[SC] State Speed Limit could go to 80 MPH
NBtarheel_33
the 2010 legislative session. Besides the obvious bill of impeachment
for Mark "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" Sanford, Rep. Todd Rutherford (D
- Richland County) has drafted a bill that would allow for a new
maximum Interstate speed limit of 80 MPH, while prohibiting texting-
while-driving, handheld phones while driving, and prohibiting children
7 and under from the front seat.
Article from "The State" (November 18, 2009):
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091118/BUSINESS06/91118002/State-speed-limit-could-go-to-80-mph.
"Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, is setting his sights on the
state’s highways.
The former owner of a vehicle-tinting company has filed a bill to
allow a darker tint on vehicle windows and windshields. He also is
hoping to raise the highway speed limit to 80 from 70 miles per hour.
'If we’re going to have a speed limit, we need a speed limit,'
Rutherford said, noting many drivers are already driving around 80
miles per hour.
'Our troopers need to stay focused on the DUIs, the aggressive
driving, not the (person driving) 79 in a 70,' he said."
NBtarheel_33: I could see 80 being posted on I-95 and possibly I-26
below Columbia. I've never driven I-77 in SC, so I'm not sure about
that highway. Certainly, 80 is cruising speed in many areas along
I-85 in the upstate, but I doubt it would be officially sanctioned,
except for perhaps the short stretch above I-26 and below the older
1950s-built section near Gaffney, which is already posted at 70.
If this were to pass, it would be interesting to see if it opened the
gate for Georgia to post I-16 at 80, or for North Carolina to
introduce any 80 zones (the only stretch I could see qualifying would
perhaps be I-85 north of Durham...which hey, might lead to an 80 limit
on VA I-85...nah, they'd post it at 79, and 80 would still be reckless
=P).
Incidentally, the Governor-Elect of Virginia has mentioned interest in
raising the limit on rural interstates (other than I-85) to 70.
I just wonder how well the crowded eastern interstates would be able
to handle speed limits better suited to the wide open West. Do we
want drivers barreling bumper-to-bumper down VA I-81 at 80+ MPH?
Honorable Mention
> Last week, the South Carolina legislature began prefiling bills for
> the 2010 legislative session. Besides the obvious bill of impeachment
> for Mark "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" Sanford, Rep. Todd Rutherford (D
> - Richland County) has drafted a bill that would allow for a new
> maximum Interstate speed limit of 80 MPH, while prohibiting texting-
> while-driving, handheld phones while driving, and prohibiting children
> 7 and under from the front seat.
>
While this seems like a good idea on the surface (I'm always for 85th
percentile speeds), I don't like the banning cell phones aspect. I
also think that SC would be better creating speed trap laws exactly
like GA....up to 15 over no points, and local cops can't run radar on
you for up to 10 over. The truth is that you CAN drive I-16 at 80 MPH
and possibly even 84 with no problem...raising the speed limit in GA
might unravel the speed trap laws, which have only existed since
1998. With state budget woes, I am very worried about this driver
protection from unreasonable speed limits and local government tyranny
being taken away (one city designated a part of an old state route for
a mile and a half to 25 MPH and got away with it). Many, many
counties and cities deliberately set their speed limits extremely low,
and if the speed trap laws were taken away it would be like shooting
fish in a barrel for them, and it would make driving in GA very
oppressive and increase accidents as everyone would be more worried
about getting a ticket than watching their driving. That is a major
reason SC has such a high accident rate compared to GA. Driving is
stressful enough without the "get tough on crime" and "speed kills"
bureaucrats throwing the book at you for 1 over. It should be noted
that both SC and TN are very oppressive over all with their speed
enforcement, so allowing 80 MPH on the speed limits would be ironic.
If they had GA's speed trap laws, they could drive 80 anyway...and
also get some room to breath on other roads.
NBtarheel_33
> While this seems like a good idea on the surface (I'm always for 85th
> percentile speeds), I don't like the banning cell phones aspect.
Wouldn't ban them, I don't think - it would just require a hands-free
device like everywhere else with similar laws on the books. No
texting, of course, but then again, I *never* understood how people
could type essays while driving down the highway.
I
> also think that SC would be better creating speed trap laws exactly
> like GA....up to 15 over no points, and local cops can't run radar on
> you for up to 10 over.
Every single state should have this law. It is truly a beautiful
thing. Unlike a state like Maine where a +10 ticket can actually get
you 1/3 of the way to a license suspension. Or most other states
where a +10 would almost certainly get your insurance increased (a la
North Carolina).
The truth is that you CAN drive I-16 at 80 MPH
> and possibly even 84 with no problem...raising the speed limit in GA
> might unravel the speed trap laws, which have only existed since
> 1998.
Yup...hells bells, you can hit 90 on any GA interstate and still only
be in the 2-point realm, which is nothing considering that you're
allowed 15 points in 2 years. I typically run 80-85 on GA
interstates, and 65-70 on 2- and 4-lane arterials. One thing to note
is that the roads are of such high quality in GA that this is quite
safe, in comparison to some of the back roads in SC or AL, which are
of, shall we say, a less desirable standard. It's also generally
possible to bargain in court to get 15-17 over knocked down to 14; 18
over is even a possibility in some rural counties.
With state budget woes, I am very worried about this driver
> protection from unreasonable speed limits and local government tyranny
> being taken away (one city designated a part of an old state route for
> a mile and a half to 25 MPH and got away with it). Many, many
> counties and cities deliberately set their speed limits extremely low,
> and if the speed trap laws were taken away it would be like shooting
> fish in a barrel for them, and it would make driving in GA very
> oppressive and increase accidents as everyone would be more worried
> about getting a ticket than watching their driving.
Sing along with me now...Ludowici, Arcade, Nicholson, the list goes on
and on. *Every single map dot* in Georgia seems to have its own
police force, and they obviously exist solely for revenue generation
through traffic enforcement (otherwise, the county sheriffs could
easily patrol these towns - there's nothing to a GA county, and you
would not see Barney Fife sitting right behind the city limit sign as
you enter a town with a population of a couple hundred). It's nice
not to have to **** your pants because you're not dead on 35 as you go
by.
That is a major
> reason SC has such a high accident rate compared to GA. Driving is
> stressful enough without the "get tough on crime" and "speed kills"
> bureaucrats throwing the book at you for 1 over. It should be noted
> that both SC and TN are very oppressive over all with their speed
> enforcement, so allowing 80 MPH on the speed limits would be ironic.
> If they had GA's speed trap laws, they could drive 80 anyway...and
> also get some room to breath on other roads.
