 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / August 2007Out of State Speeding Ticket
Hey everyone, I received a couple of speeding tickets in Indianna, where they are worth 4 points. My license is in Kentucky, where they are 6 points. Which amount it going to be assessed to my license? Thanks for the help! On Aug 7, 12:41 am, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > Hey everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for the help! Actually Kentucky and Indiana have a reciprocal agreement that is aimed at improving driver safety in both states. Both states have agreed to respect the points assessed by the other and as a consequence the points are cumulative. You will be assessed 4 + 6 = 10 points. > On Aug 7, 12:41 am, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > consequence the points are cumulative. You will be assessed 4 + 6 = > 10 points. Actually, I live in KY and BOTH tickets were in IN. So that would be 8 points, right? On Aug 7, 1:33 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > > On Aug 7, 12:41 am, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Actually, I live in KY and BOTH tickets were in IN. So that would be > 8 points, right? Oh, that's right - two separate tickets - double! > On Aug 7, 1:33 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Wait, you aren't saying I get the penalty from both states, are you? 4 from IN and 6 from KY on both tickets would be 20 points total. I think I would been called in to court to get my license revoked by now if that was the case. > Wait, you aren't saying I get the penalty from both states, are you? > 4 from IN and 6 from KY on both tickets would be 20 points total. I > think I would been called in to court to get my license revoked by now > if that was the case. You do realize that you're being strung along by one of the a.sholes who thinks that nobody should drive faster than he does. As for your original question, the penalty is determined by the state your license was issued. Call the department of motor vehicles in KY (or the equivalent agency), or check online at <http://www.state.ky.us> to get your answer. > drbra...@aol.com wrote: > > Wait, you aren't saying I get the penalty from both states, are you? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (or the equivalent agency), or check online at <http://www.state.ky.us> > to get your answer. Watch out for Arf... Don't trust anything he says. He is one of these idiots who actually believes we should set speed limits to the 85th percentile and keep raising it as the 85th keeps going up. He must own a body shop. >> drbra...@aol.com wrote: >> > Wait, you aren't saying I get the penalty from both states, are you? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 85th percentile and keep raising it as the 85th keeps going up. He > must own a body shop. Raising it as the 85th keeps going up is only required because speed limits have been grossly underposted for well over 30 years now in most places. But the raising isn't the way you imply. Let's take a 55mph speed limit. The first time it is corrected it might go to 70mph, as people are already driving that spedd. Now that enforcement isn't so feared people edge up a little and a couple-five years later, the next time it's corrected it goes to 75mph.... by the time it gets to 80 mph the sun has turned red and engulfed venus and earth has been baked to crisp. That's the sort of curve we are dealing with here. BTW, it's the status quo that keeps insurance companies and body shops in business. > In article <1186515043.800828.171...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > >> drbra...@aol.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Katie bar the door 'cause the Internet No Speed Limit Zealots are out of their cages once again. "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >Katie bar the door 'cause someone let me out of my troll cage >once again. That's easily fixed... ;)  Signature"It's little sh*ts like you that take my time away from my fiancee and loved ones. F*CK YOU." - Carl Rogers, 12/30/2006 Message-ID: <1167515577.811497.149300@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> > Raising it as the 85th keeps going up is only required because speed > limits have been grossly underposted for well over 30 years now in most [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's the sort of curve we are dealing with here. That is true. For example, the 85th percentile speed on WV ARC routes went up an average of 4.5 mph when the speed limit changed from 55 to 65 mph. On WV interstates, the 85th percentile speed only went up an average of 1.6 mph when the speed limit changed from 65 to 70 mph. If WV decides to raise speed limits further, I seriously doubt traffic speeds would increase all that much. "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> drbra...@aol.com wrote: >> > Wait, you aren't saying I get the penalty from both states, are you? