|
General » rec.autos.driving » Too fast for conditions
| Too fast for conditions [message #792637] |
Tue, 29 January 2008 22:35 |
|
What is everyone's experience with citations for "driving too fast for
conditions" (IMO the most valid form of speeding tickets)? From what
I've seen and heard (I've been lucky enough to avoid this infraction)
people who have been charged with this are usually driving faster than
the cop deems appropriate, usually in the rain or snow (and in one
instance I'm aware of just for being on a dirt road and driving within
or at the legal limits). What's interesting is that people who fail
to keep their vehicle on the road as a result of overdriving the
conditions and their equipment are rarely ticketed. On an average
drive to or from work during a snow storm, I can rest assured I'll see
a half dozen vehicles in the median or off on the shoulder, waiting
for a tow truck to haul them out. I know quite a few people who have
done this. Not one of them has ever received a ticket for driving too
fast for conditions, regardless of the clear cut evidence of the
crime!
Is this standard issue, or a New England thing? What are your
observations?
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792658 ] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 04:42 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792660 ] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 05:56 |
|
In article <3lrvp31h9p3jkrv3nenohbvi1e5p2fgqdm [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:35:17 -0800 (PST), "DanKMTB [at] gmail.com"
><DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What is everyone's experience with citations for "driving too fast for
>>conditions" (IMO the most valid form of speeding tickets)?
>
> I have never received one. Came close yesterday, though. :)
>
> I was driving to work yesterday morning. The road was wet, but there
> were no puddles and traction was good. I passed a cop while doing 58
> MPH (posted limit: 60 MPH). I have no doubt that, had I been going
> even 1 or 2 MPH above the posted limit, this cop would have used that
> as an excuse to nail me for "too fast for conditions."
For a wet road? damn, drivers must suck out there. Maybe in a blinding a
snow storm an ISP officer would drive slower than 60.... maybe.
> Predictably, GPSTroll will post a reply with his "spurious conclusion"
> crap within a few moments. :)
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792662 ] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 08:15 |
|
On Jan 29, 8:56=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <3lrvp31h9p3jkrv3nenohbvi1e5p2fg... [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wr=
ote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:35:17 -0800 (PST), "DanK... [at] gmail.com"
> ><DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>What is everyone's experience with citations for "driving too fast for
> >>conditions" (IMO the most valid form of speeding tickets)?
>
> > I have never received one. Came close yesterday, though. :)
>
> > I was driving to work yesterday morning. The road was wet, but there
> > were no puddles and traction was good. I passed a cop while doing 58
> > MPH (posted limit: 60 MPH). I have no doubt that, had I been going
> > even 1 or 2 MPH above the posted limit, this cop would have used that
> > as an excuse to nail me for "too fast for conditions."
>
> For a wet road? damn, drivers must suck out there. Maybe in a blinding a
> snow storm an ISP officer would drive slower than 60.... maybe.
>
>
>
> > Predictably, GPSTroll will post a reply with his "spurious conclusion"
> > crap within a few moments. :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Funny thing. Just last night I ran across a letter I wrote to the
Shadow Minister of Tranpotation when I was living in GB, pointing out
that he should know the difference between driving to fast for
conditions and going faster than the posted limit.
For some reason, there was no copy of a response attached to my copy.
Hmmm, could it be he sent none?
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792668 ] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 14:26 |
|
On Jan 29, 11:56=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <3lrvp31h9p3jkrv3nenohbvi1e5p2fg... [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wr=
ote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:35:17 -0800 (PST), "DanK... [at] gmail.com"
> ><DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>What is everyone's experience with citations for "driving too fast for
> >>conditions" (IMO the most valid form of speeding tickets)?
>
> > I have never received one. Came close yesterday, though. :)
>
> > I was driving to work yesterday morning. The road was wet, but there
> > were no puddles and traction was good. I passed a cop while doing 58
> > MPH (posted limit: 60 MPH). I have no doubt that, had I been going
> > even 1 or 2 MPH above the posted limit, this cop would have used that
> > as an excuse to nail me for "too fast for conditions."
>
> For a wet road? damn, drivers must suck out there. Maybe in a blinding a
> snow storm an ISP officer would drive slower than 60.... maybe.
>
>
>
> > Predictably, GPSTroll will post a reply with his "spurious conclusion"
> > crap within a few moments. :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets
allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably well
handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her up
for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792670 ] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 15:13 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792675 ] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 15:53 |
|
In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5qcv [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanKMTB [at] gmail.com"
><DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
>>rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets
>>allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably well
>>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
>>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
>>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
>>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her up
>>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
>
> And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
> standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You can
> be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
> with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters -
> cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
> tars on glare ice.
The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of 'VW
bus with bald tires' view.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792682 ] |
Thu, 31 January 2008 01:41 |
|
On Jan 30, 6:53=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5... [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wr=
ote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanK... [at] gmail.com"
> ><DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
> >>rainstorm. =A0She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets=
> >>allowed. =A0The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. =A0 in a reasonably we=
ll
> >>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
> >>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. =A0One of the vehicles we
> >>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
> >>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. =A0He wrote her up=
> >>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
>
> > And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
> > standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You can
> > be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
> > with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters -
> > cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
> > tars on glare ice.