I know for a fact that SC uses entrapment-style tactics (including
breaking the law themselves) in speed enforcement. I was on SC 72
west of Abbeville about three years ago, doing about 65 (posted 55,
despite being a brand-new, lonely 4-lane + center-turn-lane stretch),
and came upon a guy in the left lane tinkering along at about 50. So
I move to the right lane to go around him, only to get the blue lights
- turns out he was in an unmarked car, SC Highway Patrol. No
discussion or request for an explanation, just writes the ticket and
goes on his way - I watched him turn around the other way, get into
the left lane to do the same thing again. Seems to me that he was
actually encouraging violations by breaking the law himself (Keep
Right Except to Pass). How glad I was that I had my Leadfoot Society
Membership Card, a.k.a. GA license!
The only thing I worry about with the GA speed trap law are the poor
folks who are not educated about the *major* punishments in
neighboring states for offenses that are otherwise benign in GA, e.g.
+15 in NC or 80 MPH in VA. If you look through some of the VA case
dispositions, there are heaps of Georgians who get hit with reckless
driving on I-85 for 81/70, which would likely not even draw attention
back home.
deanej
I'm all for the increase. It might even put pressure on the eastern
states to finally drop the national 55mph speed limit (nobody in the
northeast has... you only see > 55 on interstates and rural
freeways). And believe it or not, there are those of us that actually
follow the speed limit rather than ignore it.
Craig Zeni
> Last week, the South Carolina legislature began prefiling bills for
> the 2010 legislative session. Besides the obvious bill of impeachment
> for Mark "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" Sanford, Rep. Todd Rutherford (D
> - Richland County) has drafted a bill that would allow for a new
> maximum Interstate speed limit of 80 MPH, while prohibiting texting-
> while-driving, handheld phones while driving, and prohibiting children
> 7 and under from the front seat.
>
> Article from "The State" (November 18, 2009):
> http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091118/BUSINESS06/91118002/State-speed-limit-could-go-to-80-mph.
>
> "Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, is setting his sights on the
>
> The former owner of a vehicle-tinting company has filed a bill to
> allow a darker tint on vehicle windows and windshields. He also is
> hoping to raise the highway speed limit to 80 from 70 miles per hour.
>
> Rutherford said, noting many drivers are already driving around 80
> miles per hour.
>
> 'Our troopers need to stay focused on the DUIs, the aggressive
> driving, not the (person driving) 79 in a 70,' he said."
>
> NBtarheel_33: I could see 80 being posted on I-95 and possibly I-26
> below Columbia. I've never driven I-77 in SC, so I'm not sure about
> that highway. Certainly, 80 is cruising speed in many areas along
> I-85 in the upstate, but I doubt it would be officially sanctioned,
> except for perhaps the short stretch above I-26 and below the older
> 1950s-built section near Gaffney, which is already posted at 70.
I-20 from Florence to the suburbs of Columbia and from West Columbia to
North Augusta could easily, easily handle 80.
>
> If this were to pass, it would be interesting to see if it opened the
> gate for Georgia to post I-16 at 80, or for North Carolina to
> introduce any 80 zones (the only stretch I could see qualifying would
> perhaps be I-85 north of Durham...which hey, might lead to an 80 limit
> on VA I-85...nah, they'd post it at 79, and 80 would still be reckless
> =P).
The bit of I-40 between Hickory and Statesville - the relatively new
part - could handle 80. Traffic density is pretty low and the road is
very good.
> Incidentally, the Governor-Elect of Virginia has mentioned interest in
> raising the limit on rural interstates (other than I-85) to 70.
Oh heavens no...that's borderline heresy!
:)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I'm all for the increase. It might even put pressure on the eastern
> states to finally drop the national 55mph speed limit (nobody in the
> northeast has... you only see > 55 on interstates and rural
> freeways). And believe it or not, there are those of us that actually
> follow the speed limit rather than ignore it.
The "national 55 mph" is ancient history.
The vast majority of freeway mileage speed has been raised.
In the NE there are some old narrow and congested freeways where the
speed limit was 55 or 50 prior to the NMSL. The contraints of the
road (eg congestion or lousy ramps, tight curves, bridges, etc)
require a low speed limit, so they're still 50 and 55, and wisely so.
I understand a few urban freeways in tight spots have even lower speed
limits.
elmer
America's Autobahn is that the Cities etc are apparently utilizing the
Interstates into City Street planning.
The intent of Eisenhower was to not do this.
Developers/local Planners/Politicians have turned stretches into
nightmares in cities and what was rural a few years ago. Stretches in
Forisgth, Ga area are a good example. It was never intended to make
interstates into local congested roads. Interstate 75 speeds are
unnecessarily reduced to 55 or lower to accommodate a local heavy
traffic load. It should never have been routed onto a high speed trans
America roadway. It has happened everywhere and needs to be
reversed.Exits are now being developed into commerce centers and the
Interstate into a front street.
State Highways are expanded to carry traffic between commerce areas and
cities. 7/11 type operations and Developers then want new intersections
and the necessary traffic lights and lower speeds and congestion to
accommodate out of area and out of state Big Developers pockets. As far
as boosting local Employment it is generally low pay or minimum pay jobs
that don't keep the Employees more than 6 months, so they won't have to
pay Workman's Comp or any benefits. We get strip development, that use
to be illegal planning. The result is wasted millions of gallons of
fuel, frustrated Motorists, roadrages and trips that should take an
hour now requiring 2 to 3 hours and higher taxes.
H.B. Elkins
>I just wonder how well the crowded eastern interstates would be able
>to handle speed limits better suited to the wide open West. Do we
>want drivers barreling bumper-to-bumper down VA I-81 at 80+ MPH?
They already do. I had to drive between 75-80 on my recent short run along I-81
or risk being run over by drivers going 85 or higher.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
Nate Nagel
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:19:33 -0800 (PST), NBtarheel_33 wrote:
>
>> I just wonder how well the crowded eastern interstates would be able
>> to handle speed limits better suited to the wide open West. Do we
>> want drivers barreling bumper-to-bumper down VA I-81 at 80+ MPH?
>
> They already do.
That was my first thought as well... I'm not aware of any non-congested
Interstate where 80 MPH speeds aren't at least common, if not usual.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Matt Wiser
Posted speed's 70, but I've done 80 a couple of times. Average speed seems
to be 75+.
"Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:hei5u...@news2.newsguy.com...
Michael G. Koerner
US 41 between Kaukauna and De Pere, WI is posted at 65 mph (105 km/h) and
traffic normally flies along it at 75-85 mph (120-140 km/h) - despite the best
efforts of the WSP - and in perfect safety.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
NBtarheel_33
> H.B. Elkins wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:19:33 -0800 (PST), NBtarheel_33 wrote:
>
> >> I just wonder how well the crowded eastern interstates would be able
> >> to handle speed limits better suited to the wide open West. Do we
> >> want drivers barreling bumper-to-bumper down VA I-81 at 80+ MPH?
