Radar Detector Recomendation

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

Nor in Canada.

whoops.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps you should take an English comprehension course.

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.

good job you live there!

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 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.

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.

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

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.

Tegger wrote in news:Xns9A3EE8C225820tegger@207.14.116.130:

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)

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

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.

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

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.

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!