>
> The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of 'VW
> bus with bald tires' view.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Funny
Last night, while cleaning up, I ran across a letter from the Shadow
Minister for Transport in GB. I had written him a letter regarding
speed imits.
"Thank you for your letter of 5th May 1996
In your first letter you pointed out that the legal speed limit
changed six times in 18 miles but the "significant" speed limit
changed 'several hundred or more' It is obviously impossible to
police, or to expect people to understand, several hundered changes in
speed limit. It is for this reason that a cautious limit is set for
the safety of everyone."
(signed) Rob Gutenberg (for Graham Allen, MP)
In other words, it seems to be set for a poor driver in a bad car.
In other words they couldn't trust a trained officer to determine what
speed was right for him, with something similiar for the "speeder" (as
the court may determine?)
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792838 ] |
Sat, 02 February 2008 15:57 |
|
In article
<f448d263-9361-4c4e-9f03-c7ba9a339bcc [at] f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"DanKMTB [at] gmail.com" <DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> What is everyone's experience with citations for "driving too fast for
> conditions" (IMO the most valid form of speeding tickets)? From what
> I've seen and heard (I've been lucky enough to avoid this infraction)
> people who have been charged with this are usually driving faster than
> the cop deems appropriate, usually in the rain or snow (and in one
> instance I'm aware of just for being on a dirt road and driving within
> or at the legal limits). What's interesting is that people who fail
> to keep their vehicle on the road as a result of overdriving the
> conditions and their equipment are rarely ticketed. On an average
> drive to or from work during a snow storm, I can rest assured I'll see
> a half dozen vehicles in the median or off on the shoulder, waiting
> for a tow truck to haul them out. I know quite a few people who have
> done this. Not one of them has ever received a ticket for driving too
> fast for conditions, regardless of the clear cut evidence of the
> crime!
>
> Is this standard issue, or a New England thing? What are your
> observations?
The trouble with that kind of law is, its subjective. One cop may
consider a fast moving driver to be driving safely, but another cop may
feel differently. Then there's the issue of different driver's
abilities. A 70 year old guy driving at 55MPH will have different
reaction time then a 30 year old guy driving at the same speed on the
same highway at the same time. This is why those sorts of subjective
standards are useless and why we need consistent, honest, and fare speed
limit enforcement.
What I would like to see is the financial motive taken out of tickets
for all moving violations. All the money from all the local communities'
tickets should go into a pool of funds managed by the state and
distributed based on need to help repair roads. Each municipality should
get a certain percentage of their ticket revenue just to offset their
overhead, but the rest goes into the state-run pool. Tickets issued by
state police should go into the general treasury, not the state police
budget. This takes the financial motive out of motor vehicle enforcement.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792840 ] |
Sat, 02 February 2008 15:58 |
|
In article <M6udndBzwdzlEj3anZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5qcv [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanKMTB [at] gmail.com"
> ><DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
> >>rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets
> >>allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably well
> >>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
> >>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
> >>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
> >>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her up
> >>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
> >
> > And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
> > standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You can
> > be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
> > with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters -
> > cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
> > tars on glare ice.
>
> The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of 'VW
> bus with bald tires' view.
Where's your evidence to support that statement?
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792841 ] |
Sat, 02 February 2008 15:59 |
|
Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article
> <f448d263-9361-4c4e-9f03-c7ba9a339bcc [at] f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> "DanKMTB [at] gmail.com" <DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What is everyone's experience with citations for "driving too fast for
>>conditions" (IMO the most valid form of speeding tickets)? From what
>>I've seen and heard (I've been lucky enough to avoid this infraction)
>>people who have been charged with this are usually driving faster than
>>the cop deems appropriate, usually in the rain or snow (and in one
>>instance I'm aware of just for being on a dirt road and driving within
>>or at the legal limits). What's interesting is that people who fail
>>to keep their vehicle on the road as a result of overdriving the
>>conditions and their equipment are rarely ticketed. On an average
>>drive to or from work during a snow storm, I can rest assured I'll see
>>a half dozen vehicles in the median or off on the shoulder, waiting
>>for a tow truck to haul them out. I know quite a few people who have
>>done this. Not one of them has ever received a ticket for driving too
>>fast for conditions, regardless of the clear cut evidence of the
>>crime!
>>
>>Is this standard issue, or a New England thing? What are your
>>observations?
>
>
> The trouble with that kind of law is, its subjective. One cop may
> consider a fast moving driver to be driving safely, but another cop may
> feel differently. Then there's the issue of different driver's
> abilities. A 70 year old guy driving at 55MPH will have different
> reaction time then a 30 year old guy driving at the same speed on the
> same highway at the same time. This is why those sorts of subjective
> standards are useless and why we need consistent, honest, and fare speed
> limit enforcement.
>
> What I would like to see is the financial motive taken out of tickets
> for all moving violations. All the money from all the local communities'
> tickets should go into a pool of funds managed by the state and
> distributed based on need to help repair roads. Each municipality should
> get a certain percentage of their ticket revenue just to offset their
> overhead, but the rest goes into the state-run pool. Tickets issued by
> state police should go into the general treasury, not the state police
> budget. This takes the financial motive out of motor vehicle enforcement.
That'll never happen; too many jurisdictions are counting on the revenue
from traffic citations and camera tickets to give that up.