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >these idiots who actually believes we should set speed limits to the >85th percentile and keep raising it as the 85th keeps going up. What do you mean "keeps going up?" Are you one of those idiots who think that people will always drive at "Speed Limit + n" no matter how high the posted speed limit is? Of course you have PROOF that this occurs, right? If you don't, I'm afraid I'm just going to have to diustrust everything that you say. Signature"It's little sh*ts like you that take my time away from my fiancee and loved ones. F*CK YOU." - Carl Rogers, 12/30/2006 Message-ID: <1167515577.811497.149300@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> > You do realize that you're being strung along by one of the a.sholes who > thinks that nobody should drive faster than he does. I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, Brent P., Arif and Nate Nagel (among others) are the people whose opinion is usually correct - heed their advice. SignatureNo, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono. > > drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono. Ah, yes the Internet Speed Limit Abolitionists have indeed come out of their cages. "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >Ah, yes the Internet Speed Limit Abolitionists have indeed come out of >their cages. Why on earth would anyone want a speed limit on the Internet? Signature"It's little sh*ts like you that take my time away from my fiancee and loved ones. F*CK YOU." - Carl Rogers, 12/30/2006 Message-ID: <1167515577.811497.149300@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> >"John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > >>Ah, yes the Internet Speed Limit Abolitionists have indeed come out of >>their cages. > >Why on earth would anyone want a speed limit on the Internet? I'm thinking "John S." is limited in all facets of his life. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. Scott en Aztlán: > "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > > >Ah, yes the Internet Speed Limit Abolitionists have indeed come out of > >their cages. > > Why on earth would anyone want a speed limit on the Internet? For the same reson they want speedlimits on the highways; they are control freaks who aren't happy unless they are pressing their thumb down on the top of our collective heads and twisting. :( SignatureB rotherhood of A ssholes & T otalitarian F ascists > > drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono. Yes, indeed the Internet No Speed Limit Zealots are out of their cages once again. Yes, this is the group who wants to make driving dangerous for all because they want to drive beyond their abilities. > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, > > Brent P., Arif and Nate Nagel (among others) are the people whose > > opinion is usually correct - heed their advice. I third that > Yes, indeed the Internet No Speed Limit Zealots are out > of their cages once again. Yes, this is the group who wants to make > driving dangerous for all because they want to drive beyond their > abilities. Of course, it's a complete coincidence that these people have never caused a crash. > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Of course, it's a complete coincidence that > these people have never caused a crash. Oh sure they do. In fact I suspect our would-be race car drivers are over-represented in accident statistics. > > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Oh sure they do. In fact I suspect our would-be race car drivers are > over-represented in accident statistics. It's odd, then, that I (using myself as an example, as I thought I saw my name dropped) work for a company that has very strict policies on who gets to drive a company vehicle and who doesn't. You basically have to have a squeaky clean driving record, with *maybe* one speeding ticket at the time of hire. You can't get more than "X" number of points, on their own internal points system, or you lose your company car privileges. The internal points system is much stricter than that of the state of Virginia. Perhaps you should have someone take a look at your rectolalia? I'd appreciate it, as well, if you could find one example of a post where I was clearly stating that I supported, encouraged, or even didn't call someone an idiot for suggesting that someone should drive beyond his or her abilities. nate > > > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > of the state of Virginia. Perhaps you should have someone take a look > at your rectolalia? Nathan is stretching his vocabulary by sprinkling newly created multi- syllable words in his sentences. Unfortunately unless he chooses real words none of us will be able to understand him. > I'd appreciate it, as well, if you could find one example of a post > where I was clearly stating that I supported, encouraged, or even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Maybe you are referring to someone else - I don't remember discussing anything you posted. But since you bring it up yes, I'm sure you are a perfect driver. How do we know...just ask Nate!!! LOL! > > > > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > syllable words in his sentences. Unfortunately unless he chooses real > words none of us will be able to understand him. What words are you having trouble understanding? Perhaps we can bring it down to a third grade reading level for you. > > I'd appreciate it, as well, if you could find one example of a post > > where I was