which brings up the question of how you managed to
> reach the conclusion that there's no sign there, since you have
> absolutely no evidence one way or the other.
You're wrong. Would you like to see the screen shot?
>
> >And even if there were, so what? What is inherently dangerous about
> >traffic on the other side of the street traveling at a different speed?
>
> Quote my post where I said this was "dangerous."
Then why are we even discussing this?
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <alangbaker-D8AF0...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
> Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <5a7p15tt9dflesptf...@4ax.com>,
> > Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <alangbaker-22983...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
> >> Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No. There is no such sign at the NB location.
> >>
> >> Care to place a small wager on that?
> >>
> >> >You know about Google Street View, right?
> >>
> >> Yes, and I also know that the Street View coverage ends before
> >> reaching the sign. Which brings up the question of how you managed to
> >> reach the conclusion that there's no sign there, since you have
> >> absolutely no evidence one way or the other.
> >
> >You're wrong. Would you like to see the screen shot?
>
> Put your money where your mouth is. If you make it worth my while,
> I'll go out there with a camera and take a picture of the sign for
> you.
<sigh>
<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Irvine+Blvd&daddr=33.66
2396,-117.706404&geocode=FXC0AQIdTfH7-A%3B&hl=en&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=15&sl
l=33.664032,-117.711511&sspn=0.018645,0.038624&ie=UTF8&ll=33.665912,-117.
706251&spn=0,359.997854&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.666108,-117.706235&panoi
d=2qUAZg-urryF8HcQ2AdpvA&cbp=12,28.29,,0,-4.9>
There is the link to Google Street View, looking north on Irvine Blvd
from just immediately south of the point where you claim there is a
speed limit sign (the "A" symbol on the inset map is your position "A".
So where is this sign you claim exists?
>
> >> >And even if there were, so what? What is inherently dangerous about
> >> >traffic on the other side of the street traveling at a different speed?
> >>
> >> Quote my post where I said this was "dangerous."
> >
> >Then why are we even discussing this?
>
> <SHRUG> YOU brought it up, so you tell me.
So what did mean by:
"Which can't be right, because that would mean the same section of road
has two different speed limits depending on which side of it you
happen to be driving."
Why can't it be right, Scott? If not a safety issue, then what?
Ashton Crusher
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In message <alangbaker-11043...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
>Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>So where is this sign you claim exists?
>
>Show me the money, and I'll show you the sign.
>
>>So what did mean by:
>>
>>"Which can't be right, because that would mean the same section of road
>>has two different speed limits depending on which side of it you
>>happen to be driving."
>>
>>Why can't it be right, Scott? If not a safety issue, then what?
>
>It's illogical.
>It's annoying.
>It's stupid.
>
>There is NO good reason why a straight, flat, totally symmetric road
>should have a 10 MPH higher speed limit on one side vs. the other.
>NONE.
Maybe it's simply because that was the best place to fit the signs
into the shoulder area. Maybe they allowed the SL to be "too high" on
one side. It would be a very rare case where the exact location where
a speed limit rises or falls would be of any great significance give
or take a quarter to half mile one way or the other. An easy example
of where it IS a concern that the speed limit be "matched" would be
the typical school zone.
harry k
> In message <alangbaker-110436.13511527052...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
>
>
> >"Which can't be right, because that would mean the same section of road
> >has two different speed limits depending on which side of it you
> >happen to be driving."
>
> >Why can't it be right, Scott? If not a safety issue, then what?
>
> It's annoying.
> It's stupid.
>
> There is NO good reason why a straight, flat, totally symmetric road
> should have a 10 MPH higher speed limit on one side vs. the other.
> NONE.
> Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
> It might be a factor but it's not the father.
I have a 1/4 mile stretch of state highway in town that had 35 one way
but 25 the other for years. Today I checked an it now is a 2 block
stretch that is westbound 35 or 25 depending from which leg of a T you
entered but all 35 eastbound. Of course that is stupid.