Of course it's all about the money; our best hope is to get the laws
changed so that safe behavior is not defined as illegal.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792842 ] |
Sat, 02 February 2008 16:01 |
|
Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <M6udndBzwdzlEj3anZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5qcv [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanKMTB [at] gmail.com"
>>><DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
>>>>rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets
>>>>allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably well
>>>>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
>>>>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
>>>>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
>>>>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her up
>>>>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
>>>
>>>And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
>>>standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You can
>>>be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
>>>with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters -
>>>cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
>>>tars on glare ice.
>>
>>The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of 'VW
>>bus with bald tires' view.
>
>
> Where's your evidence to support that statement?
Ever see a speed limit sign, or an advisory speed sign?
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #792906 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 05:35 |
|
In article <srhi-ED9E09.09585302022008 [at] newsgroups.comcast.net>, Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <M6udndBzwdzlEj3anZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5qcv [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanKMTB [at] gmail.com"
>> ><DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
>> >>rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets
>> >>allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably well
>> >>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
>> >>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
>> >>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
>> >>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her up
>> >>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
>> >
>> > And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
>> > standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You can
>> > be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
>> > with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters -
>> > cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
>> > tars on glare ice.
>>
>> The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of 'VW
>> bus with bald tires' view.
>
> Where's your evidence to support that statement?
If you don't know, then there's nothing I can do to help you. Plus you
should probably stop driving if you already haven't.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793385 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 04:24 |
|
In article <fo20jl29l3 [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > In article <M6udndBzwdzlEj3anZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5qcv [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanKMTB [at] gmail.com"
> >>><DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
> >>>>rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets
> >>>>allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably well
> >>>>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
> >>>>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
> >>>>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
> >>>>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her up
> >>>>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
> >>>
> >>>And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
> >>>standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You can
> >>>be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
> >>>with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters -
> >>>cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
> >>>tars on glare ice.
> >>
> >>The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of 'VW
> >>bus with bald tires' view.
> >
> >
> > Where's your evidence to support that statement?
>
> Ever see a speed limit sign, or an advisory speed sign?
What's your point? Are you suggesting that any speed limits are born out
of corruption?
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793391 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 05:27 |
|
In article <srhi-B30B9F.22240006022008 [at] comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Shawn Hirn <srhi [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <fo20jl29l3 [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > > In article <M6udndBzwdzlEj3anZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> > > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5qcv [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanKMTB [at] gmail.com"
> > >>><DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
> > >>>>rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets
> > >>>>allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably well
> > >>>>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
> > >>>>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
> > >>>>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
> > >>>>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her up
> > >>>>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
> > >>>
> > >>>And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
> > >>>standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You can
> > >>>be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
> > >>>with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters -
> > >>>cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
> > >>>tars on glare ice.
> > >>
> > >>The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of 'VW
> > >>bus with bald tires' view.
> > >
> > >
> > > Where's your evidence to support that statement?
> >
> > Ever see a speed limit sign, or an advisory speed sign?
>
> What's your point? Are you suggesting that any speed limits are born out
> of corruption?
How does corruption enter into it?
His statement was simple and to the point: anyone can see that most of
the time speed limits are not set realistically for average vehicles
operating in good conditions.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793409 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 08:17 |
|
On Feb 6, 8:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> In article <srhi-B30B9F.22240006022... [at] comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Shawn Hirn <s... [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <fo20jl2... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> > Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > > Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > > > In article <M6udndBzwdzlEj3anZ2dnUVZ_snin... [at] comcast.com>,
> > > > tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> > > >>In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5... [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal
> > > >>wrote:
>
> > > >>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanK... [at] gmail.com"
> > > >>><DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
> > > >>>>rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets
> > > >>>>allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably well
> > > >>>>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
> > > >>>>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
> > > >>>>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
> > > >>>>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her up
> > > >>>>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
>
> > > >>>And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
> > > >>>standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You can
> > > >>>be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
> > > >>>with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters -
> > > >>>cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
> > > >>>tars on glare ice.
>
> > > >>The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of 'VW
> > > >>bus with bald tires' view.
>
> > > > Where's your evidence to support that statement?
>
> > > Ever see a speed limit sign, or an advisory speed sign?
>
> > What's your point? Are you suggesting that any speed limits are born out
> > of corruption?
>
> How does corruption enter into it?
>
> His statement was simple and to the point: anyone can see that most of
> the time speed limits are not set realistically for average vehicles
> operating in good conditions.
That's funny.
Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
Only on limited access highways are they unreasonably low, for a
passenger car in good working condition.
25mph on a residential street, and 20mph in a school zone are both
reasonable SLs.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793410 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 08:20 |
|
On Feb 2, 6:59 am, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > In article
> > <f448d263-9361-4c4e-9f03-c7ba9a339... [at] f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>What is everyone's experience with citations for "driving too fast for
> >>conditions" (IMO the most valid form of speeding tickets)? From what
> >>I've seen and heard (I've been lucky enough to avoid this infraction)
> >>people who have been charged with this are usually driving faster than
> >>the cop deems appropriate, usually in the rain or snow (and in one
> >>instance I'm aware of just for being on a dirt road and driving within
> >>or at the legal limits). What's interesting is that people who fail
> >>to keep their vehicle on the road as a result of overdriving the
> >>conditions and their equipment are rarely ticketed. On an average
> >>drive to or from work during a snow storm, I can rest assured I'll see
> >>a half dozen vehicles in the median or off on the shoulder, waiting
> >>for a tow truck to haul them out. I know quite a few people who have
> >>done this. Not one of them has ever received a ticket for driving too
> >>fast for conditions, regardless of the clear cut evidence of the
> >>crime!