>
> > They already do.
>
> That was my first thought as well... I'm not aware of any non-congested
> Interstate where 80 MPH speeds aren't at least common, if not usual.
While this is true, the stretch of road in question (VA I-81) is
extremely congested and at times large trucks make up what seems to be
half the traffic flow. There is a lot of "semi doing 66 passing semi
doing 65" going up hills. So, basically, this road is like 325 miles
of weaving, dodging, and bumper riding, but only at very high speed
(it's actually fun after a while, if you're in the mood for it and
don't do anything stupid - takes about 5 hours to drive it, just like
a NASCAR race). I think the thought of a VA reckless ticket keeps
most people at no more than 79 (it does me), but there are a few that
go really crazy, only to have to *slam* on the brakes to avoid
careening into the back of Granny in the left lane or a slow-moving
semi changing lanes at the last second. My concern would be that this
is the kind of road where an 80 speed limit might just encourage
enough people to take it as a cushion to do 90 or 100, and it is just
one road that cannot handle it.
If 80 suddenly becomes the new 70, I wonder how the trucking industry
will respond. Surely it is a safety issue to have cars flying along
at 80+ and trucks piddling along at 65 (or often much less).
NBtarheel_33
> I-20 from Florence to the suburbs of Columbia and from West Columbia to> North Augusta could easily, easily handle 80.
As could a large portion of I-20 in Georgia, actually. Of course, as
we've discussed, 84 MPH would be the de facto speed limit already,
thanks to the liberal GA speeding laws.
>
> The bit of I-40 between Hickory and Statesville - the relatively new
> part - could handle 80. Traffic density is pretty low and the road is
> very good.
Never driven that stretch during the day. I bet that I-40 in Down
East NC (between Raleigh and Wilmington) could go 80 as well. As
could I-95 (talk about a dead boring road, in both NC and SC - in
fact, I-95 from south of Petersburg, VA to the FL line, the whole way,
could easily be tagged at 80).
> > Incidentally, the Governor-Elect of Virginia has mentioned interest in
> > raising the limit on rural interstates (other than I-85) to 70.
>
> Oh heavens no...that's borderline heresy!
I used to think that Pennsylvania was the most anal state re: speed
limits, hanging on to 55 long after everyone started bumping to 65 in
1987, but with their "reckless driving", "safety speed corridors", and
general fear of realistically setting limits, I'd say Virginia takes
the cake hands down. Oh, I almost forgot the bear-in-the-air threat
signs every 3 miles, or the giant RADAR signs at the state line (the
equivalent of PA's "Radar for your protection" =P). The best signs
were the ones on the Washington beltway that used to shout "ILLEGAL
GUN?" and offer a menu of prison sentences for carrying contraband
firearms into the state. Nothing makes you feel warm and fuzzy about
entering a state like being threatened with prison (a la SC, with
their "30 days in jail for speeding"). I think the ILLEGAL GUN? bit
was brought on after the NYC Mayor Bloomberg had been on one of his
undercover, highly questionable illegal gun buying stings in the DC
area. Something tells me that if Lee were alive today, he'd have
given Northern Virginia to the Yanks.
Brent Jonas
> I-40 between Barstow and the Arizona line here in CA is usually that fast:
> Posted speed's 70, but I've done 80 a couple of times. Average speed seems
>
> news:hei5u...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > H.B. Elkins wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:19:33 -0800 (PST), NBtarheel_33 wrote:
>
> > >> I just wonder how well the crowded eastern interstates would be able
> > >> to handle speed limits better suited to the wide open West. Do we
> > >> want drivers barreling bumper-to-bumper down VA I-81 at 80+ MPH?
>
> > > They already do.
>
> > That was my first thought as well... I'm not aware of any non-congested
> > Interstate where 80 MPH speeds aren't at least common, if not usual.
>
> > nate
>
> > --
> > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
> >http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Yeah, I've noticed the same thing along I-40. I generally do 73 - 78
MPH along I-40 in California.
gpsman
>On Nov 25, 12:10 pm, NBtarheel_33 <NBtarheel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I-20 from Florence to the suburbs of Columbia and from West Columbia to> North Augusta could easily, easily handle 80.
>
> As could a large portion of I-20 in Georgia, actually.
The limiting factor is not so much "the road" or "the speed", it's
"the drivers" and "speed as applied and managed".
A great many if not most speed "enthusiasts" seem to believe in "the"
85th percentile/s, and that it must be measured during periods of
traffic at highest velocities, e.g., the "rush" fragments of rush
hours when competition and assumed ill intent between clueless idiots
is the norm and most fierce.
<q>Speed limits in many speed zones are set near the 85th percentile
travel speed: the speed at or below which 85 percent of vehicles
travel in good weather, with no congestion (TRB, 1998).
<pdf> http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/HS810891.pdf
<q>FFS of a facility is defined as the space mean speed of traffic
when volumes are so light that they have negligible effect on speed.
<pdf> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_618.pdf
The judgment and skills of the average US motor vehicle operator are
no better than deplorable and they are "unsafe" at every speed
everywhere they happen to roam.
((I saw a guy the other day take off and drive 20' in a small parking
lot with lots of foot traffic dumping his screaming 10 y/o daughter on
her ass as she attempted to climb into the back seat; she's hopping
along on her R foot hanging on to the door trying to keep up... it was
fortunate for him (and my friend who owns the lot, and my friends who
lease it, surely they would have been named in any suit...) she didn't
fall under the rear wheel. As he whipped around at about 30 mph
without allowing time for her to fasten her seat belt, to go out the
In, I'll give anybody three guesses as to what he had clamped to his
head.))
If one is unable to recognize the obvious and practically universal
symptoms of poor driving then one is most surely similarly infected.
-----
- gpsman
Andrew M. Saucci, Jr.
"NBtarheel_33" <NBtarh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:50db8125-d8ce-4c74...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Matt Wiser
"Brent Jonas" <brent...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6469ab0d-3003-4bfc...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You can generally speed up past the limit once past the USMC Supply Base
outside Barstow, but you'll have to slow down after South Pass west of
Needles: CHP likes to lurk there (never been stopped myself, but I have seen
the CHP there every time I go that way. Once you're clear of Needles, then
it's a decent shot to the Arizona line.
elmer
> Last week, the South Carolina legislature began prefiling bills for
> the 2010 legislative session. Besides the obvious bill of impeachment
> for Mark "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" Sanford, Rep. Todd Rutherford (D
> - Richland County) has drafted a bill that would allow for a new
> maximum Interstate speed limit of 80 MPH, while prohibiting texting-
> while-driving, handheld phones while driving, and prohibiting children
> 7 and under from the front seat.