clearly stating that I supported, encouraged, or even [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > anything you posted. But since you bring it up yes, I'm sure you are > a perfect driver. How do we know...just ask Nate!!! LOL! You could also ask my insurance company, my employer, or the state, only one of which does *not* have an incentive to make me appear to be as poor a driver as possible. nate > > > > > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > > > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > What words are you having trouble understanding? Perhaps we can bring > it down to a third grade reading level for you. Re-read the last sentence. Children when they are learning to speak and write engage in all sorts of inventive word spellings and sentence construction. I assume you get a private thrill when making up words that you alone understand. > > > I'd appreciate it, as well, if you could find one example of a post > > > where I was clearly stating that I supported, encouraged, or even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > only one of which does *not* have an incentive to make me appear to be > as poor a driver as possible. As I said, you are the one trying to convince everyone else...good luck! > nate- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > > > > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > construction. I assume you get a private thrill when making up words > that you alone understand. Oh, you mean "rectalalia?" Should be obvious from both etymology and context, but if you insist, "rectum" = the comparatively straight, terminal section of the intestine, ending in the anus. "-lalia" = a combining form used in the formation of nouns denoting abnormal or disordered forms of speech, as specified by the initial element: e.g. echolalia; glossolalia. > > > > I'd appreciate it, as well, if you could find one example of a post > > > > where I was clearly stating that I supported, encouraged, or even [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > As I said, you are the one trying to convince everyone else...good > luck! Not trying to convince anyone. *your* mind is already made up, and you're the only one who's implied that I'm anything but a safe driver, at least today. I'm just throwing out the evidence to the contrary so, in case it wasn't already painfully obvious, the unsupported nature of your claims could be seen by all. nate > > > > > > > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > > > > > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > abnormal or disordered forms of speech, as specified by the initial > element: e.g. echolalia; glossolalia. It must be fun to make up words on the fly. Gives one a false sense of controlling a conversation. And in you appear to get an extra special thrill out of constructing a word with a special secret reference to the rectum. You seem to have an unusual focus on the rectum, having used your made up word several times today. So you must be pretty worked up and excited by now. Time for you to troll the mens room and get some release maybe? > > > > > I'd appreciate it, as well, if you could find one example of a post > > > > > where I was clearly stating that I supported, encouraged, or even [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > so, in case it wasn't already painfully obvious, the unsupported > nature of your claims could be seen by all. Nope - you opened the thread involving your driving skills not me. > > > > > > > > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > > > > > > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > must be pretty worked up and excited by now. Time for you to troll > the mens room and get some release maybe? Actually, it is kind of fun to be literate and fluent in the English language. And I'll thank you to not bring your homosexual fantasies into the conversation. > > > > > > I'd appreciate it, as well, if you could find one example of a post > > > > > > where I was clearly stating that I supported, encouraged, or even [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Nope - you opened the thread involving your driving skills not me. Wrong again, not that I expect any less. Post 13 (at least as of the time that I'm typing this) - as listed by Google Groups, and sorted by reply - in this thread was a mention of my name by one Elko Tchernev, and post 15, which was a direct reply to that post, you stated: > Yes, indeed the Internet No Speed Limit Zealots are out > of their cages once again. Yes, this is the group who wants to make > driving dangerous for all because they want to drive beyond their > abilities. clearly implying that I was in that group of drivers that you accuse of unsafe behavior, or at least the desire to engage in same. Of course, this isn't the first time you've let the truth get in the way of a good rant. Only one question remains; do you consider yourself a troll or a k00k? Or are you genuinely misguided and ignorant? I'm having a hard time nailing you down. nate > > > > > > > > > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > > > > > > > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > language. And I'll thank you to not bring your homosexual fantasies > into the