There is also a 7 mile stretch of US95, the Lewiston Hill, that is 55
down but 65 up. Not stupid there as it is a 4 lane (non-divided) and
the 'down' is restricted due to the steep grade.
Harry K
Ashton Crusher
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In message
><9a397c21-0745-4026...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>MLOM <gr...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>Actually Nate is right. The sign (in case of a speed zone change) is
>>the actual start point at which that posted speed is the highest legal
>>speed. Generally where there is a change in speed limit, say from 55
>>to 35, the sign for the 35 zone will be directly across the road from
>>the opposite-facing 55 zone sign.
>
>That might be true in Misery, but it sure ain't true around here.
>
>Examples abound. Here's another one, this time with full Street View
>coverage:
>
>EB Portola Parkway changes from 55 MPH to 60 MPH here:
>
>
>WB Portola changes from 60 MPH to 55 MPH here:
>
>
>My theory is they're just too damn cheap to put up more signs.
>
>Which leads me to a question: suppose a speed limit sign falls down,
>gets stolen, becomes illegible, some incompetent worker puts up the
>wrong sign, etc. Does this magically change the speed limit at that
>location? Or is there some authoritative source (e.g. a map book filed
>away at the DOT) for the speed limit along any particular road
>segment?
It's not magical but it does change the speed limit. If there's no
sign then it's wherever the local code has for default limits for that
type of road. Related issue is how often do you need signs. I don't
know the answer off hand but clearly it takes more then one sign at
every 10 miles UNLESS it's a sign that says "Speed limit EVERYWHERE
is..."
Brent
> In message <alangbaker-11043...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
>
>>
>>"Which can't be right, because that would mean the same section of road
>>has two different speed limits depending on which side of it you
>>happen to be driving."
>>
>>Why can't it be right, Scott? If not a safety issue, then what?
>
> It's annoying.
> It's stupid.
>
> There is NO good reason why a straight, flat, totally symmetric road
> should have a 10 MPH higher speed limit on one side vs. the other.
> NONE.
There is no good reason why the speed limit should vary randomly in a
15mph range either, but there are roads like that too.
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <alangbaker-11043...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
> Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >So where is this sign you claim exists?
>
> Show me the money, and I'll show you the sign.
>
> >So what did mean by:
> >
> >"Which can't be right, because that would mean the same section of road
> >has two different speed limits depending on which side of it you
> >happen to be driving."
> >
> >Why can't it be right, Scott? If not a safety issue, then what?
>
> It's illogical.
Not necessarily. Conditions in one direction may differ from the other
direction.
> It's annoying.
> It's stupid.
>
> There is NO good reason why a straight, flat, totally symmetric road
> should have a 10 MPH higher speed limit on one side vs. the other.
> NONE.
Wow.
With cogent arguments like that...
harry k
> In message <alangbaker-E16206.02360328052...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
>
> Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >> >Why can't it be right, Scott? If not a safety issue, then what?
>
> >> It's illogical.
>
> >Not necessarily. Conditions in one direction may differ from the other
> >direction.
>
> something?
> --
> Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
> It might be a factor but it's not the father.
Or lots of entry/exit on one side and none on the other? School? It
may or may not be stupid but until you see it you can't say.
Harry K
harry k
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 19:15:08 -0700, Scott in SoCal
>
>
>
>
>
> >In message
> ><9a397c21-0745-4026-921c-f87d15d81...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >MLOM <gr...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >>Actually Nate is right. The sign (in case of a speed zone change) is
> >>the actual start point at which that posted speed is the highest legal
> >>speed. Generally where there is a change in speed limit, say from 55
> >>to 35, the sign for the 35 zone will be directly across the road from
> >>the opposite-facing 55 zone sign.
>
> >That might be true in Misery, but it sure ain't true around here.
>
> >Examples abound. Here's another one, this time with full Street View
> >coverage:
>
> >EB Portola Parkway changes from 55 MPH to 60 MPH here:
>
>
> >WB Portola changes from 60 MPH to 55 MPH here:
>
>
> >My theory is they're just too damn cheap to put up more signs.