>
> >>Is this standard issue, or a New England thing? What are your
> >>observations?
>
> > The trouble with that kind of law is, its subjective. One cop may
> > consider a fast moving driver to be driving safely, but another cop may
> > feel differently. Then there's the issue of different driver's
> > abilities. A 70 year old guy driving at 55MPH will have different
> > reaction time then a 30 year old guy driving at the same speed on the
> > same highway at the same time. This is why those sorts of subjective
> > standards are useless and why we need consistent, honest, and fare speed
> > limit enforcement.
>
> > What I would like to see is the financial motive taken out of tickets
> > for all moving violations. All the money from all the local communities'
> > tickets should go into a pool of funds managed by the state and
> > distributed based on need to help repair roads. Each municipality should
> > get a certain percentage of their ticket revenue just to offset their
> > overhead, but the rest goes into the state-run pool. Tickets issued by
> > state police should go into the general treasury, not the state police
> > budget. This takes the financial motive out of motor vehicle enforcement.
>
> That'll never happen; too many jurisdictions are counting on the revenue
> from traffic citations and camera tickets to give that up.
>
> Of course it's all about the money; our best hope is to get the laws
> changed so that safe behavior is not defined as illegal.
I'd love to get the law changed to make speeding violations cost
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in fines. Then, EVERYONE would
fight them. Collections would go way down.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793416 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 09:08 |
|
In article
<4a749421-1161-4d12-a5ef-310dbde07d91 [at] m62g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> > In article <srhi-B30B9F.22240006022... [at] comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Shawn Hirn <s... [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <fo20jl2... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> > > Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > > > > In article <M6udndBzwdzlEj3anZ2dnUVZ_snin... [at] comcast.com>,
> > > > > tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> > > > >>In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5... [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in
> > > > >>SoCal
> > > > >>wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanK... [at] gmail.com"
> > > > >>><DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston
> > > > >>>>during a
> > > > >>>>rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic
> > > > >>>>pockets
> > > > >>>>allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably
> > > > >>>>well
> > > > >>>>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
> > > > >>>>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
> > > > >>>>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave
> > > > >>>>her
> > > > >>>>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her
> > > > >>>>up
> > > > >>>>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
> >
> > > > >>>And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
> > > > >>>standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You
> > > > >>>can
> > > > >>>be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
> > > > >>>with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters
> > > > >>>-
> > > > >>>cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
> > > > >>>tars on glare ice.
> >
> > > > >>The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of
> > > > >>'VW
> > > > >>bus with bald tires' view.
> >
> > > > > Where's your evidence to support that statement?
> >
> > > > Ever see a speed limit sign, or an advisory speed sign?
> >
> > > What's your point? Are you suggesting that any speed limits are born out
> > > of corruption?
> >
> > How does corruption enter into it?
> >
> > His statement was simple and to the point: anyone can see that most of
> > the time speed limits are not set realistically for average vehicles
> > operating in good conditions.
>
> That's funny.
>
> Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
Utter nonsense.
Most people are sensible; they won't risk their own lives.
Most people are exceed the speed limit most of the time.
You figure it out
>
> Only on limited access highways are they unreasonably low, for a
> passenger car in good working condition.
>
> 25mph on a residential street, and 20mph in a school zone are both
> reasonable SLs.
I agree. And they would be far likelier to be followed if so many other
limits weren't set so ridiculously low.
It's the same phenomenon that causes all of us to occasionally get
caught out when an advisory limit for an access ramp is actually set
close to a reasonable figure: we're so used to simply multiplying the
number we see by x to come up with what the actual speed one should take
the the ramp is that when we come across the anomalous one we're
unprepared.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793423 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 12:26 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <srhi-B30B9F.22240006022... [at] comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> Shawn Hirn <s... [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article <fo20jl2... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
>>> Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <M6udndBzwdzlEj3anZ2dnUVZ_snin... [at] comcast.com>,
>>>>> tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5... [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal
>>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanK... [at] gmail.com"
>>>>>>><DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
>>>>>>>>rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets
>>>>>>>>allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably well
>>>>>>>>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
>>>>>>>>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
>>>>>>>>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
>>>>>>>>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her up
>>>>>>>>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
>>
>>>>>>>And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
>>>>>>>standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You can
>>>>>>>be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
>>>>>>>with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters -
>>>>>>>cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
>>>>>>>tars on glare ice.
>>
>>>>>>The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of 'VW
>>>>>>bus with bald tires' view.
>>
>>>>>Where's your evidence to support that statement?
>>
>>>>Ever see a speed limit sign, or an advisory speed sign?
>>
>>>What's your point? Are you suggesting that any speed limits are born out
>>>of corruption?
>>
>>How does corruption enter into it?
>>
>>His statement was simple and to the point: anyone can see that most of
>>the time speed limits are not set realistically for average vehicles
>>operating in good conditions.
>
>
> That's funny.
>
> Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.\
Where do you live?
>
> Only on limited access highways are they unreasonably low, for a
> passenger car in good working condition.