>
> Article from "The State" (November 18, 2009):
> http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091118/BUSINESS06/91118002/State-speed-limit-could-go-to-80-mph.
>
> "Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, is setting his sights on the
>
> The former owner of a vehicle-tinting company has filed a bill to
> allow a darker tint on vehicle windows and windshields. He also is
> hoping to raise the highway speed limit to 80 from 70 miles per hour.
>
> Rutherford said, noting many drivers are already driving around 80
> miles per hour.
>
> 'Our troopers need to stay focused on the DUIs, the aggressive
> driving, not the (person driving) 79 in a 70,' he said."
>
> NBtarheel_33: I could see 80 being posted on I-95 and possibly I-26
> below Columbia. I've never driven I-77 in SC, so I'm not sure about
> that highway. Certainly, 80 is cruising speed in many areas along
> I-85 in the upstate, but I doubt it would be officially sanctioned,
> except for perhaps the short stretch above I-26 and below the older
> 1950s-built section near Gaffney, which is already posted at 70.
>
> If this were to pass, it would be interesting to see if it opened the
> gate for Georgia to post I-16 at 80, or for North Carolina to
> introduce any 80 zones (the only stretch I could see qualifying would
> perhaps be I-85 north of Durham...which hey, might lead to an 80 limit
> on VA I-85...nah, they'd post it at 79, and 80 would still be reckless
> =P).
>
> Incidentally, the Governor-Elect of Virginia has mentioned interest in
> raising the limit on rural interstates (other than I-85) to 70.
>
> I just wonder how well the crowded eastern interstates would be able
> to handle speed limits better suited to the wide open West. Do we
> want drivers barreling bumper-to-bumper down VA I-81 at 80+ MPH?
sate average 90-100 mph. If there is congestion and trucks, which are
especially dangerous the average speed comes way down. Overall 85 mph
would be probably the average figure.
elmer
> Send in the clowns...
>
>
> "NBtarheel_33" <NBtarh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:50db8125-d8ce-4c74...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> Last week, the South Carolina legislature began prefiling bills for
> the 2010 legislative session. Besides the obvious bill of impeachment
> for Mark "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" Sanford, Rep. Todd Rutherford (D
> - Richland County) has drafted a bill that would allow for a new
> maximum Interstate speed limit of 80 MPH, while prohibiting texting-
> while-driving, handheld phones while driving, and prohibiting children
> 7 and under from the front seat.
>
> Article from "The State" (November 18, 2009):
> http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091118/BUSINESS06/91118002/State-speed-limit-could-go-to-80-mph.
>
> "Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, is setting his sights on the
>
> The former owner of a vehicle-tinting company has filed a bill to
> allow a darker tint on vehicle windows and windshields. He also is
> hoping to raise the highway speed limit to 80 from 70 miles per hour.
>
> Rutherford said, noting many drivers are already driving around 80
> miles per hour.
>
> 'Our troopers need to stay focused on the DUIs, the aggressive
> driving, not the (person driving) 79 in a 70,' he said."
>
> NBtarheel_33: I could see 80 being posted on I-95 and possibly I-26
> below Columbia. I've never driven I-77 in SC, so I'm not sure about
> that highway. Certainly, 80 is cruising speed in many areas along
> I-85 in the upstate, but I doubt it would be officially sanctioned,
> except for perhaps the short stretch above I-26 and below the older
> 1950s-built section near Gaffney, which is already posted at 70.
>
> If this were to pass, it would be interesting to see if it opened the
> gate for Georgia to post I-16 at 80, or for North Carolina to
> introduce any 80 zones (the only stretch I could see qualifying would
> perhaps be I-85 north of Durham...which hey, might lead to an 80 limit
> on VA I-85...nah, they'd post it at 79, and 80 would still be reckless
> =P).
>
> Incidentally, the Governor-Elect of Virginia has mentioned interest in
> raising the limit on rural interstates (other than I-85) to 70.
>
> I just wonder how well the crowded eastern interstates would be able
> to handle speed limits better suited to the wide open West. Do we
> want drivers barreling bumper-to-bumper down VA I-81 at 80+ MPH?
>
>
Traffic has increased over the last several years but use to average 90
mph around 285. The Patrols didn't bother you unless you were acting
aggressively. They actually gave a few tickets for impeding traffic at
70 mph about 1997.
Honorable Mention
> Andrew M. Saucci, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Send in the clowns...
>
> >news:50db8125-d8ce-4c74...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > Last week, the South Carolina legislature began prefiling bills for
> > the 2010 legislative session. Besides the obvious bill of impeachment
> > for Mark "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" Sanford, Rep. Todd Rutherford (D
> > - Richland County) has drafted a bill that would allow for a new
> > maximum Interstate speed limit of 80 MPH, while prohibiting texting-
> > while-driving, handheld phones while driving, and prohibiting children
> > 7 and under from the front seat.
>
> > Article from "The State" (November 18, 2009):
The days of 90 on I-285 seem to be over. One is that several speed
traps formed on the road: Sandy Springs, Dunwoody and East Point.
Both Cobb and DeKalb counties are pretty aggressive as well overall.
The main issue, though, is the fact that all the new people that moved
there apparently come from states with low speeds and razor strict
enforcement. It seems these days just driving 10 over on I-285 is a
challenge as all of these idiots try to block every lane on the road,
and just to maintain 10 over means weaving around these selfish
rolling roadblocks. 10 over is MORE than practical, too, since the
speed limit remains stupidly 55. And BTW, the last time I heard of
left lane blocking being enforced in GA was the late 1990's.
elmer
proponent of the Second Amendment and thus our Consitution.
He has several other Billionaires spending their money in his endeavor.
South Carolina and Tennessee and others should charge Bloomgerg with
coming into the State trying to buy a firearm illegaly. Bloomberg is the
mastermind. he has broken many States' Laws in his assault on our
Constiuion. The only conclusion that can be reached that he and his
fellow want to disarm the Citizens so his ruling class can feel safe to
do their worse.
All the money he has, the office holds does not mitigate the fact that
he committed serious crimes in other States. He and other do feel their
conduct can be and is insulated from Laws written for everyone else.The
Constiution is ours. It was written by us to protect us from exactly
what Bloomberg is doing.