>
> >Which leads me to a question: suppose a speed limit sign falls down,
> >gets stolen, becomes illegible, some incompetent worker puts up the
> >wrong sign, etc. Does this magically change the speed limit at that
> >location? Or is there some authoritative source (e.g. a map book filed
> >away at the DOT) for the speed limit along any particular road
> >segment?
>
> It's not magical but it does change the speed limit. If there's no
> sign then it's wherever the local code has for default limits for that
> type of road. Related issue is how often do you need signs. I don't
> know the answer off hand but clearly it takes more then one sign at
> every 10 miles UNLESS it's a sign that says "Speed limit EVERYWHERE
>
> - Show quoted text -
All it really takes is one sign at every entry point on a limited
access road. Trying to picture the local roads here. Near as I
recall it is one sign at the beginning of a local farm road and one at
the exit of every town. Can't recall any more signs but one gets so
used to driving them you overlook the signs. I have a 16 mile haul
coming up tomorrow over a paved county road. I'll watch but it won't
support or deny your 10 miles as there is a village 1/2 way with
another sign at the exit.
Harry K
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <alangbaker-E1620...@news.shawcable.com>, Alan
> Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Why can't it be right, Scott? If not a safety issue, then what?
> >>
> >> It's illogical.
> >
> >Not necessarily. Conditions in one direction may differ from the other
> >direction.
>
> I see. So the NB side is more "slippery" than the SB side or
> something?
Or something, yes.
gpsman
> In article <kd6t1512eqog05hvf40khk8je4252r2...@4ax.com>,
>
> > >> >Why can't it be right, Scott? If not a safety issue, then what?
>
> > >> It's illogical.
>
> > >Not necessarily. Conditions in one direction may differ from the other
> > >direction.
>
> > I see. So the NB side is more "slippery" than the SB side or
> > something?
>
> Or something, yes.
Something like the Smith "Big Picture".
Your speed limit may factor not how well you can see but how well
conflicting traffic can see your approach.
The most ignorant are very often incapable of considering any
perspective other than their own.
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<b0fd4ac8-1cf9-46e4...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
And if speed limits were set more rationally, people might more easily
realize that if the speed limit drops without a visible reason, then
there just might be factors they can't see.
Nate Nagel
Often it's a change in jurisdiction... (what, me cynical?)
But to the original point, I don't often see a situation where a road
has a different speed limit in one direction than the other. Usually
where a limit temporarily drops, I pass the lower speed limit sign, look
in my mirror and see a sign corresponding to the zone I just left for
traffic going the other direction. Then when it goes back up again the
same thing happens in reverse. I'm sure I've driven enough to have
driven through an exception to that, but I can't recall one off the top
of my head.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
gpsman
>
> And if speed limits were set more rationally, people might more easily
> realize that if the speed limit drops without a visible reason, then
> there just might be factors they can't see.
And monkeys might fly out of my butt.
I'd have to agree there's little of no rationality to the methods by
which speed limits are set, since I think most often they are subject
to legislated maximums.
Still, as a compromise for traffic which must comprise the best and
worst and fastest and slowest of drivers, they seem sufficiently high
to me.
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<0578bf24-3cb0-4f03...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
The fact that almost everyone exceeds them and almost no one crashes
suggests they are *not* set sufficiently high.
gpsman
>
>
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 28, 3:45 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > And if speed limits were set more rationally, people might more easily
> > > realize that if the speed limit drops without a visible reason, then
> > > there just might be factors they can't see.
>
> > And monkeys might fly out of my butt.
>
> > I'd have to agree there's little of no rationality to the methods by
> > which speed limits are set, since I think most often they are subject
> > to legislated maximums.
>
> > Still, as a compromise for traffic which must comprise the best and
> > worst and fastest and slowest of drivers, they seem sufficiently high
> > to me.
> > -----
>
> > - gpsman
>
> The fact that almost everyone exceeds them and almost no one crashes
> suggests they are *not* set sufficiently high.
There are about 200,000,000 licensed drivers in the US. They report
crashing 6M+ times per year.