>
Most SL's that I see follow your above description instead.
> 25mph on a residential street, and 20mph in a school zone are both
> reasonable SLs.
Agreed, and those are about the only ones that I regularly see that are
reasonable (I think school zones aroung here are actually 25 MPH on main
roads, but you get the idea.) I spend maybe 10% of my time driving on
those kinds of roads. Anywhere else the speed limits are significantly
low (sometimes as low as 30 or 35 MPH on a four lane divided main road)
and advisory speeds are a joke - 15 or 25 MPH on a freeway onramp? My
car doesn't accelerate fast enough to slow down that much!
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793426 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 15:15 |
|
In article <foeptk02bmm [at] news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> 25mph on a residential street, and 20mph in a school zone are both
>> reasonable SLs.
>
> Agreed, and those are about the only ones that I regularly see that are
> reasonable (I think school zones aroung here are actually 25 MPH on main
> roads, but you get the idea.) I spend maybe 10% of my time driving on
> those kinds of roads. Anywhere else the speed limits are significantly
> low (sometimes as low as 30 or 35 MPH on a four lane divided main road)
> and advisory speeds are a joke - 15 or 25 MPH on a freeway onramp? My
> car doesn't accelerate fast enough to slow down that much!
Same here... the advisory speeds are a joke, the speed limits are grossly
low on the limited access highways and off. many 30-40mph main arterials,
even 4 lane divided ones like you mention.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793427 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 15:40 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793428 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 15:43 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793431 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 15:54 |
|
In article <u36mq3pj0b5rbhq1s5rvek5uk2aup1bpd9 [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:20:16 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
><gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd love to get the law changed to make speeding violations cost
>>hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in fines. Then, EVERYONE would
>>fight them. Collections would go way down.
>
> I'd love to change the law so that police departments and local
> governments could not benefit from speeding ticket fines. That would
> remove all incentive to under-post speed limits, set up speed traps,
> etc. SAFETY would once again be the sole criterion for setting and
> enforcing speed limits.
VA and other states went to make tickets cost thousands of dollars,
however their scheme was a 'fee' that was separate from the speeding
fine. Somehow I think that was intentional to attempt to get the benefit
of more revenue without grinding the system to a halt.
> Couple that with a law that requires ALL speed limits to be set
> according to the 85th percentile speed, and the "speeding" problem
> goes away. Cops could then focus on combatting REAL crime.
In many if not most, that already is the law. It is either ignored or the
measurement of speeds is rigged by using heavy enforcement prior to the
measurement.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793439 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 16:32 |
|
Shawn Hirn wrote:
> What I would like to see is the financial motive taken out of tickets
> for all moving violations. All the money from all the local communities'
> tickets should go into a pool of funds managed by the state and
> distributed based on need to help repair roads.
It would make more sense to eliminate fines entirely and rely solely on
demerit points. Also, they should disallow plea bargains to a "no
points" offense.
This way, there will be no financial incentive to cite drivers, and such
citations would be guaranteed to be noted on the drivers record if they
are found guilty in a court of law.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793485 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 00:48 |
|
On Feb 7, 6:40 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:17:58 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 6, 8:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> >> In article <srhi-B30B9F.22240006022... [at] comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> >> Shawn Hirn <s... [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > In article <fo20jl2... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> >> > Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > Shawn Hirn wrote:
> >> > > > In article <M6udndBzwdzlEj3anZ2dnUVZ_snin... [at] comcast.com>,
> >> > > > tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >> > > >>In article <4311q39hhk8j92p1v6u30a44th7esn5... [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal
> >> > > >>wrote:
>
> >> > > >>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:26:37 -0800 (PST), "DanK... [at] gmail.com"
> >> > > >>><DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > >>>>I was in the passenger seat with a friend heading into Boston during a
> >> > > >>>>rainstorm. She was driving the 60-70 in a 65 zone, as traffic pockets
> >> > > >>>>allowed. The traffic pockets were doing 35-45. in a reasonably well
> >> > > >>>>handling car with good tires, and we were having no problems
> >> > > >>>>whatsoever with traction or hydroplaning. One of the vehicles we
> >> > > >>>>passed was an unmarked police car, and when he stopped her he gave her
> >> > > >>>>a ration, screaming about unsafe and conditions, etc. He wrote her up
> >> > > >>>>for 65 in a 35 or 40, citing too fast for conditions.
>
> >> > > >>>And that's the problem with arbitrary standards - with no objective
> >> > > >>>standards, cops are free to do pretty much whatever they want. You can
> >> > > >>>be driving a sports car with excellent handling, it can be equipped
> >> > > >>>with brand new top-of-the-line rain tires, but none of that matters -
> >> > > >>>cops will act as though you are driving a top-heavy VW bus with bald
> >> > > >>>tars on glare ice.
>
> >> > > >>The problem is, the objective standards are set by the same sort of 'VW
> >> > > >>bus with bald tires' view.
>
> >> > > > Where's your evidence to support that statement?
>
> >> > > Ever see a speed limit sign, or an advisory speed sign?
>
> >> > What's your point? Are you suggesting that any speed limits are born out
> >> > of corruption?
>
> >> How does corruption enter into it?
>
> >> His statement was simple and to the point: anyone can see that most of
> >> the time speed limits are not set realistically for average vehicles
> >> operating in good conditions.
