slow drivers impeded the flow of traffic

[Ben Kaufman]

Utah's got it right.

You can't stay in the left lane and impede traffic, even if you are going the
speed limit.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865572053/New-signs-remind-slow-drivers-to-keep-right--2--its-the-law.html?pg=all

or
http://tinyurl.com/kvgbjgf

I recall that someone had once said even on a single lane road each way, a slow
driver is required to pull over, but I could not find that.

Ben

[Datesfat Chicks]

The laws do seem contradictory. Either a speed limit exists or it
does not. It seems contradictory to require someone to move over to
the right if they are already doing the speed limit.

It is like "Thou shalt not have sex" combined with "Thou shalt use
condoms". You are delivering a rule and a fallback position when the
rule isn't obeyed, all in the same sentence.

Even more inconsistent, the two contradictory rules both serve public
safety. Speed limits serve public safety. But not impeding traffic
also serves public safety.

I bet they don't have this crap on Vulcan ...

DFC

[Vito00]

"Datesfat Chicks" <datesfa...@gmail.com> wrote

| Ben Kaufman<spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
|
| >Utah's got it right.
| >
| >You can't stay in the left lane and impede traffic, even if you are
going the
| >speed limit.
| >
|
>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865572053/New-signs-remind-slow-drivers-to-keep-right--2--its-the-law.html?pg=all
| >
| >or
| >http://tinyurl.com/kvgbjgf
| >
| >I recall that someone had once said even on a single lane road each
way, a slow
| >driver is required to pull over, but I could not find that.

The law varies from state to state and is seldom enforced. Virginia tried
but the pokes just claimed to be lost and looking for a place to turn
left. So no convictions and the cops quit trying ... again.

|
| The laws do seem contradictory. Either a speed limit exists or it

| does not. ....

Again, it depends on the state. In Ca, for example, speed limits were
"advisory" until Nixon's 55 came along.

[Twibil]

On Jun 6, 7:13 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-

doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Utah's got it right.
>
> You can't stay in the left lane and impede traffic, even if you are going the
> speed limit.

That's been the law in California for a long time now
and other states have begun to catch on. It's not a
cure-all, but it helps. (Problem is that slower drivers
never seem to see themselves as "slower drivers":
they think of themselves as "just right" drivers and
often still refuse to yield to anyone or anything.)

> I recall that someone had once said even on a single lane road each way, a slow
> driver is required to pull over, but I could not find that.

That's also the case in California, and it helps too. On
mountain roads in particular.

[Twibil]

On Jun 6, 7:44 pm, Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The laws do seem contradictory.  Either a speed limit exists or it
> does not.  It seems contradictory to require someone to move over to
> the right if they are already doing the speed limit.

Huh? Does it also seem contradictory that we have laws
covering murder *and* laws covering rape?

They are two different offenses, and the fact that you're
obeying one law doesn't mean you can break others.

> It is like "Thou shalt not have sex" combined with "Thou shalt use
> condoms".  You are delivering a rule and a fallback position when the
> rule isn't obeyed, all in the same sentence.

No, doofus. Impeding traffic and speeding are two
different things. You cannot impede traffic just because
you're obeying the speed limit.

[Twibil]

On Jun 6, 9:14 pm, "Vito00" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> In Ca, for example, speed limits were
> "advisory" until Nixon's 55 came along.

Absolutely, completely, totally incorrect. (As
usual.)

Oh, we *do* have "advisory" speed limit signs,
in California, all right: but they are (and always
have been) the yellow ones.
They are used to indicate the speed Caltrans
feels is a safe all-weather speed for upcoming
blind curves, etcetera; and you are free to
exceed the posted limits if you wish to take the
chance. (Call them "this is probably a good
idea" signs.)

However, the much more common white signs
with the black numbers are (and always have
been) not "advisories" but absolute speed limits;
a "not to be exceeded under any circumstances"
speed.

Sometimes I wonder whether you just make this
stuff up on the spot or if your memory is really
that completely shot.

[Vito00]

"Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote

On Jun 6, 9:14 pm, "Vito00" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> In Ca, for example, speed limits were
> "advisory" until Nixon's 55 came along.

Absolutely, completely, totally incorrect. (As
usual.)

------------------------------------------------

Too bad you memory is as short as your kickstand.

When I had to live in Ca the courts deemed the speed limits "advisory" -
that is you could be ticketed for speeding even if going less than the
posted limit and you could also be 'not guilty' even if exceeding it if it
were safe to do so. The posted limit simply shifted the burden of proof -
if under the state had to show you were going an unsafe speed; if over you
had to prove that your speed was safe for conditions. That was true when
limits were based on safety. Nixon's 55 was based on economy so .....