Do you know anyone who might operate a calculator for you?
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<22e9b703-dae3-4ea8...@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 2:23�am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0578bf24-3cb0-4f03-9d57-24bc1dc16...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > �gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 28, 3:45�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > And if speed limits were set more rationally, people might more easily
> > > > realize that if the speed limit drops without a visible reason, then
> > > > there just might be factors they can't see.
> >
> > > And monkeys might fly out of my butt.
> >
> > > I'd have to agree there's little of no rationality to the methods by
> > > which speed limits are set, since I think most often they are subject
> > > to legislated maximums.
> >
> > > Still, as a compromise for traffic which must comprise the best and
> > > worst and fastest and slowest of drivers, they seem sufficiently high
> > > to me.
> > > �-----
> >
> > > - gpsman
> >
> > The fact that almost everyone exceeds them and almost no one crashes
> > suggests they are *not* set sufficiently high.
>
> There are about 200,000,000 licensed drivers in the US. They report
> crashing 6M+ times per year.
References?
Do they report "crashing", or is it perhaps just damage that they report?
>
> Do you know anyone who might operate a calculator for you?
> -----
>
> - gpsman
--
gpsman
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Still, as a compromise for traffic which must comprise the best and
> > > > worst and fastest and slowest of drivers, they seem sufficiently high
> > > > to me.
>
> > > suggests they are *not* set sufficiently high.
>
> > There are about 200,000,000 licensed drivers in the US. They report
> > crashing 6M+ times per year.
>
> References?
You have failed to do the prerequisite reading to participate in such
discussions?
You will find the numbers generous in your favor, if you should be so
interested as to Google them.
> Do they report "crashing", or is it perhaps just damage that they report?
<rolls eyes> You are obviously pathetically insufficiently prepared
to argue your point.
That's the first time THAT ever happened!
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<329ed4b0-357b-41d9...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 2:57�am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > �gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Still, as a compromise for traffic which must comprise the best and
> > > > > worst and fastest and slowest of drivers, they seem sufficiently high
> > > > > to me.
> >
> > > > The fact that almost everyone exceeds them and almost no one crashes
> > > > suggests they are *not* set sufficiently high.
> >
> > > There are about 200,000,000 licensed drivers in the US. �They report
> > > crashing 6M+ times per year.
> >
> > References?
>
> You have failed to do the prerequisite reading to participate in such
> discussions?
No, that would appear to be you, because...
...well, I asked for references and here they... ...aren't.
>
> You will find the numbers generous in your favor, if you should be so
> interested as to Google them.
So you made them up. Yeah: I got that.
>
> > Do they report "crashing", or is it perhaps just damage that they report?
>
> <rolls eyes> You are obviously pathetically insufficiently prepared
> to argue your point.
You don't think there's a difference between "crashing" and "damage"?
>
> That's the first time THAT ever happened!
> -----
>
> - gpsman
--
gpsman
> In article
> <329ed4b0-357b-41d9-a1ed-a3c332b60...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 29, 2:57 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Still, as a compromise for traffic which must comprise the best and
> > > > > > worst and fastest and slowest of drivers, they seem sufficiently high
> > > > > > to me.
>
> > > > > The fact that almost everyone exceeds them and almost no one crashes
> > > > > suggests they are *not* set sufficiently high.
>
> > > > There are about 200,000,000 licensed drivers in the US. They report
> > > > crashing 6M+ times per year.
>
> > > References?
>
> > You have failed to do the prerequisite reading to participate in such
> > discussions?
>
> No, that would appear to be you, because...
>
> ...well, I asked for references and here they... ...aren't.
Most basic to the subject?
You want to discuss calculus and you're asking me to cite a source for
pi.
> > You will find the numbers generous in your favor, if you should be so
> > interested as to Google them.
>
> So you made them up. Yeah: I got that.
These are statistics basic to your subject. They are plastered all
over the web. Accusing me of inventing them suggests you are either
being deliberately obtuse, or you're unapologetically ignorant, but
probably both.
