Radar Detector Recomendation
#106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
In article <CMjrj.939$r03.617@trnddc08>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Why don't you show us that there is such a law in the US that makes it
> illegal to go less than the prevailing speed even if that is over the
> posted speed limit?
If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
wrote:
> Why don't you show us that there is such a law in the US that makes it
> illegal to go less than the prevailing speed even if that is over the
> posted speed limit?
If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <CMjrj.939$r03.617@trnddc08>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
> show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
>
> In article <CMjrj.939$r03.617@trnddc08>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
> show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
>
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recommendation
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:EpydnceB-YuoRTDanZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> 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!
>
>
I say we debate the PRACTICAL and not the Idealist position here.
Fact is,the police only enforce some arbitrary speed well ABOVE the posted
SL(+5 or +10),and you have NO way of knowing what that might be at any
given time. Often,it depends on the demeanor *at the time* of the
patrolling officer.
Ever since the 55 NMSL,it's been clearly apparent that the *majority* of
drivers do NOT obey posted limits,unless there's police actually present or
known speed traps.
Thus there's a "prevailing speed" (or "true average speed")of the traffic
actually present on the roadway.
I-4 in Orlando,everybody knows the usual speed is 70-75 mph for a 55 mph
posted limit. and that's IN TOWN,dense traffic!
and the hazardous effect from LLBs and rolling roadblocks(RRB?) is clearly
apparent.
It's 80 or higher outside of the urban areas.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:EpydnceB-YuoRTDanZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> 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!
>
>
I say we debate the PRACTICAL and not the Idealist position here.
Fact is,the police only enforce some arbitrary speed well ABOVE the posted
SL(+5 or +10),and you have NO way of knowing what that might be at any
given time. Often,it depends on the demeanor *at the time* of the
patrolling officer.
Ever since the 55 NMSL,it's been clearly apparent that the *majority* of
drivers do NOT obey posted limits,unless there's police actually present or
known speed traps.
Thus there's a "prevailing speed" (or "true average speed")of the traffic
actually present on the roadway.
I-4 in Orlando,everybody knows the usual speed is 70-75 mph for a 55 mph
posted limit. and that's IN TOWN,dense traffic!
and the hazardous effect from LLBs and rolling roadblocks(RRB?) is clearly
apparent.
It's 80 or higher outside of the urban areas.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
#109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recommendation
Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
> news:EpydnceB-YuoRTDanZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> 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!
>>
>>
>
> I say we debate the PRACTICAL and not the Idealist position here.
> Fact is,the police only enforce some arbitrary speed well ABOVE the posted
> SL(+5 or +10),and you have NO way of knowing what that might be at any
> given time. Often,it depends on the demeanor *at the time* of the
> patrolling officer.
>
> Ever since the 55 NMSL,it's been clearly apparent that the *majority* of
> drivers do NOT obey posted limits,unless there's police actually present or
> known speed traps.
> Thus there's a "prevailing speed" (or "true average speed")of the traffic
> actually present on the roadway.
>
> I-4 in Orlando,everybody knows the usual speed is 70-75 mph for a 55 mph
> posted limit. and that's IN TOWN,dense traffic!
> and the hazardous effect from LLBs and rolling roadblocks(RRB?) is clearly
> apparent.
>
> It's 80 or higher outside of the urban areas.
>
we have three rrb's on this thread - and they're all highly sensitive to
accidents. could it be that they get to witness lots of them, by some
strange coincidence???
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
> news:EpydnceB-YuoRTDanZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> 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!
>>
>>
>
> I say we debate the PRACTICAL and not the Idealist position here.
> Fact is,the police only enforce some arbitrary speed well ABOVE the posted
> SL(+5 or +10),and you have NO way of knowing what that might be at any
> given time. Often,it depends on the demeanor *at the time* of the
> patrolling officer.
>
> Ever since the 55 NMSL,it's been clearly apparent that the *majority* of
> drivers do NOT obey posted limits,unless there's police actually present or
> known speed traps.
> Thus there's a "prevailing speed" (or "true average speed")of the traffic
> actually present on the roadway.
>
> I-4 in Orlando,everybody knows the usual speed is 70-75 mph for a 55 mph
> posted limit. and that's IN TOWN,dense traffic!
> and the hazardous effect from LLBs and rolling roadblocks(RRB?) is clearly
> apparent.
>
> It's 80 or higher outside of the urban areas.
>
we have three rrb's on this thread - and they're all highly sensitive to
accidents. could it be that they get to witness lots of them, by some
strange coincidence???
#110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
> actually, it's "prima facie speed limit" - that means prevailing speed.