conversation. You repeated the word you find to be homo-erotic several times not me. Indeed it was a Nat original. And you are clearly confusing literacy with words made up as you go. > > > > > > > I'd appreciate it, as well, if you could find one example of a post > > > > > > > where I was clearly stating that I supported, encouraged, or even [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > driving dangerous for all because they want to drive beyond their > > abilities. How odd, you quote a general reference with no names given. But by your comments you clearly see yourself as being an Internet No Speed Limit Zealot. >>>>>>>>>>>> I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity >>>>>>>>>>>>is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > your comments you clearly see yourself as being an Internet No Speed > Limit Zealot. Because it was in direct reply to a post naming names. Or have you forgotten what you wrote only yesterday? Perhaps you should look up your post and refresh your memory. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>> It's odd, then, that I (using myself as an example, as I thought I saw >>>> my name dropped) work for a company that has very strict policies on [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > construction. I assume you get a private thrill when making up words > that you alone understand. So we take it /you/ don't understand made-up words? Then you're not up to grade three even. More like a first-grader, judging by your reasoning powers, exhibited elsewhere in this thread. >>>> I'd appreciate it, as well, if you could find one example of a post >>>> where I was clearly stating that I supported, encouraged, or even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > As I said, you are the one trying to convince everyone else...good > luck! No, in this NG you are the one that is trying (unsuccessfully so far) to preach something. Most of us here are safe ticketless drivers that drive according to road, traffic and car conditions, usually faster than the speed limit. And KRETP. SignatureNo, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono. > > > > > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > > > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Nate, You might also point out that new words always start with one person / firm / group. If the meaning is obvious and it not an clear case of mispelling, that' fine with me. On the main subject, knowing much about driving and risk-assessment, I haven't looked at my speedo in years, except for yesterday when I found I was 15 MPH above the limit and going with the traffic flow. I guess I should have slammed on my brakes and become "safe and legal." BTW, I recall hearing that the Nevada accident rate went up when they brought speed limits into being several decades ago - until then, all you had to do was drive at a reasonable speed. Can anyone confirm this? > > > > > > > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity > > > > > > > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > you had to do was drive at a reasonable speed. > Can anyone confirm this? I think you're thinking of Montana, actually, although I'm willing to be corrected. The speed limit there was "reasonable and prudent" back in the day (as in pre-gas crisis) then 55 MPH, then 65, (then? was there another intermediate step?) then at some point they went back to "R&P" again, however it was eventually legislated that the state maximum speed limit would be 75 MPH. I believe that you may be correct that the accident rate went up after R&P was discontinued although I don't have any cites handy. BTW your "15 over the limit" statement squares with my experiences here near DC, although every time I bring that up, there's no lack of people to disagree with me. I don't exceed the speed limit anymore, however, since a) my employer is a real hardass about tickets and b) that new Virginia law with the surcharges hasn't been completely overruled yet. I'm generally the slowest driver on the road, and I do feel significantly less safe because of all the shenanigans other drivers pull to get around me. I attribute my lack of "incidents" to skill and awareness, *IN SPITE OF* my obeying the speed limit, not because of it. Yes, I will boot it up to over the limit on occasion to merge and/or change lanes, simply because one HAS to, to execute a required maneuver without "cutting off" another driver. nate >> > > I second that. Don't pay attention to anything this John S. entity >> > > is writing - it is most likely wrong, especially WRT driving. OTOH, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Oh sure they do. In fact I suspect our would-be race car drivers are >over-represented in accident statistics. Posting without substantiation again? Did your parents have any kids that lived? SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. >> > drbra...@aol.