Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Brian Smith wrote:
> "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.

eh? so what /are/ the rules of the road then? stick to the speed limit
or keep up with prevailing speed? there's a logical disconnect in your
argument.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Brian Smith wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:B9irj.952$qw4.365@trnddc02...
>> There is no such law in the US.
>
> Nor in Canada.
>
>

but there is - it was cited earlier. you guys are apparently not too
familiar with reading legal stuff. either that or you're clutching at
straws because you don't like the facts.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:NvadnbNw4cBBIzDanZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> but there is - it was cited earlier. you guys are apparently not too
> familiar with reading legal stuff. either that or you're clutching at
> straws because you don't like the facts.

Let me clear this up for you, Jim. There is no such law in this part of
Canada. What you do in your little portion of Yankeetown is of no
consequence to the rest of the world.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:NvadnbBw4cAyIzDanZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> eh? so what /are/ the rules of the road then? stick to the speed limit
> or keep up with prevailing speed? there's a logical disconnect in your
> argument.

Perhaps you should take an English comprehension course.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Brian Smith wrote:
> "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.

sorry brian, that wasn't the case. i was there. i was looking at my
speedo. we were all doing the same speed, keeping the same distance.
no accidents because there was no speed differential.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Brian Smith wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:NvadnbNw4cBBIzDanZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> but there is - it was cited earlier. you guys are apparently not too
>> familiar with reading legal stuff. either that or you're clutching at
>> straws because you don't like the facts.
>
> Let me clear this up for you, Jim. There is no such law in this part of
> Canada. What you do in your little portion of Yankeetown is of no
> consequence to the rest of the world.
>
>

good job you live there!

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Brian Smith wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:NvadnbBw4cAyIzDanZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> eh? so what /are/ the rules of the road then? stick to the speed limit
>> or keep up with prevailing speed? there's a logical disconnect in your
>> argument.
>
> Perhaps you should take an English comprehension course.

i'm simply pointing out the logical flaw in your argument. because you
can't or won't deal with that doesn't mean it's anything to do with me.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

In article <plirj.18427$w57.13062@edtnps90>,
"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

> > 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?

The discussion wasn't about the laws where you were. You said flat-out
that there were no such laws, period. Now all of the sudden you've
changed what you say to "no such laws here"?

Which is it?

You lost this one. Best to remain quiet about it.

Re: Radar Detector Recommendation
 

jim beam wrote:
> Dan C wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:42:39 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> 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.


Actually, the "prima facie speed limit" is the POSTED limit. Do a
Google search and you'll find a ton of legal references to the concept.
The traffic engineers do their studies and establish a "reasonable"
prima facie speed which is adopted and becomes the legal limit for a
given area.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <plirj.18427$w57.13062@edtnps90>,
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
> The discussion wasn't about the laws where you were. You said flat-out
> that there were no such laws, period. Now all of the sudden you've
> changed what you say to "no such laws here"?
>
> Which is it?
>
> You lost this one. Best to remain quiet about it.

Why don't you show us that there is such a law in the US that makes it
illegal to go less than the prevailing speed even if that is over the
posted speed limit?

jeff

Re: Radar Detector Recommendation
 

Say What? wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Dan C wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:42:39 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>>
> [snip]
>>> 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.
>
>
> Actually, the "prima facie speed limit" is the POSTED limit. Do a
> Google search and you'll find a ton of legal references to the concept.
> The traffic engineers do their studies and establish a "reasonable"
> prima facie speed which is adopted and becomes the legal limit for a
> given area.


the stumbling block for this debate seems to be not understanding what
"prima facie" means. in english, "on the face of it" or "on first
appearance" would be working translations.

if you're trying to make a legal case, something may have prima facie
merit to proceed, but those initial facts will be tested in the court.
"prima facie" does /NOT/ mean the case is done and dusted.

same applies to speed enforcement. there is a prima facie limit of 65
on many freeways in california. but the speed limit enforced by the
highway patrol is about 80. and that depends on the weather. bad
weather, they'll enforce 65, or lower. no such thing as black and white.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in
news:Xns9A3EE8C225820tegger@207.14.116.130:

> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in
> news:Xns9A3EC7093A7Fjyanikkuanet@64.209.0.85:
>
>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04:
>>
>>> Brian Smith wrote:
>>>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9A3E50897EBB5tegger@207.14.116.130...
>>>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set
>>>>> too low?
>>>>
>>>> My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has
>>>> been for
>>>> over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive
>>>> because of any reasons, political or not.
>>>
>>> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits
>>> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials.
>>
>> that's NAIVE at best.
>> 55mph -used- to be the National Motor Speed Limit(NMSL);before that
>> many highways were posted 70-75 mph.
>
>
>
> Or none at all. Remember those "RESUME SPEED" signs?
>
>
>
>> Were they "unsafe" before the 55 NMSL? No.
>
>
> Originally, nobody said they were.
>
> The primary impetus for the double-nickel was emissions, not "safety".
> "Safety" came later.