Honorable Mention
He's one of many of the banking elite class that has been working
consistently to unravel this country since 1913.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> I used to think that Pennsylvania was the most anal state re: speed
> limits, hanging on to 55 long after everyone started bumping to 65 in
> 1987, but with their "reckless driving", "safety speed corridors", and
> general fear of realistically setting limits, I'd say Virginia takes
> the cake hands down.
Let's cite Maryland ... Virginia has never used speed cameras, little in
the way of red light cameras compared to MD, has never used "step-out"
speeding enforcement (where officer steps out into the left lane of a
freeway to flag cars over), and has done a lot more than MD to raise
limits on non-freeway 4-lane highways to 60 or 65 mph (MD has done very
little). Also, the MD standard maximum speed limit on 2-lane highways
is 50 mph.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
elmer
> NBtarheel_33 <NBtarh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I used to think that Pennsylvania was the most anal state re: speed
>> limits, hanging on to 55 long after everyone started bumping to 65 in
>> 1987, but with their "reckless driving", "safety speed corridors", and
>> general fear of realistically setting limits, I'd say Virginia takes
>> the cake hands down.
>
> Let's cite Maryland ... Virginia has never used speed cameras, little in
> the way of red light cameras compared to MD, has never used "step-out"
> speeding enforcement (where officer steps out into the left lane of a
> freeway to flag cars over), and has done a lot more than MD to raise
> limits on non-freeway 4-lane highways to 60 or 65 mph (MD has done very
> little). Also, the MD standard maximum speed limit on 2-lane highways
> is 50 mph.
>
Nick C
"elmer" <e...@f.udd> wrote in message news:md1Qm.55019$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
I've witnessed it before. Wouldn't happen on I-95 though (it was in the
mountains on I-68 with a really clear sight line)
Steve Sobol
> the way of red light cameras compared to MD, has never used "step-out"
> speeding enforcement (where officer steps out into the left lane of a
> freeway to flag cars over),
I've heard that step-out enforcement is used in New Hampshire. What
happens if the driver can't stop in time? The driver would be screwed,
wouldn't he, even though the cop did something potentially illegal and
extremely dangerous?
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjs...@JustThe.net
Honorable Mention
> NBtarheel_33 <NBtarheel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I used to think that Pennsylvania was the most anal state re: speed
> > limits, hanging on to 55 long after everyone started bumping to 65 in
> > 1987, but with their "reckless driving", "safety speed corridors", and
> > general fear of realistically setting limits, I'd say Virginia takes
> > the cake hands down.
>
> Let's cite Maryland ... Virginia has never used speed cameras, little in
> the way of red light cameras compared to MD, has never used "step-out"
> speeding enforcement (where officer steps out into the left lane of a
> freeway to flag cars over), and has done a lot more than MD to raise
> limits on non-freeway 4-lane highways to 60 or 65 mph (MD has done very
> little). Also, the MD standard maximum speed limit on 2-lane highways
> is 50 mph.
>
> --
> Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
> Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
> Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
We need a good running list of the states who have ridiculously low
speed limits and/or have nazi rules and tactics for speeding. A few
states at least legally allow 5-10 over, but only one offers an
acceptable cushion. I don't miss the bad old days here in Georgia
before the speed trap laws. The police harrassment of drivers was
over the top.
rickmastfan67
> I've never driven I-77 in SC, so I'm not sure about
> that highway.
I-77 can easily handle 80MPH. It's really badly underposted South of
the SC/NC line @ 60MPH on the 4 lanes each way section (should be 70
like the rest of the highway). Once it goes back down to 2 lanes each
way, it goes back up to 70MPH.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "elmer" <e...@f.udd> wrote:
>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>
>>> Let's cite Maryland ... Virginia has never used speed cameras, little
>>> in the way of red light cameras compared to MD, has never used
>>> "step-out" speeding enforcement (where officer steps out into the
>>> left lane of a freeway to flag cars over), and has done a lot more
>>> than MD to raise limits on non-freeway 4-lane highways to 60 or 65
>>> mph (MD has done very little). Also, the MD standard maximum speed
>>> limit on 2-lane highways is 50 mph.
>>>
>> What officer would volunteer to step out into 80 mph traffic?
Most likely they don't ... it's a direct order from management.
> I've witnessed it before. Wouldn't happen on I-95 though (it was in the
> mountains on I-68 with a really clear sight line)
I've seen it on the Capital Beltway ... and on US-50 (hidden I-595) near
Annapolis.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> I've heard that step-out enforcement is used in New Hampshire. What
> happens if the driver can't stop in time? The driver would be screwed,
> wouldn't he, even though the cop did something potentially illegal and
> extremely dangerous?
Good question ... I wonder if any charges were pressed in the case in
Maryland a couple years ago where an officer got killed that way.
Nate Nagel
> NBtarheel_33 <NBtarh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I used to think that Pennsylvania was the most anal state re: speed
>> limits, hanging on to 55 long after everyone started bumping to 65 in
>> 1987, but with their "reckless driving", "safety speed corridors", and
>> general fear of realistically setting limits, I'd say Virginia takes
>> the cake hands down.
>
> Let's cite Maryland ... Virginia has never used speed cameras, little in
> the way of red light cameras compared to MD, has never used "step-out"
> speeding enforcement (where officer steps out into the left lane of a
> freeway to flag cars over), and has done a lot more than MD to raise
> limits on non-freeway 4-lane highways to 60 or 65 mph (MD has done very
> little). Also, the MD standard maximum speed limit on 2-lane highways
> is 50 mph.
>
Not true, I've seen "step-out" enforcement in VA, although admittedly
not on a highway. Glebe Road south of Ballston and Chain Bridge Road at
I-66 are two locations where I've seen such in VA.
I still think it's insane, only a matter of time before someone gets nailed.
Nate Nagel
> "Nick C" <mast...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>> "elmer" <e...@f.udd> wrote:
>>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's cite Maryland ... Virginia has never used speed cameras,
>>>> little in the way of red light cameras compared to MD, has never
>>>> used "step-out" speeding enforcement (where officer steps out into
>>>> the left lane of a freeway to flag cars over), and has done a lot
>>>> more than MD to raise limits on non-freeway 4-lane highways to 60 or
>>>> 65 mph (MD has done very little). Also, the MD standard maximum
>>>> speed limit on 2-lane highways is 50 mph.
>>>>
>>> What officer would volunteer to step out into 80 mph traffic?
>
> Most likely they don't ... it's a direct order from management.
>
>> I've witnessed it before. Wouldn't happen on I-95 though (it was in
>> the mountains on I-68 with a really clear sight line)
>
> I've seen it on the Capital Beltway ... and on US-50 (hidden I-595) near
> Annapolis.