[Twibil]

On Jun 7, 4:38 am, "Vito00" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> > In Ca, for example, speed limits were
> > "advisory" until Nixon's 55 came along.
>
> Absolutely, completely, totally incorrect.  (As
> usual.)
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Too bad you memory is as short as your kickstand.

Poor frothing little maniac. No facts, but willing
to dribble insults from the safety of his keyboard.

> When I had to live in Ca the courts deemed the speed limits "advisory" -
> that is you could be ticketed for speeding even if going less than the
> posted limit and you could also be 'not guilty' even if exceeding it if it
> were safe to do so.

Bullshit. You can be ticketed in any state if you're driving
faster than is safe -depending on conditions and the officer's
judgment- and no: nobody in California was ever found
not guilty of speeding because they claimed in court that it
was safe to do so.

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

Back when you used to have to show up in person for traffic
school and listen to a live instructor, I recall something
very much like what Vito is saying.

As explained in traffic school though, this applied only to
roads posted at less than the legal maximum speed limit of 65
mph. Since I now do traffic school on-line, I have no recent
info on this subject.

I also don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all California
traffic court cases, so I'm unable to comment on your assertion
that no one was ever acquitted on a defense of safe speed for
prevailing conditions. Pretty sure you can be convicted of
driving too fast for prevailing conditions though, regardless
of speed limit.

[Vito00]

"Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote

"Vito00" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > In Ca, for example, speed limits were
> > "advisory" until Nixon's 55 came along.
>
> Absolutely, completely, totally incorrect. (As
> usual.)
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Too bad you memory is as short as your kickstand.

Poor frothing little maniac. No facts, but willing
to dribble insults from the safety of his keyboard.

Too bad we didn't meet while I was out there. You could have enjoyed a
good old Compton ass whupping. You are a habitual liar! Remember lying
about your age when claimng to race Santa Barbara? I sometimes wonder if
you even have a bike.

> When I had to live in Ca the courts deemed the speed limits "advisory" -
> that is you could be ticketed for speeding even if going less than the
> posted limit and you could also be 'not guilty' even if exceeding it if
> it
> were safe to do so.

Bullshit. You can be ticketed in any state if you're driving
faster than is safe -depending on conditions and the officer's
judgment- and no: nobody in California was ever found
not guilty of speeding because they claimed in court that it
was safe to do so.

Sorry, wrong again. I knew at least one. Had a Ferrari, a good lawyer
and lots of money.

[T0m $herman]

On 6/6/2013 9:44 PM, Datesfat Chicks wrote:
> I bet they don't have this crap on Vulcan ...

Kawasaki?

--
T0m $herm@n

[T0m $herman]

Although passing on the right (undertaking in the UK - except of course
on the left) is bad, sometimes the alternative is worse, such as having
the guy from Duel [1] getting right up behind me when I was blocked by a
"left lane bandit".

[1] Unfortunately an owner-operator, otherwise I would have reported him.

--
T0m $herm@n

[Twibil]

On Jun 7, 5:04 pm, "Vito00" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bullshit. You can be ticketed in any state if you're driving
> faster than is safe -depending on conditions and the officer's
> judgment- and no: nobody in California was ever found
> not guilty of speeding because they claimed in court that it
> was safe to do so.
>
> Sorry, wrong again.  I knew at least one.  Had a Ferrari, a good lawyer
> and lots of money.

No, idiot. I said you *can* be ticketed. And he was.

He just beat the ticket in court.....providing your tale
is true.......which is doubtful since you lie so often.

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

[Twibil]

On Jun 8, 6:39 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Bullshit. You can be ticketed in any state if you're driving
> > > faster than is safe -depending on conditions and the officer's
> > > judgment- and no: nobody in California was ever found
> > > not guilty of speeding because they claimed in court that it
> > > was safe to do so.
>
> > > Sorry, wrong again.  I knew at least one.  Had a Ferrari, a good lawyer
> > > and lots of money.
>
> > No, idiot.   I said you *can* be ticketed.   And he was.
> > He just beat the ticket in court.....providing your tale
> > is true.......which is doubtful since you lie so often.
>
> Perhaps Vito was referring to the part where you said:
>
>     " and no: nobody in California was ever found
> not guilty of speeding because they claimed in court that it
> was safe to do so. "

Fine. Let's see a cite. Not just another
of his made-up "facts".

What he's probably thinking of -and got wrong- is that at
one point the California courts found that a lot of localities
(and in some case counties) had been setting speed limits
artificially low in order to create speed traps and ordered
that thereafter there must be traffic studies done to justify
posted speed limits.
The core of the argument in that case was that in many
locations it would have been perfectly safe to exceed those
artificially low limits, and the courts agreed; which is why
they ordered a change in the way speed limits were
determined.