No,originally,the US 55 NMSL was enacted in 1974 to save gas,after the 1973
OPEC oil crisis.(embargo)
(I was wrong;it's the National -Maximum- Speed Limit)
>
> Higher engine speeds tended to wreck early pelletized catalytic
> converters. Lower road speeds meant lower engine speeds, which also
> meant gentler exhaust pulses, leading to better cat life. Hence the
> national 55.

In the US,catalytics were first used in 1975. NMSL predates that.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Radar Detector Recommendation
 

jim beam wrote:
> Say What? wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Dan C wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:42:39 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>> [snip]
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Actually, the "prima facie speed limit" is the POSTED limit. Do a
>> Google search and you'll find a ton of legal references to the
>> concept. The traffic engineers do their studies and establish a
>> "reasonable" prima facie speed which is adopted and becomes the legal
>> limit for a given area.
>
>
> the stumbling block for this debate seems to be not understanding what
> "prima facie" means. in english, "on the face of it" or "on first
> appearance" would be working translations.

Until you begin to deal with legal concepts - such as speed limits and
the setting and application thereof. Then it becomes a matter of custom
and usage and what the courts say it is.

Prevailing is prevailing; prima facie limit is the posted limit.


> if you're trying to make a legal case, something may have prima facie
> merit to proceed, but those initial facts will be tested in the court.
> "prima facie" does /NOT/ mean the case is done and dusted.

You can take the words out of context and make them say what you wish but...


> same applies to speed enforcement. there is a prima facie limit of 65
> on many freeways in california. but the speed limit enforced by the
> highway patrol is about 80. and that depends on the weather. bad
> weather, they'll enforce 65, or lower. no such thing as black and white.


Apples and oranges, Jim. If the maximum permissible speed, by statute,
in California is 65 m/h (and I don't know that it is) then that is the
speed limit. If, for whatever reason, the CHP doesn't write a ticket
until you exceed 80 m/h that does not change the prima facie speed limit.

As for enforcement of speeds LESS than the posted limit due to
conditions? Gimme a break. How many times have you seen or heard of
that happening absent a traffic crash? In such a case, assuming the
driver said "Officer, I don't know what happened. I was driving along
at about 50 m/h in this 65 m/h zone and I suddenly lost control" I
challenge you to find even one example where the driver was charged with
driving 50 m/h in a 65 m/h zone. You can find, I'm sure, numerous "Too
Fast for Conditions" (with no specific speed alleged) or "Failure to
Reduce Speed to Avoid Crash"

One other point with prima facie... you mention that it provides a basis
to proceed. Well, that's true and that basis is always subject to
rebuttal. Not unlike the 0.08% blood alcohol being DUI. That's an
absolute. If you are at or above that level, you're drunk. Period. In
the range of 0.06 - 0.079 a prima facie case of DUI can be made but the
defendant can rebut that presumption.

Speeding violations are known as "absolute liability" offenses. The
only element of the offense is exceeding the speed limit. You don't
have to know you were speeding, you don't have to WANT to speed, etc.
Do 51 in a 50 and you're guilty. End of story.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Jim Yanik wrote:

>
> In the US,catalytics were first used in 1975. NMSL predates that.
>

And required by the US in 1981. The NMSL was touted as an energy saver
and then the numbers were cooked to show how much safer everything
was... NOT!

Re: Radar Detector Recommendation
 

Say What? wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Say What? wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Dan C wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:42:39 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, the "prima facie speed limit" is the POSTED limit. Do a
>>> Google search and you'll find a ton of legal references to the
>>> concept. The traffic engineers do their studies and establish a
>>> "reasonable" prima facie speed which is adopted and becomes the legal
>>> limit for a given area.
>>
>>
>> the stumbling block for this debate seems to be not understanding what
>> "prima facie" means. in english, "on the face of it" or "on first
>> appearance" would be working translations.
>
> Until you begin to deal with legal concepts - such as speed limits and
> the setting and application thereof. Then it becomes a matter of custom
> and usage and what the courts say it is.
>
> Prevailing is prevailing; prima facie limit is the posted limit.

<snip for clarity>

so why the confusion? every argument presented so far contends that
they're the same. they're not!