>
Yup, there too. Usually right where the SL drops to 55 MPH in Annapolis
(which is another example of a place where driving the SL puts one
squarely in the zeroth percentile. I got a ticket close to there way
back in the day so I always drive exactly 55 MPH through Annapolis on
principle; it clearly agitates other drivers...)
Scott M. Kozel
>> in the way of red light cameras compared to MD, has never used
>> "step-out" speeding enforcement (where officer steps out into the left
>> lane of a freeway to flag cars over), and has done a lot more than MD
>> to raise limits on non-freeway 4-lane highways to 60 or 65 mph (MD has
>> done very little). Also, the MD standard maximum speed limit on
>> 2-lane highways is 50 mph.
>
> Not true, I've seen "step-out" enforcement in VA, although admittedly
> not on a highway. Glebe Road south of Ballston and Chain Bridge Road at
> I-66 are two locations where I've seen such in VA.
I did say 'freeway' .... it at least is not 'insane' for an officer to
step out on a 35 mph arterial, on a road where there are intersections,
driveways, etc.
> I still think it's insane, only a matter of time before someone gets nailed.
A county cop in Harford County MD did, in 2007.
John F. Carr
Steve Sobol <sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote:
>I've heard that step-out enforcement is used in New Hampshire. What
>happens if the driver can't stop in time? The driver would be screwed,
>wouldn't he, even though the cop did something potentially illegal and
>extremely dangerous?
Sometimes in Massachusetts too. The party line is the officer is
following standard procedure and therefore is not at fault for any
accident that follows his stepping into traffic. If you hit him
you will face charges. You will lose your license too -- Mass. RMV
will revoke a license at the request of any police department.
If I'm on your jury I'll vote suicide rather than homicide. Will
there be six of me on your jury? Probably not.
(Motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation not involving alcohol
is a misdemeanor tried by a jury of six.)
I have not heard of an officer being hit doing step-out enforcement
here. The majority of police officer road deaths are on the shoulder
or in work zones. Every few months there will be a story about a
police officer who steps in front of a fleeing car to put himself in
danger to have legal cause to shoot the driver in self-defense.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John F. Carr
Honorable Mention <garoadw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>We need a good running list of the states who have ridiculously low
>speed limits and/or have nazi rules and tactics for speeding.
What's ridiculously low? The normal rural speed limit in every
state is below the 85th percentile speed. (If you call West
Texas a separate state it has 85th percentile speed limits,
sometimes strictly enforced.)
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
gpsman
> In article <bf1e7cc4-8acb-4301-827d-0876aaff9...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> Honorable Mention <garoadwarrio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >We need a good running list of the states who have ridiculously low
> >speed limits and/or have nazi rules and tactics for speeding.
>
> What's ridiculously low?
Good question (as yet unanswered at the moment).
> The normal rural speed limit in every
> state is below the 85th percentile speed.
I'd pay to see the data which might be reasonably considered to
substantiate that unsupported assertion.
Say, 26%.
$1000. Green cash.
> (If you call West
> Texas a separate state it has 85th percentile speed limits,
> sometimes strictly enforced.)
What's "strictly"... "sometimes"... and "below"...?
> John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
<wince>... I'm going to have to presume you are among the interns to
the assistants to the children of the Janitor.
-----
- gpsman
Brent Jonas
I would say that along I-10 and I-20 with the 80 MPH speed limits in
western Texas, 83 MPH is enough to get you pulled over (seen it happen
twice in 3 drives now).
Floyd Rogers
>On Nov 29, 10:02 am, j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
>> In article
>> <bf1e7cc4-8acb-4301-827d-0876aaff9...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> Honorable Mention <garoadwarrio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The normal rural speed limit in every
>> state is below the 85th percentile speed.
>
>I'd pay to see the data which might be reasonably considered to
>substantiate that unsupported assertion.
The data for WA State is at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/speedreport.htm. The page you want is:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/SpeedRpt2009Qtr3.pdf
They clearly show that, on 70mph roads, the 85th percentile is 75mph. On
60mph
roads, it's around 66/67 or more.
Sorry, you lose.
FloydR
Honorable Mention
> "gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote
>
> >On Nov 29, 10:02 am, j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <bf1e7cc4-8acb-4301-827d-0876aaff9...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Honorable Mention <garoadwarrio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> The normal rural speed limit in every
> >> state is below the 85th percentile speed.
>
> >I'd pay to see the data which might be reasonably considered to
> >substantiate that unsupported assertion.
>
>
> They clearly show that, on 70mph roads, the 85th percentile is 75mph. On
> 60mph
> roads, it's around 66/67 or more.
>
> Sorry, you lose.
> FloydR
You have a speed nazi in every group...I've heard of a few cases where
local police and mayors strong arm those who put together the DOT
speed studies to show that their completely unjustified speed limit is
suddenly acceptable. Speed enforcement is too profitable, so you will
almost never have an 85th percentile speed in this country. As I've
heard before, "The government wants you to speed"'.
T.J. Higgins
>You have a speed nazi in every group...I've heard of a few cases where
>local police and mayors strong arm those who put together the DOT
>speed studies to show that their completely unjustified speed limit is
>suddenly acceptable. Speed enforcement is too profitable, so you will
>almost never have an 85th percentile speed in this country. As I've
>heard before, "The government wants you to speed"'.
Yep. The police have a vested interested in NOT catching criminals.
If there were no criminals, there would be no need for police!
--
TJH
Larry Sheldon
> On Nov 29, 10:02 am, j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
>> In article <bf1e7cc4-8acb-4301-827d-0876aaff9...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> Honorable Mention <garoadwarrio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We need a good running list of the states who have ridiculously low
>>> speed limits and/or have nazi rules and tactics for speeding.
>> What's ridiculously low?
>
> Good question (as yet unanswered at the moment).
That is actually not correct.
It has been said at least once that 55 for one class of vehicle is
ridiculously low in an environment where other vehicles are allowed to
go 80 or more (guaranteeing 35 MPH collisions moving down the road at 55.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Floyd Rogers
That last sentence is kinda provocative; this isn't a contest (although
many are treating it as such.) However, in this case you owe me
money, since you bet us we couldn't substantiate the assertion about
85th percentile. I take paypal, let me know and I'll send you my
email address for it.
FloydR
Arif Khokar
> Article from "The State" (November 18, 2009):
> 'If we�re going to have a speed limit, we need a speed limit,'
> Rutherford said, noting many drivers are already driving around 80
> miles per hour.
He's correct. It's likely that the 85th percentile speed in that part
of the country is at least 75 mph on interstates. IME, when I drive 80
mph on interstates in the southeast, I'm really not going much faster
than the general speed of traffic (maybe around 5 to 8 mph faster).