As you'd expect, this caused a lot of posted speed limits
to be recalculated in a big hurry, even in locations where
there had been no intentional speed traps. (In the town I
was living in at the time most of the local speed limits
immediately jumped from a city-wide 25 MPH to 35 or
40 on the wider and safer streets.)
But that doesn't mean that prior to the court ruling posted
speed limits had been "advisory". The posted limit was
the limit -no matter how silly it might have been- and if you
got a ticket for exceeding the limits you didn't get off by
telling the judge that you shouldn't have to pay because
you'd been breaking the law safely.

Lastly, so far as I know the nation-wide 55 law had no
effect on the change in California law other than to limit
the highest speed allowed anywhere in the nation.
Exactly the same change it caused everywhere else.

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

> > Perhaps Vito was referring to the part where you said:

> >     " and no: nobody in California was ever found
> > not guilty of speeding because they claimed in court that it
> > was safe to do so. "

> Fine. Let's see a cite. Not just another
> of his made-up "facts".

I very much doubt that either of you is prepared to
offer a cite, especially a cite for "nobody...ever".

[Twibil]

On Jun 9, 8:27 am, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Fine.   Let's see a cite.   Not just another
> > of his made-up "facts".
>
> I very much doubt that either of you is prepared to
> offer a cite, especially a cite for "nobody...ever".

Still mad because you didn't know the difference
between "lose" and "loose", huh?

Oh well.

[Vito00]

"Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote <snip>

You really cannot help it can you. You are such a liar yourself that you
have to doubt anything anyone else says. But I don't blame you. Had I
stayed in "the valley" (CA) all my life I'd probably be an a-hole too.

I said that, before circa 1970 some states had "advisory" speed limits -
meaning that one could be ticketed even if going slower than the posted
limit and that one could beat a ticket for exceeding it if one could prove
it was safe to do so. You agreed with the first part then launched a
personal attack, not to disagree but to say that CA now has different
colored signs. So what? Then you say that nobody ever beat such a ticket
but when I give an example you first mince words to try to say that he
(the example) did get ticketed then call me a liar. This from the dude
who claims to have been racing AFM before he was old enough. Ever ask
what personality flaw makes you act like this? It's your own credibility
that suffers.

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

I would genuinely like to see a cite for your
"nobody...ever" assertion about California traffic
court cases. We both know you don't have one.

And yes, you caught me in a spelling error.


> Oh well.

[MikeWhy]

Datesfat Chicks <datesfa...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:13:03 -0400, Ben Kaufman
> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>Utah's got it right.
>>
>>You can't stay in the left lane and impede traffic, even if you are going the
>>speed limit.
>>
>>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865572053/New-signs-remind-slow-drivers-to-keep-right--2--its-the-law.html?pg=all
>>
>>or
>>http://tinyurl.com/kvgbjgf
>>
>>I recall that someone had once said even on a single lane road each way, a slow
>>driver is required to pull over, but I could not find that.
>
> The laws do seem contradictory. Either a speed limit exists or it
> does not. It seems contradictory to require someone to move over to
> the right if they are already doing the speed limit.

"This means YOU" popped to mind...




----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://www.piaohong.tk/newsgroup

[Twibil]

On Jun 9, 5:32 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > I very much doubt that either of you is prepared to
> > > offer a cite, especially a cite for "nobody...ever".
>
> > Still mad because you didn't know the difference
> > between "lose" and "loose", huh?
>
> I would genuinely like to see a cite for your
> "nobody...ever" assertion about California traffic
> court cases. We both know you don't have one.

1.) Vito was the one who made the original assertion:

"In Ca, for example, speed limits were
'advisory' until Nixon's 55 came along."

I replied as I did because he was (A) wrong, and (B)
I've known a number of judges -socially and otherwise-
and have never met one who was dumb enough to fall
for the "I was breaking the law, but I wasn't doing
anything dangerous so you should let me off" excuse.

If *you* know of one, please feel free to jump in and
name him. Otherwise you're just being a pain in the
ass because "we both know" that excuse doesn't work.

> And yes, you caught me in a spelling error.

No, it wasn't a spelling error. You've used "loose" for
"lose" a number of times before so you simply didn't
know which word meant what.
I never bothered to call it to your attention -and be a
pain in the ass- before now because *you* weren't
being a pain in the ass.

[Vito00]

"Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote .....

1.) Vito was the one who made the original assertion:
"In Ca, for example, speed limits were
'advisory' until Nixon's 55 came along."