>
> >That's funny.
>
> >Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
>
> What's really funny is the way you extrapolate your anecdotal
> evidence, pretend it's universal, and present your argument based on
> that fallacy.
Hardly. If you live in any kind of urbanized area, the SL signs you
see most are in residential/commercial areas. Even on the roads that
seem like they could be posted higher, there are reasons for a lower
posting. Especially in commercial areas, where there are lot's of
driveways to shopping/warehouses along both sides of the street. I
realize it *feels* like you could do 50, but with the cars entering
the road, it makes for a potential hazard.
This is true for this town, and for the cities I've lived in as well.
> >Only on limited access highways are they unreasonably low, for a
> >passenger car in good working condition.
>
> I can provide multiple counter-examples just from my local area.
You have found limited-access highways with speed limits posted too
high?
Where?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793486 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 00:50 |
|
On Feb 7, 12:08 am, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <4a749421-1161-4d12-a5ef-310dbde07... [at] m62g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
> Most people are sensible; they won't risk their own lives.
LOL. There's snow and ice on the ground around here, and I see people
doing the most stupid stuff on a daily basis.
And not just occasionally.
As a refutation, that one sucks.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793496 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 03:05 |
|
On Feb 7, 2:17 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
>
> Only on limited access highways are they unreasonably low, for a
> passenger car in good working condition.
Sure. The problem is, they're too high for the average driver.
I think 6M crashes per year are sufficient support of that opinion.
The average driver is going too fast for conditions when they take
their foot off the brake.
Nobody who is thinking would operate at 75 in a 55 to "save time" over
the average 20 mile commute.
The "average" person, even the smartest of persons, often become
complete idiots when it comes to driving.
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793502 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 04:27 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793503 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 04:29 |
|
In article
<fd530632-9ad9-4ab9-817f-a271f02baae3 [at] m62g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 12:08 am, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <4a749421-1161-4d12-a5ef-310dbde07... [at] m62g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
> >
> > Utter nonsense.
> >
> > Most people are sensible; they won't risk their own lives.
>
>
> LOL. There's snow and ice on the ground around here, and I see people
> doing the most stupid stuff on a daily basis.
Just occasionally.
>
> And not just occasionally.
Sorry, but yes.
>
> As a refutation, that one sucks.
Nope. It goes to the very heart of how we govern ourselves.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793504 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 04:34 |
|
In article
<37ad2512-3c16-4eae-8177-a3cc4284625c [at] m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gpsman [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:17 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
> >
> > Only on limited access highways are they unreasonably low, for a
> > passenger car in good working condition.
>
> Sure. The problem is, they're too high for the average driver.
>
> I think 6M crashes per year are sufficient support of that opinion.
>
> The average driver is going too fast for conditions when they take
> their foot off the brake.
>
> Nobody who is thinking would operate at 75 in a 55 to "save time" over
> the average 20 mile commute.
Nonsense. 20 miles at 55 takes about about 22 minutes. At 75 it takes 16.
So that's 12 minutes a day, 1 hour a week, 50 hours a year.
All 50 of which you can use on more interesting pursuits than commuting.
And given that lots of people commute more than half an hour on the
highway even given that they're doing 75, there's a lot of time to be
saved in the long run.
>
> The "average" person, even the smartest of persons, often become
> complete idiots when it comes to driving.
> -----
>
> - gpsman
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793507 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 04:47 |
|
On Feb 7, 10:34 pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <37ad2512-3c16-4eae-8177-a3cc42846... [at] m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 2:17 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
>
> > > Only on limited access highways are they unreasonably low, for a
> > > passenger car in good working condition.
>
> > Sure. The problem is, they're too high for the average driver.
>
> > I think 6M crashes per year are sufficient support of that opinion.
>
> > The average driver is going too fast for conditions when they take
> > their foot off the brake.
>
> > Nobody who is thinking would operate at 75 in a 55 to "save time" over
> > the average 20 mile commute.
>
> Nonsense. 20 miles at 55 takes about about 22 minutes. At 75 it takes 16.
>
> So that's 12 minutes a day, 1 hour a week, 50 hours a year.
I guess... if you live and work on a freeway, but if my observations
are any indicator, few people do.
So catching a few lights either direction make "saving" that time
pretty unlikely.
> All 50 of which you can use on more interesting pursuits than commuting.
Heh, yeah... this is a driving enthusiast group populated mostly by
people who hate driving... most because they suck at it.
I still don't get that.
> And given that lots of people commute more than half an hour on the
> highway even given that they're doing 75, there's a lot of time to be
> saved in the long run.
Eh, they could "save" as much time, or more, by running between their
vehicle and front doors, and beyond, but I don't see much of that.
Seems like driving like a moron saves enough.
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793512 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 05:16 |
|
gpsman wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:17 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
>>
>>Only on limited access highways are they unreasonably low, for a
>>passenger car in good working condition.
>
>
> Sure. The problem is, they're too high for the average driver.
>
> I think 6M crashes per year are sufficient support of that opinion.
>
> The average driver is going too fast for conditions when they take
> their foot off the brake.
>
> Nobody who is thinking would operate at 75 in a 55 to "save time" over
> the average 20 mile commute.
I guess nobody in the metro DC area thinks then, because that appears to
be SOP.