> > > Do they report "crashing", or is it perhaps just damage that they report?
>
> > <rolls eyes> You are obviously pathetically insufficiently prepared
> > to argue your point.
>
> You don't think there's a difference between "crashing" and "damage"?
No, the question an obvious red herring.
Reports of crashes do not include damage unrelated to crashes. 6M+
reported crashes means 6M+ reported crashes. Only those ignorant of
the subject would ask.
Would you like to now debate whether these crashes were reported by
the drivers to CNN... or by police to the states...?
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<1301bc15-c39c-4c63...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
So you say...
...but that's all.
By now you could have produced these references... ...if you were
actually correct.
>
> > > You will find the numbers generous in your favor, if you should be so
> > > interested as to Google them.
> >
> > So you made them up. Yeah: I got that.
>
> These are statistics basic to your subject. They are plastered all
> over the web. Accusing me of inventing them suggests you are either
> being deliberately obtuse, or you're unapologetically ignorant, but
> probably both.
Then produce them!
>
> > > > Do they report "crashing", or is it perhaps just damage that they
> > > > report?
> >
> > > <rolls eyes> �You are obviously pathetically insufficiently prepared
> > > to argue your point.
> >
> > You don't think there's a difference between "crashing" and "damage"?
>
> No, the question an obvious red herring.
>
> Reports of crashes do not include damage unrelated to crashes. 6M+
> reported crashes means 6M+ reported crashes. Only those ignorant of
> the subject would ask.
I'll say it straight: you have no such statistic.
>
> Would you like to now debate whether these crashes were reported by
> the drivers to CNN... or by police to the states...?
<yawn>
gpsman
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Reports of crashes do not include damage unrelated to crashes. 6M+
> > reported crashes means 6M+ reported crashes. Only those ignorant of
> > the subject would ask.
>
> I'll say it straight: you have no such statistic.
Lol. Would you care to cite...?
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<c697acd8-cc35-4a5e...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
I don't need to.
You've been challenged to produce: you failed.
> -----
>
> - gpsman
gpsman
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 29, 5:53 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Reports of crashes do not include damage unrelated to crashes. 6M+
> > > > reported crashes means 6M+ reported crashes. Only those ignorant of
> > > > the subject would ask.
>
> > > I'll say it straight: you have no such statistic.
>
> > Lol. Would you care to cite...?
>
> I don't need to.
>
> You've been challenged to produce: you failed.
Tee hee. Red herring.
What statistics could be more basic than the number of licensed
drivers and number of crashes/year... and why aren't you familiar with
them?
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<8f3606bc-7ec0-4270...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 1:16�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c697acd8-cc35-4a5e-a280-2a444385a...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 29, 5:53�am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > �gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Reports of crashes do not include damage unrelated to crashes. �6M+
> > > > > reported crashes means 6M+ reported crashes. �Only those ignorant of
> > > > > the subject would ask.
> >
> > > > I'll say it straight: you have no such statistic.
> >
> > > Lol. �Would you care to cite...?
> >
> > I don't need to.
> >
> > You've been challenged to produce: you failed.
>
> Tee hee. Red herring.
>
> What statistics could be more basic than the number of licensed
> drivers and number of crashes/year... and why aren't you familiar with
> them?
The question is: if they are so basic why can you not produce them?
gpsman
>
>
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 29, 1:16 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <c697acd8-cc35-4a5e-a280-2a444385a...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 29, 5:53 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Reports of crashes do not include damage unrelated to crashes. 6M+
> > > > > > reported crashes means 6M+ reported crashes. Only those ignorant of
> > > > > > the subject would ask.
>
> > > > > I'll say it straight: you have no such statistic.
>
> > > > Lol. Would you care to cite...?
>
> > > I don't need to.
>
> > > You've been challenged to produce: you failed.
>
> > Tee hee. Red herring.
>
> > What statistics could be more basic than the number of licensed
> > drivers and number of crashes/year... and why aren't you familiar with
> > them?
>
> The question is: if they are so basic why can you not produce them?
