Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3EE56B84FEAtegger@207.14.116.130...
>
> Reworded:
> Driving at the prevailing speed of traffic is safe.

But, if that traffic is exceeding the posted Maximum limit, that traffic
is breaking the law. It's pretty straightforward.

> This premise is abundantly supported by readily available evidence.

None of which is applicable when looking at the regulations as stated in
the MVA.

> Do you know Latin?

No, I don't.

> Lex mala, lex nulla.

?

> Just because a bunch of guys got together and wrote some stuff down on a
> piece of paper does not mean they knew what they were doing.

It's not only "a bunch of guys" putting the regulations into writing,
it's people who know what they're doing showing othe rpeople (who obviously
don't know what they're doing) how to drive and operate their vehicles
safely with due regard for all the other motorists and pedestrians on the
roads.

> Are you a Weberian? Or a Prussian? You must be either, or both.

A law abiding Canadian, thank you. {;^)

With no moving violations since 1983, or incidents of any type for close
to two million miles.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3EE5A7C7370tegger@207.14.116.130...
>
> You are aware that exessively low speed limits are associated with
> increased collisions due to inattention?

The collisions are caused by the people (they call themselves drivers,
but are actually only people that hold on to the steering wheel and point
and go) that are exceeding the posted limit while not paying attention to
the task at hand.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"Seth" <seth_lerman@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2l6rj.133581$ST4.126221@fe07.news.easynews.co m...
>
> When you're injured or worse, who care's who is responsible? Hurt is
> hurt. I'd rather not be hurt. If the prevailing speed is 7 over on a
> particular highway, I'll do 7 over. Righteous indignation won't cover my
> ass.

A suspended licence won't pay my bills. You drive your way and I'll keep
my licence intact and productive.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:pdWdnabOO80UjzDanZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> there's a website just for people like you brian:
> sanctimoniousclaptrap.com

No doubt authored by you, Jim.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:pdWdnaDOO81bjzDanZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> see previous post. oh, and my grandmother has gotten multiple tickets for
> "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what speed she drives...

I guess she needs to move to a place that encourages people to drive
within the boundaries of the law.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YD9rj.234$qV2.216@trnddc04...
>
> As I read the law, it means that you have to drive on the right-hand side
> of the road if you're traveling more slowly than the prevailing or normal
> speed. It doesn't say you have to keep up if the normal speed is faster
> than the speed limit.

That's how it reads, Jeff. A common sense translation is probably far
too advanced for Jim to comprehend.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:mMSdnXvIFoKVtTDanZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> then you don't understand what you're reading. translated it means:
> "slugs keep right or you'll get a ticket for not keeping up, regardless of
> 'prima facie' posted limits." and my grandmother is multiple testimony to
> that.

Maybe your Grandmother needs to have her licence taken away form her if
(as you imply) she is unable to follow the rules of the road.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

In article <SuSdnV-ySu2CuDDanZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

> i one time heard rumor to the effect that some speed cops used to get
> "commission" based on their "yield". i don't think that's the case now,
> but it sure would add zealotry to their work.

It was just revealed recently that in a suburb of Detroit, cops will get
an hour of overtime for each ticket written over a certain amount.

If that's not a commission, I don't know what is.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

In article <H%grj.18392$w57.13894@edtnps90>,
"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

> > how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing
> > speed of traffic?
>
> There is no such law on the books here.

But as pointed out, there is such a law elsewhere.

What does that say about you, Brian?

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <H%grj.18392$w57.13894@edtnps90>,
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>
>>> how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing
>>> speed of traffic?
>> There is no such law on the books here.
>
> But as pointed out, there is such a law elsewhere.
>
> What does that say about you, Brian?


There is no such law in the US.

Jeff

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-ADD9FE.08461509022008@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
>
> But as pointed out, there is such a law elsewhere.
>
> What does that say about you, Brian?

What does it say about you, that you didn't know that there are no such
laws here?

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B9irj.952$qw4.365@trnddc02...
>
> There is no such law in the US.

Nor in Canada.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Dan C wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:41:05 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you
>>>> go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident.
>>>> it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is
>>>> posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from
>>>> l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95.
>>>> that's bumper to bumper too.
>
>>> More bullshit. I lived in Alameda for 6 years, and frequently went to
>>> S.F.
>
>> dude, alameda is on the 880, not 580. you're lucky to ever reach 55 on
>> 880, but if you do, you'd better be sure to keep up with the guys in front.
>
> Damn, you're dense. Do you think I lived in Alameda and never used the
> 580 in Oakland? Do you think I didn't use the 280? The 880? The 80?
> Get a clue, "dude".
>
>>> I also go to Vegas at least 6-8 times a year, and that's just not
>>> the truth. Keep trying to rationalize your speeding, though.
>
>> how odd - i drove down three weekends ago, and was barely keeping up
>> with traffic at 95 on the 15 headed into town on the friday evening. do
>> you think my speedometer was showing 40 over? can you check it for me
>> please?
>
> More bullshit. In fact that's an absolute lie. The traffic doesn't flow
> into town at 95. Just not true.

whoops.

IF (facts don't agree with entrenched position) THEN (call poster a
liar) ELSE (look ridiculous).


>
> Quit posting bullshit just to try and make your "argument" seem
> legitimate. You're a friggin liar, and a bad one, at that. FOAD.

see above.

maybe i should post gas station receipts with location and time of
purchase on them. you can use google to figure out driving distances
can't you?

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Dan C wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:42:39 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> Not driving at the prevailing speed of surrounding traffic is dangerous.
>
>>> I agree, for the fools and idiots that can't or won't obey the law and
>>> use common sense.
>
>> how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing
>> speed of traffic?
>
> That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the interstate. It
> implies that you are to keep up, but without exceeding the speed limit.

actually, it's "prima facie speed limit" - that means prevailing speed.


> Have you no common sense?

here's where you, and brian and jeff are failing in your efforts: you
should stick to challenging the idea - instead, all y'all do is
challenge the person. unless y'all are trolls looking to simply provoke
personal disagreement, stick to just challenging the idea - that way
people won't wait for you in a dark alley with a crowbar looking to get
personal back. try it - y'all may be surprised at the result. getting
facts straight in the first place helps too.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:0fGdnaZCvJnkITDanZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> whoops.
>
> IF (facts don't agree with entrenched position) THEN (call poster a
> liar) ELSE (look ridiculous).

If traffic flowed into town at 95 MPH, there would be a lot of
collisions when it reached the first traffic light and the vehicle in front
stopped (according to the law) and the people behind didn't due to
inattention and the fact that they were breaking the law.