Far more likely is that your thinking skills are seriously impaired.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793518 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 06:52 |
|
In article <a92b0324-ef30-440b-89be-010425d23e23 [at] i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Hardly. If you live in any kind of urbanized area, the SL signs you
> see most are in residential/commercial areas. Even on the roads that
> seem like they could be posted higher, there are reasons for a lower
> posting. Especially in commercial areas, where there are lot's of
> driveways to shopping/warehouses along both sides of the street. I
> realize it *feels* like you could do 50, but with the cars entering
> the road, it makes for a potential hazard.
In the chicago area there are essentially identical streets with a good
number of commerical driveways etc... speed limits range from 25 to
45.... then there will be an interstate with a 45 limit or a 6 lane
arterial with no or little uncontrolled cross traffic at 45.....
Sadly anything that has been touched since the 70s tends to have the
lower limits. Oddly enough they recently raised the post-rebuilding speed
limit from 40 to 45 on an arterial near where I work. Somebody must have
died. First time I've ever seen a post widing speed limit reduction even
partically reversed... (I believe it used to be 50mph as a two lane
though)
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793520 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 07:06 |
|
In article
<aa18b6bd-373a-4ebf-a624-4bf7d6396f4e [at] v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gpsman [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 10:34 pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <37ad2512-3c16-4eae-8177-a3cc42846... [at] m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 7, 2:17 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
> >
> > > > Only on limited access highways are they unreasonably low, for a
> > > > passenger car in good working condition.
> >
> > > Sure. The problem is, they're too high for the average driver.
> >
> > > I think 6M crashes per year are sufficient support of that opinion.
> >
> > > The average driver is going too fast for conditions when they take
> > > their foot off the brake.
> >
> > > Nobody who is thinking would operate at 75 in a 55 to "save time" over
> > > the average 20 mile commute.
> >
> > Nonsense. 20 miles at 55 takes about about 22 minutes. At 75 it takes 16.
> >
> > So that's 12 minutes a day, 1 hour a week, 50 hours a year.
>
> I guess... if you live and work on a freeway, but if my observations
> are any indicator, few people do.
Lots and lots of people around Vancouver spend twice that long on the
freeway each way...
>
> So catching a few lights either direction make "saving" that time
> pretty unlikely.
You're the one who set the parameters of this and now you're backing
away.
Do you deny that there are lots and lots of people who spend at least 20
minutes each way on the highway during their commute?
>
> > All 50 of which you can use on more interesting pursuits than commuting.
>
> Heh, yeah... this is a driving enthusiast group populated mostly by
> people who hate driving... most because they suck at it.
>
> I still don't get that.
Commuting isn't the driving most people like. I realize you don't
understand that, but it's sad that you don't.
> > And given that lots of people commute more than half an hour on the
> > highway even given that they're doing 75, there's a lot of time to be
> > saved in the long run.
>
> Eh, they could "save" as much time, or more, by running between their
> vehicle and front doors, and beyond, but I don't see much of that.
No, they couldn't. Stop talking nonsense.
I visit my cousin in Kelowna with some regularity. At the speed limit,
it's a 4.25 hour trip. A the speed of traffic flow, I can easily cut
that to 3.5 hours.
That's worth a lot to me.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793592 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 02:39 |
|
On Feb 7, 7:29=A0pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <fd530632-9ad9-4ab9-817f-a271f02ba... [at] m62g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> =A0Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 12:08 am, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <4a749421-1161-4d12-a5ef-310dbde07... [at] m62g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > =A0Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
>
> > > Utter nonsense.
>
> > > Most people are sensible; they won't risk their own lives.
>
> > LOL. =A0There's snow and ice on the ground around here, and I see people=
> > doing the most stupid stuff on a daily basis.
>
> Just occasionally.
>
>
>
> > And not just occasionally.
>
> Sorry, but yes.
You were there? Odd, I didn't see you...
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793593 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 02:42 |
|
On Feb 7, 7:27=A0pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:48:52 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
> <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >That's funny.
>
> >> >Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
>
> >> What's really funny is the way you extrapolate your anecdotal
> >> evidence, pretend it's universal, and present your argument based on
> >> that fallacy.
>
> >Hardly. =A0If you live in any kind of urbanized area, the SL signs you
> >see most are in residential/commercial areas.
>
> Yes - and around here those range from 50 to 65 MPH, and some of them
> are underposted.
>
> >Even on the roads that
> >seem like they could be posted higher, there are reasons for a lower
> >posting. =A0
>
> Yeah - REVENUE ENHANCEMENT.
Speaking of disingenuous - the VALID reasons for a lower posting were
already listed - you trimmed them.
Your reason is an INVALID reason.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793594 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 02:48 |
|
On Feb 7, 9:52=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <a92b0324-ef30-440b-89be-010425d23... [at] i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Hardly. =A0If you live in any kind of urbanized area, the SL signs you
> > see most are in residential/commercial areas. =A0Even on the roads that
> > seem like they could be posted higher, there are reasons for a lower
> > posting. =A0Especially in commercial areas, where there are lot's of
> > driveways to shopping/warehouses along both sides of the street. =A0I
> > realize it *feels* like you could do 50, but with the cars entering
> > the road, it makes for a potential hazard.
>
> In the chicago area there are essentially identical streets with a good
> number of commerical driveways etc... speed limits range from 25 to
> 45.... then there will be an interstate with a 45 limit or a 6 lane
> arterial with no or little uncontrolled cross traffic at 45.....