Tee hee. Red herring.
The question/s are, why don't you know them, and how do you feel
qualified to discuss a subject of which you are apparently completely
ignorant?
I like to argue as much as the next guy, but the next best thing is
getting ignoramuses to exhibit their ignorance.
Please, continue.
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<108de705-42cd-4008...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
In order for you to do that, you would have to show that there was any
ignorance involved by producing the correct information...
N8N
Wouldn't crashes per vehicle mile be a more relevant statistic than
crashes per licensed driver?
e.g. our population is aging; my grandmother holds a valid license,
but rarely drives farther than into town and back.
(this is why I skip right over posts from gpstroll. well, that and
the ad hominems, argumentative nature, logical fallacies, etc.)
nate
gpsman
Nah. Those who are knowledgable about crash statistics know my
figures are accurate. They are cited in numerous publications on the
subject. They are common knowledge. You couldn't be more obviously
completely ignorant of the subject of which you wish to forward your
opinion.
Repeatedly questioning their authenticity without offering a rebuttal
only suggests you are lazy of thought and deed, and that you must be
exceedingly ignorant of many, many subjects, and why you are so
incredibly ignorant.
Pretty handy for me.
Your level of ignorance is commonly accompanied by a complete lack of
embarrassment, which is good for both of us.
Alan Baker
<05fb023b-4431-4311...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
Repeatedly not producing the references means that no one can examine
what is meant by the figures you produce (if they, in fact, exist at
all).
>
> Please, continue.
> -----
>
> - gpsman
--
Alan Baker
<05fb023b-4431-4311...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
Unlike you, I have found some interesting figures and we can examine
them to see what your alleged figures might mean.
Based on numbers from <http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx>,
the government website on statistics for fatal automobile accidents we
can learn how many vehicle-miles were driven in the U.S. in 2007.
3,030 *BILLION* vehicle miles.
And for the sake of argument, and to produce as conservative a figure as
possible, let's assume that all those miles were driven at a speed of
60mph (ludicrously high, I'm sure you'd agree).
That means that total vehicle-hours driven are 3030/60 = 50.5 BILLION
hours driving.
Let us further assume that your 6 million figure is actually correct.
Dividing 50.5x10^9 by 6.0x10^6 = 8416 hours.
Further assuming that every accident involves 2 vehicles, we divide by
two and come up with 2,208 hours driving between accidents; more than a
full working year.
Taking your figure of 200 million licensed drivers as accurate, the
average miles driver per driver is 15,150 miles. At our assumed 60 mph
average, they cover that distance in 252.5 hours driving.
IOW, the average interval between accidents (anything from fender bender
to fatalities) for an individual driver is nearly 8.75 years.
I challenge you to put the risks of accidents of any kind up against
other activities and show that driving is anything but extremely safe.
What other activities can humans do for 2,208 hours without having an
accident of some kind?
Nate Nagel
Oddly enough, while I would disagree with your methodology, your numbers
for average miles/year/driver and MTB(whatever) correspond well to
numbers that I remember having been thrown about.
That said, the 8.75 year number is pretty darn depressing.
Alan Baker
Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
Not really.
Nearly 9 years between anything that gets reported as an "accident" and
not a "crash" is really pretty good.
Think of it: nearly 9 years between accidents of *any* kind. How many
parking lot fender benders do you think that includes?
gpsman
>
> Repeatedly not producing the references means that no one can examine
> what is meant by the figures
They mean there's "about 200M licensed drivers" and "about 6M+
reported crashes/year".
> (if they, in fact, exist at
> all).
Have you tried Google...?
http://www.google.com
-----
- gpsman
Nate Nagel
well, my point was that's an AVERAGE. I know enough people that have
gone significantly longer than that, so that must mean that there's
people out there pulling the average down...
Alan Baker
<d612f07d-64a6-465d...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 5:59�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > Repeatedly not producing the references means that no one can examine
> > what is meant by the figures
>
> They mean there's "about 200M licensed drivers" and "about 6M+
> reported crashes/year".