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > driving dangerous for all because they want to drive beyond their > abilities. If you saw me driving at any time picked at random, you would most likely see me as one of the slowest drivers on the road. Why? Because I actually end up obeying the posted speed limits far more than everyone else. The reason I complain about the posted speed limits is because I want the law to reflect the will of the people, not the will of the control freaks. Other people just ignore the speed limit and go on with their lives. As far as no speed limit goes, I want limited access highways in the USA to be the best in the world. But to be the best, they have to pass Germany's. So long as the slow-is-safe retards insist on screwing up traffic flow we'll never achieve the highest possible level of safety sort of achieving the speed of stop from the congestion. You should drive the autobahn some day. It was the safest driving experience I've ever had.... average traffic speed was about 90mph and safer than any speed limit 55 interstate I've ever driven. > In article <1186524684.946769.160...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, "John S." wrote: > >> > drbra...@aol.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > control freaks. Other people just ignore the speed limit and go on with > their lives. What is a control freak. How is the will of the people translated into speed limits. > As far as no speed limit goes, I want limited access highways in the USA > to be the best in the world. Our limited access highways have speed limits, so I don't understand your point. > But to be the best, they have to pass > Germany's. I think it is safe to say that we are in for continued high gasoline prices and shortages. Why would we want to encourage high speed travel which by it;'s very nature results in greater fuel consumption. > So long as the slow-is-safe retards insist on screwing up > traffic flow we'll never achieve the highest possible level of safety > sort of achieving the speed of stop from the congestion. Are you equating safe driving equated with driving at high speeds? If so I don't understand the connection. > You should drive the autobahn some day. It was the safest driving > experience I've ever had.... average traffic speed was about 90mph and > safer than any speed limit 55 interstate I've ever driven. I have and it's fast. And when they have an accident it is usually horrifically bad. And it is my understanding that the EU is bringing pressure on the germans to reduce the speed because of the image does not fit in with the concept of energy conservation. >> If you saw me driving at any time picked at random, you would most likely >> see me as one of the slowest drivers on the road. Why? Because I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> control freaks. Other people just ignore the speed limit and go on with >> their lives. > What is a control freak. One who believes that his wishes should dictate others' conduct. > How is the will of the people translated into speed limits. By setting the speed limit such that less than 5 percent go more than 5 5 to 7 mph over the posted limit. When 80 percent of traffic is flowing between 70 to 80 mph on a rural interstate, setting the speed limit at 70 doesn't reflect the will of the people, while setting the speed limit at 80 does. > I think it is safe to say that we are in for continued high gasoline > prices and shortages. Why would we want to encourage high speed > travel which by it;'s very nature results in greater fuel consumption. Ergo, you're a control freak. >> So long as the slow-is-safe retards insist on screwing up >> traffic flow we'll never achieve the highest possible level of safety >> sort of achieving the speed of stop from the congestion. > Are you equating safe driving equated with driving at high speeds? Learn to read for comprehension. He said that driving in an orderly manner (which is not driving 65 mph in 80 mph traffic) is safer. Keep right, pass left, and drive with or somewhat faster than the flow of traffic. >> In article <1186524684.946769.160...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, "John S." wrote: >> >> > drbra...@aol.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > What is a control freak. Someone who thinks nobody should drive faster than he does is a good example of one. > How is the will of the people translated into speed limits. 85th percentile method. Been here long? >> As far as no speed limit goes, I want limited access highways in the USA >> to be the best in the world. > Our limited access highways have speed limits, so I don't understand > your point. Underposted speed limits lead to chaotic traffic flow which in turns reduces safety. This is apparent to anyone with a clue who's actually studied the topic with an open mind. >> But to be the best, they have to pass >> Germany's. > I think it is safe to say that we are in for continued high gasoline > prices and shortages. Why would we want to encourage high speed > travel which by it;'s very nature results in greater fuel consumption. High fuel prices are due to the lack of a free market in gasoline. It is a highly regulated business where new comers cannot appear to undercut existing players. The large corporations have a lock on the market because they are protected by regulation. They then keep capacity on the hairy edge. The speed kills types usually go with the 'if it will save one life sort of logic'. A little gasoline is certainly worth the lives saved. >> So long as the slow-is-safe retards