> I just wonder how well the crowded eastern interstates would be able
> to handle speed limits better suited to the wide open West. Do we
> want drivers barreling bumper-to-bumper down VA I-81 at 80+ MPH?
I just drove almost 200 miles on I-81 at speeds ranging from 75 to 85
mph. There really isn't anything unsafe about it. If traffic is heavy,
it can't go that fast anyway.
Arif Khokar
> The "national 55 mph" is ancient history.
>
> The vast majority of freeway mileage speed has been raised.
Like the 8 lane section of the Garden State parkway posted at 55 mph. I
couldn't tell any difference in the road compared to the 65 mph section.
Arif Khokar
> My concern would be that this
> is the kind of road where an 80 speed limit might just encourage
> enough people to take it as a cushion to do 90 or 100, and it is just
> one road that cannot handle it.
That just doesn't happen.
> If 80 suddenly becomes the new 70, I wonder how the trucking industry
> will respond. Surely it is a safety issue to have cars flying along
> at 80+ and trucks piddling along at 65 (or often much less).
Perhaps they'll get rid of their speed limiters so that their fleet
vehicles can maintain 75+ mph.
Larry Harvilla
> NBtarheel_33 wrote:
>
>> If 80 suddenly becomes the new 70, I wonder how the trucking industry
>> will respond. Surely it is a safety issue to have cars flying along
>> at 80+ and trucks piddling along at 65 (or often much less).
>
> Perhaps they'll get rid of their speed limiters so that their fleet
> vehicles can maintain 75+ mph.
That would be nice, yes, but I can tell you the reason it will never
happen: insurance costs.
Most of the large fleets, who as you can probably guess are the worst
offenders in the area of governing trucks to 60-65 mph, self-insure up
to $2 million and then obtain third-party catastrophic claims insurance
to cover anything larger. Typically, either (a) these third-party
catastrophic insurers demand speed governors, or (b) fleets install them
of their own accord to negotiate a better premium.
As much as I hated the medical tort reform proposals being floated a few
years back, largely because the maximum liability amounts were set so
ridiculously low ($250K I think?), perhaps trucking needs tort reform of
its own. The 2001 verdict awarding $18 million to the family of a Texas
woman killed when her drunk friend rear-ended a parked rig (see URL
below) is a perfect example why.
http://www.thlaw.com/Articles/18_wheeler.html
--
Larry Harvilla
e-mail: larry AT phatpage DOT org
http://www.phatpage.org/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/larrysphatpage
rsh...@gmail.com
so exactly what is the difference between what you are saying about a
ridiculously low figure for med malpractice
and a ridiculously low figure for idiot truckers????
and they don't bother to tell you, but I will bet the award was
reduced on appeal
Larry Sheldon
I think you may only have half the story--trucking managment has OD on
the k-juice that speed = wasted fuel = un-necessary erosion of profits.
Never mind that they kill reasonable fuel management in mountainous terrain.
And require more driver- and engine-hours than necessary.
--
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Clark F Morris
wrote:
Given that slower speeds mean lower fuel consumption and that trucks
may not handle well at speeds above 70 mph (can the truck drivers in
the group comment on top safe speeds for semi's?), done't necessarily
expect that. In many European countries trucks are limited by law to
speeds of 80 to 100 kmh (50 to 62.4 mph) with the speed restriction
posted on the truck.
Clark F Morris
<koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Nick C" <mast...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>> "elmer" <e...@f.udd> wrote:
>>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's cite Maryland ... Virginia has never used speed cameras, little
>>>> in the way of red light cameras compared to MD, has never used
>>>> "step-out" speeding enforcement (where officer steps out into the
>>>> left lane of a freeway to flag cars over), and has done a lot more
>>>> than MD to raise limits on non-freeway 4-lane highways to 60 or 65
>>>> mph (MD has done very little). Also, the MD standard maximum speed
>>>> limit on 2-lane highways is 50 mph.
>>>>
>>> What officer would volunteer to step out into 80 mph traffic?
>
>Most likely they don't ... it's a direct order from management.
>
>> I've witnessed it before. Wouldn't happen on I-95 though (it was in the
>> mountains on I-68 with a really clear sight line)
>
>I've seen it on the Capital Beltway ... and on US-50 (hidden I-595) near
>Annapolis.
Given the safety hazard of someone stepping into a high speed travel
lane where pedestrians aren't even permitted on the highway, I would
like to see the officer and anyone who ordered the practice charged
with violating any law they can find.
Larry Sheldon
> Given that slower speeds mean lower fuel consumption and that trucks
> may not handle well at speeds above 70 mph (can the truck drivers in
> the group comment on top safe speeds for semi's?), done't necessarily
> expect that.
As with any other vehicle, it depends.
It depends on terrain, traffic, load, driver's skill, vehicle condition,
driver's condition, and so on.
Desirability depends on gearing and other efficiency issues.
As with other vehicles, there is no one size fits all.
Clark F Morris
Given the difficulties of meeting the "beyond a reasonable doubt"
standard of proof and constitutional search and seizure limitations, I
suspect that there are a number of people the police are sure are
criminals that for whom they can't get the necessary proof. There
also is the question as to whether there would be a meaningful
sentence in some cases even if they did get the proof. On the other
hand are we willing to pay the cost of keeping people in jail? Also
should some of the laws be revoked? For example, the drug laws may
criminalize something that should be handled where the use is legal
but crimes committed under the influence are treated in a more harsh
manner.
richard
spoken by a fool who never once stepped foot in a truck.
I've driven cars and trucks at 55 and at 70. Obtaining the same fuel
mileage at both.
In a truck, what makes the difference is the load and how it's loaded.
I worked for a company that always loaded their product the same way for
years. Using a software program I was able to redesign the loading so the
load was more evenly distributed. Because of that, the truck worked less
harder and improved the mileage. Since then, the company loaded the trucks
that way.
In my car, I can obtain a steady 24mpg at any speed simply by turning on
the cruise control and letting the computer do the work.
What eats the fuel is when YOU continously change speed and kick down the
pedal.
richard
On the new show "LAWMAN" starring actor Steven Seagal as a real deputy
sheriff, who obviously had no training, shows us exactly why cops are not
always the good guys. Driving down the road at 2 AM he spots a car with
several black people in it. Now what's the crime here? The car is legally
parked. He has no "probable cause" but simply gets in their faces because
he wants to be big bad macho cop. Finds a gun and some drugs. A good lawyer
would have the case tossed in minutes.
Cops make stops simply because the driver of the vehicle "didn't fit the
neighborhood". Since when is that illegal? Cops make all kinds of illegal
searches and get away with it.