What is the criteria for what is a crash?
"Crash" is a loaded word. Does the fact that I got backed into when I
was parked and had to involve my insurance company form an instance of a
"crash"?
>
> > (if they, in fact, exist at
> > all).
>
> Have you tried Google...?
> http://www.google.com
> -----
>
> - gpsman
--
Alan Baker
<d612f07d-64a6-465d...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
Not my job.
Usenet rule:
You make a claim: you provide the support.
Brent
It only takes a few idiots to ruin the run for a lot of people. One
idiot can hit a half dozen or more parked cars just driving down a
street. Each separate collision would count.
gpsman
> In article
> <d612f07d-64a6-465d-bdd0-8118c748a...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 29, 5:59 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > Repeatedly not producing the references means that no one can examine
> > > what is meant by the figures
>
> > They mean there's "about 200M licensed drivers" and "about 6M+
> > reported crashes/year".
>
> > > (if they, in fact, exist at
> > > all).
>
> > Have you tried Google...?
> >http://www.google.com
>
> Not my job.
>
> Usenet rule:
>
> You make a claim: you provide the support.
References?
-----
- gpsman
John David Galt
> When can you legally begin to speed up?
>
> For example:
> You're driving in a 30mph zone. You see an upcoming sign that says
> 45mph. According to the law, can you begin to speed up as soon as you
> can read that sign, or should you maintain 30mph until you are right
> at, or past that sign? Just curious?
The answer seems to be different for every single occurrence.
The exact place a speed limit begins or ends is determined by the
statute (or transcript of a DOT rulemaking meeting) that sets the limit.
Most of the time this will be at the beginning of a block (unless there
is a city or county line involved), so if the sign is posted 20-30 feet
after an intersection I feel safe speeding up as soon as I've left the
intersection.
I know of a couple of places here in CA where the local jurisdiction got
tired of people jumping the gun -- so they repost the earlier, lower
speed limit just a few feet before the new one. In these cases I wait
until I pass the second sign.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> When can you legally begin to speed up?
>
> For example:
> You're driving in a 30mph zone. You see an upcoming sign that says
> 45mph. According to the law, can you begin to speed up as soon as you
> can read that sign, or should you maintain 30mph until you are right
> at, or past that sign? Just curious?
I've got really good eyesight. So I can speed up a couple of miles in
advance. ;-)
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a very firm grasp on reality. I can reach out and strangle it any
time!
MLOM
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 22:20:00 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>
>
>
>
>
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 26, 8:50 pm, MLOM <gr...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >> In MO, most of the SL decreases over 10 mph are at city limits, in
> >> which there's an advisory sign warning of such reduction. Al least
> >> Oklahoma is reasonable: the SL drops in 10-mph increments until
> >> reaching the slowest zone, then increases in 10-mph increments at the
> >> end of the slow zones. That probably doesn't help the brake shop
> >> industry. :)
>
> >If there is an advisory sign you might be surprised how often lifting
> >off the throttle at it results in arriving at the reduced speed limit
> >sign ±1 mph of that reduced speed.
>
> >I know a lot of people don't have that kind of time to waste, but I
> >found it curious when I discovered it circa 1970.
> > -----
>
> >- gpsman
>
> There was a small nearby town where the highway speed of 55 suddenly
> dropped to 30 at the edge of town. Worse yet, this was after a curve,
> so suddenly everyone would have to brake. This was dangerous as well
> as very annoying. In my opinion, it was setup as a speed trap to get
> more revenue. A friend of mine lives right outside that town and one
> day I mentioned to him about that. He said that's the prime place for
> cops to ticket speeders, they often sit just past the sign in a
> parking lot. He also said there have been quite a few rear end
> collision accidents after someone brakes.
>
> I told him to contact the local police and complain. He said this has
> been done before. I suggested contacting the state D.O.T. The next
> day I contacted them, and they said they would investigate the
> situation. I had this friend do the same, and told him to get other
> neighbors and friends to complain to the state.