insist on screwing up >> traffic flow we'll never achieve the highest possible level of safety >> sort of achieving the speed of stop from the congestion. > Are you equating safe driving equated with driving at high speeds? > If so I don't understand the connection. The German autobahn is faster and safer than the US interstate. Speed is not relevant if you don't crash. Germany took an approach of not crashing regardless of speed, the USA took an approach of that if speeds were kept down, the crashes would hurt less. The former has proven superior. >> You should drive the autobahn some day. It was the safest driving >> experience I've ever had.... average traffic speed was about 90mph and >> safer than any speed limit 55 interstate I've ever driven. > I have and it's fast. And when they have an accident it is usually > horrifically bad. So your basis is one of emotion, rather than logic. There are many horrific crashes at much lower speeds on the US interstate, BTW. Doesn't take much more than 40mph to have 'horrific' crash. > And it is my understanding that the EU is bringing > pressure on the germans to reduce the speed because of the image does > not fit in with the concept of energy conservation. It's the usual control freak types in action again trying whatever excuse they can muster to force other people to bend to their will. Like in Montana, innocent people will pay with their lives for because control freaks had to force everyone to obey some number they pulled out of their a.s. >>>In article <1186524684.946769.160...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, "John S." wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > horrific crashes at much lower speeds on the US interstate, BTW. > Doesn't take much more than 40mph to have 'horrific' crash. And Germany has fewer of them than the US. >>And it is my understanding that the EU is bringing >>pressure on the germans to reduce the speed because of the image does [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > control freaks had to force everyone to obey some number they pulled out > of their a.s. And, of course, conservation and safety are two entirely different concepts. It'd probably be easier to justify a lower speed limit on the basis of conservation than safety, but you'd still have to have a majority of the driving public buy into it to actually get results, which clearly isn't happening. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > In article <1186606794.149849.113...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > How is the will of the people translated into speed limits. > > 85th percentile method. Been here long? How about yourself? The 85th percentile is but one criteria. The rest you have ignored, and I have noted them for you on numerous occasions, and yet you still attempt, poorly, to forward your opinion as informed. > Underposted speed limits lead to chaotic traffic flow which in turns > reduces safety. This is apparent to anyone with a clue who's actually > studied the topic with an open mind. Duh. What if... every driver obeyed the speed limit, and left enough room to their front for a semi to merge? Would that not solve, or at least drastically reduce the chaotic flow of traffic? It would. So your so called open minded conclusion is completely clueless, as it almost always is. > High fuel prices are due to the lack of a free market in gasoline. Duh. Are you under the impression that there is a competition for the most stupid statement posted to Usenet? > It is a highly regulated business where new comers cannot appear to > undercut existing players. Duh. Newcomers don't appear because of the distribution of oil reserves, you conspiracy kook nutcase. > The large corporations have a lock on the > market because they are protected by regulation. Cite one. > They then keep > capacity on the hairy edge. Noun? > The speed kills types usually go with the 'if it will save one life > sort of logic'. A little gasoline is certainly worth the lives saved. Nice paragraph... > The German autobahn is faster and safer than the US interstate. By what measure? > Speed > is not relevant if you don't crash. I'm surprised none of the Sloth bashers haven't jumped all over that opinion. > Germany took an approach of not > crashing regardless of speed, the USA took an approach of that if > speeds were kept down, the crashes would hurt less. The former has > proven superior. You forgot to cite your proof.. > So your basis is one of emotion, rather than logic. There are many > horrific crashes at much lower speeds on the US interstate, BTW. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's the usual control freak types in action again trying whatever > excuse they can muster to force other people to bend to their will. You mean like tailgating in attempts to force people to not merge to your front? You mean like yelling at drivers from your bicycle to force them to operate their vehicles as you deem fit? You mean like insisting drivers join the herds of sheeple ignoring speed limits, in the name of safety? > Like in Montana, innocent people will pay with their lives for because > control freaks had to force everyone to obey some number they pulled out > of their a.s. You f.cking retard, you've never been to Montana, and apparently are unfamiliar with the crash data of the state. ----- - gpsman. >> In article <1186606794.149849.113...