I replied as I did because he was (A) wrong, ....
------------------------------------------------------------
But you never provided a cite or anything else to prove your assertion
that my statement was wrong. You simple shouted "wrong" then told us
about the color of Ca.'s current signs then you even agreed that one could
be fined even if going slower than the posted limit (half my statement).
Clearly <g> a victim of Valley Fever.

But you must be right. After all tiu say you are a you're a senator. And
I believe it too. Afer all you think much like Nancy Pelosi.

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 7:46:49 PM UTC-7, Twibil wrote:

> I've known a number of judges -socially and otherwise-
> and have never met one who was dumb enough to fall
> for the "I was breaking the law, but I wasn't doing
> anything dangerous so you should let me off" excuse.

> If *you* know of one, please feel free to jump in and
> name him. Otherwise you're just being a pain in the
> ass because "we both know" that excuse doesn't work.

The original assertion which I took exception to:

"and no: nobody in California was ever found
not guilty of speeding because they claimed in court that it
was safe to do so."

The Nolo Press take on California speeding laws:

Three Types of Speed Limits

The 50 states basically use three types of speed limits. We call
these “absolute,” “presumed” (or “prima facie” in legalese), and
“basic” speed limits. Because each type of speed-limit violation
often requires a unique defense, it is key to understand which you
are charged with violating.

...

Presumed. “Presumed” speed-limit violations are a little more
complicated but give you far more flexibility in building your
defense. In states that use this system for all or some of their
roads—California and Texas, for example—it’s legal to drive over
the posted limit as long as you are driving safely. For example,
if you are driving 50 mph in a 40-mph zone, you are “presumed” to
be speeding. But if it is 6 a.m. on a clear, dry morning with no
other cars on a wide, straight road, and you can convince the judge
that you were driving safely given those conditions, you should
be acquitted. That’s because you present facts that “rebut the
presumption” that by going over the limit you were driving at an
unsafe speed. (We’ll give you more information about this below.)

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticket-book/chapter5-1.html

As for "nobody in California was ever found not guilty of...",
can we both agree that this was a silly assertion ? Or not.
Your choice.

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 11:08:47 AM UTC-7, Twibil wrote:

> and no: nobody in California was ever found
> not guilty of speeding because they claimed in court that it
> was safe to do so.

People v. Behjat (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , -- Cal.Rptr.2d --
http://www.helpigotaticket.com/cases/behjat.html

59 mph in a posted 55 mph zone. Found not guilty on appeal.

Appellant was charged with violating Vehicle Code section
22350 (basic speed law) which states: "No person shall drive
a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable
or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic
on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event
at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."
No conviction can be sustained unless the record contains
substantial evidence supporting each element of the charged offense.
(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576-577.) In a
prosecution under Vehicle Code section 22350, the record must
contain substantial evidence from which a fact finder could
conclude either that the defendant drove at a speed that
endangered people or property or that she drove at a speed that
was unreasonable for the driving conditions. fn. 3 (People v.
Ellis (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1339 [discussing statutory
elements of basic speed law violation].) This record contains
no such evidence. [84 Cal.App.4th Supp. 4]

The evidence shows only that appellant drove 59 miles per hour.
The record, however, contains no evidence supporting a finding
that this speed violated the basic speed law. First, it contains
no facts suggesting anything or anyone was endangered. Nor does
it contain information from which any particular speed could be
found to be reasonable or unreasonable. That is, the record does
not contain evidence on the weather, visibility, traffic volume,
or road conditions when appellant was stopped.

[Vito00]

"Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsc...@aol.com> wrote

| Twibil wrote:
|
| > and no: nobody in California was ever found
| > not guilty of speeding because they claimed in court that it
| > was safe to do so.
|
| People v. Behjat (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , -- Cal.Rptr.2d --
| http://www.helpigotaticket.com/cases/behjat.html
|
| 59 mph in a posted 55 mph zone. Found not guilty on appeal.
|
| Appellant was charged with violating Vehicle Code section
| 22350 (basic speed law) which states: "No person shall drive
| a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable
| or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic
| on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event
| at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."

<snip>

Thanks Rob, that is what I remembered the law to be but heard, perhaps
erroniously, that Nixon's 55 mph limit was absolute, being based on fuel
economy not safety.

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

Given that this is sort of MC related, this is my current
and probably imperfect understanding of California law.

You normally cannot drive in excess of 65 (or 70 if posted)
(CVC 22349 and 22356)

Under all other circumstances, you speed must be appropriate
for conditions (CVC 22350).

If you exceed a posted speed limit, you have to demonstrate
that your speed was appropriate for conditions (CVC 22351).

I had almost forgotten this stuff, but it's essentially
what was being taught back when traffic school was a
little more like a for real school.