Not exactly.
Prima Facie Speed Limits:
Numerical speed limits (statutory and posted) that, if exceeded, justify
enforcement action. However, if the accused motorist's actions can be proven
to be safe, reasonable and prudent for the prevailing conditions, the charge
of speeding shall be dismissed by the court of jurisdiction.
Polfus
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B93D6B.12032309022008@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <CMjrj.939$r03.617@trnddc08>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
> show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
Why don't you show him that there is 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?
Answer: You can not.
Polfus
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <CMjrj.939$r03.617@trnddc08>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you show us that there is such a law in the US that makes it
>> illegal to go less than the prevailing speed even if that is over the
>> posted speed limit?
>
> If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
> show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
The law in question was a law that said that you had to go at the
prevailing speed limit, even if it is faster than the posted signs.
Of course, you have to stay on the right if you are not passing.
Jeff
> In article <CMjrj.939$r03.617@trnddc08>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
> show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
The law in question was a law that said that you had to go at the
prevailing speed limit, even if it is faster than the posted signs.
Of course, you have to stay on the right if you are not passing.
Jeff
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
In article <47ade10b$0$6145$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> > If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
> > show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
>
>
> Why don't you show him that there is 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?
>
> Answer: You can not.
It is the law in this state: slower traffic keep right.
The concept does not address the actual speeds in question. It simply
says, slower traffic keep right.
"Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> > If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
> > show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
>
>
> Why don't you show him that there is 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?
>
> Answer: You can not.
It is the law in this state: slower traffic keep right.
The concept does not address the actual speeds in question. It simply
says, slower traffic keep right.
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
>
>> 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.
Not quite. In PA, you cannot be convicted for go less than 10 mph over
the limit in 55 mph or slower zone, and 5 mph over the limit in a faster
than 55 mph zone.
jeff
> 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.
Not quite. In PA, you cannot be convicted for go less than 10 mph over
the limit in 55 mph or slower zone, and 5 mph over the limit in a faster
than 55 mph zone.
jeff
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <47ade10b$0$6145$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote:
>
>>>> 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?
>>> If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
>>> show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
>>
>> Why don't you show him that there is 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?
>>
>> Answer: You can not.
>
> It is the law in this state: slower traffic keep right.
>
> The concept does not address the actual speeds in question. It simply
> says, slower traffic keep right.
Yeap, that means that if you're going 100 mph over the limit, and there
is faster traffic, you have to move to the right lane.
> In article <47ade10b$0$6145$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote:
>
>>>> 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?
>>> If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
>>> show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
>>
>> Why don't you show him that there is 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?
>>
>> Answer: You can not.
>
> It is the law in this state: slower traffic keep right.
>
> The concept does not address the actual speeds in question. It simply
> says, slower traffic keep right.
Yeap, that means that if you're going 100 mph over the limit, and there
is faster traffic, you have to move to the right lane.
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:SuSdnV-ySu2CuDDanZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
> 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.
>
As far as I know, there's no official "quota", but the cops' supervisors
have a general idea what to expect when a patrolman is assigned to speed
duty. If he comes back with too few tickets, he'd better be able to explain
why.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:SuSdnV-ySu2CuDDanZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
> 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.
>
As far as I know, there's no official "quota", but the cops' supervisors
have a general idea what to expect when a patrolman is assigned to speed
duty. If he comes back with too few tickets, he'd better be able to explain
why.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:T_Kdna1IX7V1XDDanZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> 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.
The argument (which you obviously can't deal with) is that the posted
maximum speed limit is as fast as traffic is permitted to travel.
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Brian Smith wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:T_Kdna1IX7V1XDDanZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> 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.
>
> The argument (which you obviously can't deal with) is that the posted
> maximum speed limit is as fast as traffic is permitted to travel.
you have willful myopia. i've just come back from shopping, 70 in my
crx in a 55 zone. i was going the same speed as everyone else, and
guess what kind of vehicle was behind me before i turned off the
freeway? [hint: permitted != posted]
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:T_Kdna1IX7V1XDDanZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> 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.
>
> The argument (which you obviously can't deal with) is that the posted
> maximum speed limit is as fast as traffic is permitted to travel.
you have willful myopia. i've just come back from shopping, 70 in my
crx in a 55 zone. i was going the same speed as everyone else, and
guess what kind of vehicle was behind me before i turned off the
freeway? [hint: permitted != posted]
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recommendation
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:Z8mdnWuxXKXBfTDanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
>> news:EpydnceB-YuoRTDanZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I say we debate the PRACTICAL and not the Idealist position here.