>
> About a month later a warning sign (reduced speed ahead 30) was placed
> before the curve, and a flashing yellow light placed above the actual
> 30mph speed limit sign. Lately they often place one of those radar
> signs that tell you your speed at the sign. I have a feeling the
> state got on their ass about this. It helps to complain to the proper
> authorities.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not sure what's worse: a speed zone reduction right after a blind
curve (like your example) or one that's at the bottom of a steep hill,
with a "no engine braking" ordinance. The steep hill example means
more $$$ into both the local government and the brake shops.
Ashton Crusher
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In message <ga2s15lgjjum02aoj...@4ax.com>, Ashton
>Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote:
>
>>>There is NO good reason why a straight, flat, totally symmetric road
>>>should have a 10 MPH higher speed limit on one side vs. the other.
>>>NONE.
>>
>>Maybe it's simply because that was the best place to fit the signs
>>into the shoulder area.
>
>Gimme a break. They can put a sign post just about anywhere; there's
>nothing physically preventing them from putting the signpost into the
>ground in the right place. As MLOM points out, this is the norm in
>other states.
>
They don't like to put too many signs too close to each other. Sure
you *could* put them anywhere, but more thought goes into it then you
apparently would give it.
>>It would be a very rare case where the exact location where
>>a speed limit rises or falls would be of any great significance give
>>or take a quarter to half mile one way or the other.
>
>Try telling that to the cop next time you get pulled over for
>speeding. :)
They cop doesn't care WHY the sign is where it is. Where ever it
is, that's where he can write tickets. Most cops aren't all that
bright anyway.
Ashton Crusher
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In message <9j2s15ha48iu84p4g...@4ax.com>, Ashton
>Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote:
>
>>>Which leads me to a question: suppose a speed limit sign falls down,
>>>gets stolen, becomes illegible, some incompetent worker puts up the
>>>wrong sign, etc. Does this magically change the speed limit at that
>>>location? Or is there some authoritative source (e.g. a map book filed
>>>away at the DOT) for the speed limit along any particular road
>>>segment?
>>
>>It's not magical but it does change the speed limit.
>
>I'm not a city planner, but I imagine there's a process for setting
>speed limits. Maybe an engineer conducts a speed survey. A civic
>planner crunches the numbers, and determine that the speed limit on a
>particular road should be 65 MPH. This fact MUST be documented
>SOMEWHERE.
>
I don't know about the cities but state highway do require a speed
study in most cases. Typically it consist of measuring the speed of
traffic and then setting the SL at the 85th percentile. However, the
results can be over ruled if there are special circumstances that
would dictate a lower limit, such as a curve with poor sight distance.
The posting of speed limits and the effect of such postings has been
studied many times and except for special cases invariably it really
doesn't matter what speed limit the authorities set, most people will
drive at a safe speed. A little reflection on the use of the 85th
percent would suggest that the main reason for SLs is to make it
easier to ticket and convict "speeders" since the actual posting of
the SL really has very little effect on the average speed of traffic.
>So now suppose a worker goes out to the road in question and installs
>a 55 MPH sign, even though the road has been assigned a 65 MPH limit.
>If someone going 65 or less gets a ticket, they should be able to
>subpoena those original records and prove that the signs are incorrect
>and get their ticket dismissed, right?
It could happen. More likely is that for all their trouble they are
still convicted but the judge thanks them for their effort in
researching it and he will pass it along to the city/state to review.
The mistake by the city/state does not relieve the citizen of the
requirement to follow the law and the law says you can't exceed the
speed limit that's posted. There have been instances of towns with
speed traps being forced to raise their speed limits due to the state
law when their main street is a state highway and they have not
done/not followed a required speed zone study.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Got my only real speeding ticket on one of those Georgia speed traps
at the bottom of a long steep grade 66 in a 60. They pulled over
around 15 of us and escorted the group to the JP. He took off his
butchers apron, banged on the counter "court's in session" "how do you
plead?" Guilty of course - whose gonna fight the system in boodocks
Georgia? Oddly, or not so much so, everyone of us was a out of
stater.
Hary K