I am not surprised by anything in Chicago.
> Sadly anything that has been touched since the 70s tends to have the
> lower limits. Oddly enough they recently raised the post-rebuilding speed
> limit from 40 to 45 on an arterial near where I work. Somebody must have
> died. First time I've ever seen a post widing speed limit reduction even
> partically reversed... (I believe it used to be 50mph as a two lane
> though)
They recently rebuilt a road here - straightened and widened. From 2-
lane to 5-lane, and kept the speed limit the same. But the road still
has some crap sightlines and places where slow faem equipment enters
and travels. The road is capable of sustaining traffic at /// speeds
for most of it's length, IMO. IF there weren't the potential hazards
hidden by poor sightlines in a just a few places.
As it stands, People drive it 55-65. Mostly closer to the SL.
There is one road that runs by a commercial district here that is
posted at 40. If they did an 85th%ile survey, the SL would be posted
35 for sure - nobody except me drives that road over 30, IME.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793595 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 02:56 |
|
On Feb 7, 7:47=A0pm, gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 10:34 pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <37ad2512-3c16-4eae-8177-a3cc42846... [at] m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > =A0gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 7, 2:17 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
>
> > > > Only on limited access highways are they unreasonably low, for a
> > > > passenger car in good working condition.
>
> > > Sure. =A0The problem is, they're too high for the average driver.
>
> > > I think 6M crashes per year are sufficient support of that opinion.
>
> > > The average driver is going too fast for conditions when they take
> > > their foot off the brake.
>
> > > Nobody who is thinking would operate at 75 in a 55 to "save time" over=
> > > the average 20 mile commute.
>
> > Nonsense. 20 miles at 55 takes about about 22 minutes. At 75 it takes 16=
..
>
> > So that's 12 minutes a day, 1 hour a week, 50 hours a year.
>
> I guess... if you live and work on a freeway, but if my observations
> are any indicator, few people do.
Wait - you replied to my bit about limitied access highways, now
you're trying to move onto surface streets with your discussion?
IME, few surface streets are truly underposted by more than 5mph.
Even 8-lane divided streets in San Diego that feel like they should
support 60 mph traffic really can't, because of the entraces and exits
all along the way.
But limited-access highways are not like surface streets at all. How
many of your 6,000,000 crashes happened on surface streets, and how
many on limited access highways?
> So catching a few lights either direction make "saving" that time
> pretty unlikely.
You don't "catch" any lights on a highway.
> > All 50 of which you can use on more interesting pursuits than commuting.=
>
> Heh, yeah... this is a driving enthusiast group populated mostly by
> people who hate driving.
I love driving. Just not in traffic jams. Don't be an ass.
>... most because they suck at it.
I wouldn't have any problem pitting my skills against your claimed
skills, big talker. Since you seem to live in the vicinity of
Spokane, lets have a bit of a challenge, shall we?
> I still don't get that.
It's called a straw man.
> > And given that lots of people commute more than half an hour on the
> > highway even given that they're doing 75, there's a lot of time to be
> > saved in the long run.
>
> Eh, they could "save" as much time, or more, by running between their
> vehicle and front doors, and beyond, but I don't see much of that.
>
I did a little test of how much time walking vs running to my car
would save. It took me 15 seconds to reach my car at a easy run. It
took me a little over a minute to reach it at my regular pace. I
saved 45 seconds. Not quite 6 minutes. Close, but not quite.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793597 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 03:22 |
|
In article
<ec300032-b412-4c10-b6e7-3c65896533e9 [at] v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 7:29 pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fd530632-9ad9-4ab9-817f-a271f02ba... [at] m62g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 7, 12:08 am, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <4a749421-1161-4d12-a5ef-310dbde07... [at] m62g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
> >
> > > > Utter nonsense.
> >
> > > > Most people are sensible; they won't risk their own lives.
> >
> > > LOL. There's snow and ice on the ground around here, and I see people
> > > doing the most stupid stuff on a daily basis.
> >
> > Just occasionally.
> >
> >
> >
> > > And not just occasionally.
> >
> > Sorry, but yes.
>
> You were there? Odd, I didn't see you...
>
> E.P.
No. I just understand human nature.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Too fast for conditions [message #793606 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 04:29 |
|
On Feb 8, 6:22 pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <ec300032-b412-4c10-b6e7-3c6589653... [at] v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 7:29 pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <fd530632-9ad9-4ab9-817f-a271f02ba... [at] m62g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 12:08 am, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <4a749421-1161-4d12-a5ef-310dbde07... [at] m62g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Most of the speed limit signs I see are proper for their location.
>
> > > > > Utter nonsense.
>
> > > > > Most people are sensible; they won't risk their own lives.
>
> > > > LOL. There's snow and ice on the ground around here, and I see people
> > > > doing the most stupid stuff on a daily basis.
>
> > > Just occasionally.
>
> > > > And not just occasionally.
>
> > > Sorry, but yes.
>
> > You were there? Odd, I didn't see you...
>
> > E.P.
>
> No.
Then you have no clue. No one ever lost money underestimating the
intelligence of the general public, and the stupid driving stunts I
see every day (and other evidence thereof) informs my opinion.
Your scoffing from 500 miles away is meaningless.
E.P.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 02:01:52 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.27135 Sekunden |