>> Fact is,the police only enforce some arbitrary speed well ABOVE the
>> posted SL(+5 or +10),and you have NO way of knowing what that might
>> be at any given time. Often,it depends on the demeanor *at the time*
>> of the patrolling officer.
>>
>> Ever since the 55 NMSL,it's been clearly apparent that the *majority*
>> of drivers do NOT obey posted limits,unless there's police actually
>> present or known speed traps.
>> Thus there's a "prevailing speed" (or "true average speed")of the
>> traffic actually present on the roadway.
>>
>> I-4 in Orlando,everybody knows the usual speed is 70-75 mph for a 55
>> mph posted limit. and that's IN TOWN,dense traffic!
>> and the hazardous effect from LLBs and rolling roadblocks(RRB?) is
>> clearly apparent.
>>
>> It's 80 or higher outside of the urban areas.
>>
>
> we have three rrb's on this thread - and they're all highly sensitive
> to accidents. could it be that they get to witness lots of them, by
> some strange coincidence???
>
I'm sure they don't get your drift.....
They must be real fun to work around.
I've encountered a couple of them at work.They made work harder to do.
"oh,you can't do that....." ____ I just did,and the customer is satisfied
and happy,and is going to give us more of his business.
and when I didn't do some "don't do" things,the customers were unhappy,and
business dropped.They went elsewhere.
the key is having the common sense to know when it's possible to deviate
from procedure without harm.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:Z8mdnWuxXKXBfTDanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
>> news:EpydnceB-YuoRTDanZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I say we debate the PRACTICAL and not the Idealist position here.
>> Fact is,the police only enforce some arbitrary speed well ABOVE the
>> posted SL(+5 or +10),and you have NO way of knowing what that might
>> be at any given time. Often,it depends on the demeanor *at the time*
>> of the patrolling officer.
>>
>> Ever since the 55 NMSL,it's been clearly apparent that the *majority*
>> of drivers do NOT obey posted limits,unless there's police actually
>> present or known speed traps.
>> Thus there's a "prevailing speed" (or "true average speed")of the
>> traffic actually present on the roadway.
>>
>> I-4 in Orlando,everybody knows the usual speed is 70-75 mph for a 55
>> mph posted limit. and that's IN TOWN,dense traffic!
>> and the hazardous effect from LLBs and rolling roadblocks(RRB?) is
>> clearly apparent.
>>
>> It's 80 or higher outside of the urban areas.
>>
>
> we have three rrb's on this thread - and they're all highly sensitive
> to accidents. could it be that they get to witness lots of them, by
> some strange coincidence???
>
I'm sure they don't get your drift.....
They must be real fun to work around.
I've encountered a couple of them at work.They made work harder to do.
"oh,you can't do that....." ____ I just did,and the customer is satisfied
and happy,and is going to give us more of his business.
and when I didn't do some "don't do" things,the customers were unhappy,and
business dropped.They went elsewhere.
the key is having the common sense to know when it's possible to deviate
from procedure without harm.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Try driving the speed limit or keep it to 5-10 over. You won't have any
problems. If you're planning to drive 20+ over the limit, you are a hazard
and should be pulled over. Common sense really.
"Butch Haynes" <Butch@huntsville> wrote in message
news:RbSdnUDnXeKG2jbanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> For the rest of the year, I'll be on the interstate for a weekly 500 mile
> round trip-- and want to get a radar detector. They seem to range from $50
> on up to$500 or more.
>
> I'm not interested in over working my credit card for "the very best" one.
> Nor do I need one that gives me the cop's name and what he had for
> breakfast when he lights me up. I just want a little advance warning of
> cops in the area if the old needle creeps up too high-- real easy to do in
> my '07 Accord EX-L Sedan 6 cyl.
>
> So where's the most bang for the buck/sweet spot to buy-- and any specific
> recommendations?
>
problems. If you're planning to drive 20+ over the limit, you are a hazard
and should be pulled over. Common sense really.
"Butch Haynes" <Butch@huntsville> wrote in message
news:RbSdnUDnXeKG2jbanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> For the rest of the year, I'll be on the interstate for a weekly 500 mile
> round trip-- and want to get a radar detector. They seem to range from $50
> on up to$500 or more.
>
> I'm not interested in over working my credit card for "the very best" one.
> Nor do I need one that gives me the cop's name and what he had for
> breakfast when he lights me up. I just want a little advance warning of
> cops in the area if the old needle creeps up too high-- real easy to do in
> my '07 Accord EX-L Sedan 6 cyl.
>
> So where's the most bang for the buck/sweet spot to buy-- and any specific
> recommendations?
>