What needs to be done is to continously train the cops. Make sure that
every cop knows the laws have been changed because of a court ruling.
Free Lunch
wrote in misc.transport.road:
>Clark F Morris wrote:
>
>> Given that slower speeds mean lower fuel consumption and that trucks
>> may not handle well at speeds above 70 mph (can the truck drivers in
>> the group comment on top safe speeds for semi's?), done't necessarily
>> expect that.
>
>As with any other vehicle, it depends.
>
>It depends on terrain, traffic, load, driver's skill, vehicle condition,
>driver's condition, and so on.
>
>Desirability depends on gearing and other efficiency issues.
>
>As with other vehicles, there is no one size fits all.
>--
>
>Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
The Ark had the advantage of being fictional.
rsh...@gmail.com
ernest.p.worr...@vernal.equinox.edu (T.J. Higgins) wrote:
>
> >Yep. The police have a vested interested in NOT catching criminals.
> >If there were no criminals, there would be no need for police!
>
uh-huh, absolutely and without a doubt
the sworn officers in AR did absolutely nothing when Mr Maurice
Clemmons started his crime spree at the age of 16
they had nothing to do with putting him in prison so that conservative
x-tian preacher idiot Huckleberrybee who was Gov could give him
clemency
so that Mr Clemmons could go on to WA and kill 4 cops
http://www.foxnews.com/images/589276/21_64_maurice_320.jpg
just like those cops you speak of do absolutely nothing, but millions
still are in prison
I suppose they walk into prison of their own free while the cops do
nothing but catch speeders
I mean the courts all over the USA do nothing but prosecute traffic
violations
and you sir are a complete idiot
gpsman
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:27:56 -0500, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >NBtarheel_33 wrote:
>
> >> If 80 suddenly becomes the new 70, I wonder how the trucking industry
> >> will respond. Surely it is a safety issue to have cars flying along
> >> at 80+ and trucks piddling along at 65 (or often much less).
It's more of a "safety" issue for 4-wheelers.
> >Perhaps they'll get rid of their speed limiters so that their fleet
> >vehicles can maintain 75+ mph.
Or perhaps not.
> Given that slower speeds mean lower fuel consumption and that trucks
> may not handle well at speeds above 70 mph (can the truck drivers in
> the group comment on top safe speeds for semi's?), done't necessarily
> expect that.
Depends on the truck, trailer, load and driver.
As far as the components, AFAIK no truck tire is rated for more than
75 mph.
I've been 85 with no indications of instability.
"The ShockWave Jet Truck runs over 300 mph racing airplanes at
airshows; holds the world record in a quarter mile for trucks at 256
mph in just 6.36 seconds; and holds the world record for full size
trucks at 376 mph as recorded by Guinness Book of World Records."
http://www.shockwavejets.com/shockwave.cfm
> In many European countries trucks are limited by law to
> speeds of 80 to 100 kmh (50 to 62.4 mph) with the speed restriction
> posted on the truck.
US drivers have no time or use for "information".
-----
- gpsman
rsh...@gmail.com
perhaps the US should become like Europe
criminal negligence punishable by jail term
iow, a one vehicle accident involving a truck, the idiot trucker goes
to jail
Larry Harvilla
> On Dec 6, 3:54 am, Larry Harvilla <la...@phatpage.org> wrote:
>>
>> Most of the large fleets, who as you can probably guess are the worst
>> offenders in the area of governing trucks to 60-65 mph, self-insure up
>> to $2 million and then obtain third-party catastrophic claims insurance
>> to cover anything larger. Typically, either (a) these third-party
>> catastrophic insurers demand speed governors, or (b) fleets install them
>> of their own accord to negotiate a better premium.
>>
>> As much as I hated the medical tort reform proposals being floated a few
>> years back, largely because the maximum liability amounts were set so
>> ridiculously low ($250K I think?), perhaps trucking needs tort reform of
>> its own. The 2001 verdict awarding $18 million to the family of a Texas
>> woman killed when her drunk friend rear-ended a parked rig (see URL
>> below) is a perfect example why.
>>
>> http://www.thlaw.com/Articles/18_wheeler.html
>>
>
> ridiculously low figure for med malpractice
>
> and a ridiculously low figure for idiot truckers????
I didn't propose an amount for tort reform of either kind -- I simply
stated my opinion that the $250K figure floated by Republicans a few
years back for medicine was too low. If you really want to pin me down
to a figure, $2-3 million seems a fairly reasonable limit of liability
for both doctors and trucking companies.
>
> and they don't bother to tell you, but I will bet the award was
> reduced on appeal
Could be. I'll leave that as your homework. :-P
--
Larry Harvilla
rsh...@gmail.com
> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 3:54 am, Larry Harvilla <la...@phatpage.org> wrote:
>
> >> Most of the large fleets, who as you can probably guess are the worst
> >> offenders in the area of governing trucks to 60-65 mph, self-insure up
> >> to $2 million and then obtain third-party catastrophic claims insurance
> >> to cover anything larger. Typically, either (a) these third-party
> >> catastrophic insurers demand speed governors, or (b) fleets install them
> >> of their own accord to negotiate a better premium.
>
> >> As much as I hated the medical tort reform proposals being floated a few
> >> years back, largely because the maximum liability amounts were set so
> >> ridiculously low ($250K I think?), perhaps trucking needs tort reform of
> >> its own. The 2001 verdict awarding $18 million to the family of a Texas
> >> woman killed when her drunk friend rear-ended a parked rig (see URL
> >> below) is a perfect example why.
>
> >>http://www.thlaw.com/Articles/18_wheeler.html
>
> > so exactly what is the difference between what you are saying about a
> > ridiculously low figure for med malpractice
>
> > and a ridiculously low figure for idiot truckers????
>
> I didn't propose an amount for tort reform of either kind -- I simply
> stated my opinion that the $250K figure floated by Republicans a few
> years back for medicine was too low. If you really want to pin me down
> to a figure, $2-3 million seems a fairly reasonable limit of liability
> for both doctors and trucking companies.
>
>
what if an 18 wheeler runs into say a school bus seriously injuring 30
kids and the driver
how do you set a limitation of liability for that?
I don't believe in liability limitations for anything
I believe in juries having a right to set liability in a specific
case,
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE
then I believe in judicial review of the jury decision thru the appeal
process
another example
remember that tour bus carrying the Bluffton College baseball team
that went off that ramp in Atlanta
how do you set a limitation of liability on that?
>
> > and they don't bother to tell you, but I will bet the award was
> > reduced on appeal
>
> Could be. I'll leave that as your homework. :-P
>
okeydokee, I will call the law firm later this week