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How about yourself? The 85th percentile is but one criteria. The > rest you have ignored, You're a lying sack of sh.t. 1) I haven't 2) 85th percentile method includes setting speed limits lower where needed. The whole point of the -METHOD- is to return meaning to the number on the sign. > and I have noted them for you on numerous > occasions, and yet you still attempt, poorly, to forward your opinion > as informed. You're just a lying sack of sh.t. >> Underposted speed limits lead to chaotic traffic flow which in turns >> reduces safety. This is apparent to anyone with a clue who's actually >> studied the topic with an open mind. > Duh. What if... every driver obeyed the speed limit, You don't have that many cops. > and left enough > room to their front for a semi to merge? Would that not solve, or at > least drastically reduce the chaotic flow of traffic? You don't have that many cops. > It would. So your so called open minded conclusion is completely > clueless, as it almost always is. I don't consider a police state a valid solution to any problem. The best solution is one that doesn't involve central control. >> High fuel prices are due to the lack of a free market in gasoline. > Duh. Are you under the impression that there is a competition for the > most stupid statement posted to Usenet? It's not my fault you are ignorant of the details and get your opinions from FoxNews >> It is a highly regulated business where new comers cannot appear to >> undercut existing players. > Duh. Newcomers don't appear because of the distribution of oil > reserves, you conspiracy kook nutcase. Nothing stops me or anyone else from buying oil on the open market right now. However I can't refine it into gasoline or do anything with it because government regulation prevents it. Getting past those regulations is so time consuming there is no way to know what the market will be like when and if they are overcome. >> The large corporations have a lock on the >> market because they are protected by regulation. > Cite one. See the stories on the BP refinery on Lake Mich. in IN. >> They then keep >> capacity on the hairy edge. > Noun? can't handle a little colorful language, gpstroll? Put the two brain cells in your a.s together and figure it out. >> The speed kills types usually go with the 'if it will save one life >> sort of logic'. A little gasoline is certainly worth the lives saved. >> The German autobahn is faster and safer than the US interstate. > By what measure? deaths or collisions per unit distance traveled. >> Speed >> is not relevant if you don't crash. > I'm surprised none of the Sloth bashers haven't jumped all over that > opinion. Because they understand it's meaning and you do not. >> Germany took an approach of not >> crashing regardless of speed, the USA took an approach of that if >> speeds were kept down, the crashes would hurt less. The former has >> proven superior. > You forgot to cite your proof.. I've cited it many times in this group. When have you cited anything gpstroll? I think the word NEVER comes to mind. Here's a book on the subject to read: "American Autobahn" by Mark Rask. >> So your basis is one of emotion, rather than logic. There are many >> horrific crashes at much lower speeds on the US interstate, BTW. >> Doesn't take much more than 40mph to have 'horrific' crash. >> > And it is my understanding that the EU is bringing >> > pressure on the germans to reduce the speed because of the image does >> > not fit in with the concept of energy conservation. >> It's the usual control freak types in action again trying whatever >> excuse they can muster to force other people to bend to their will. > You mean like tailgating in attempts to force people to not merge to > your front? You mean like yelling at drivers from your bicycle to > force them to operate their vehicles as you deem fit? You mean like > insisting drivers join the herds of sheeple ignoring speed limits, in > the name of safety? Your comprehension is as f.cked up as always. You're the one calling for a police state solution. Me, just want people to keep right except to pass and pay attention instead of dilly-dallying at lights. >> Like in Montana, innocent people will pay with their lives for because >> control freaks had to force everyone to obey some number they pulled out >> of their a.s. > You f.cking retard, you've never been to Montana, and apparently are > unfamiliar with the crash data of the state. Quite familiar with what happened when R&P was replaced with a numerical speed limit. The deaths went up. That's old news, gpstroll. Cited in this newsgroup many times. On Aug 8, 10:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1186606794.149849.113...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > >> In article <1186524684.946769.160...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, "John S." wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > 85th percentile method. Been here long? An excellent way for the boys of this forum to promote ever increasing the speed limit. Ain't gonna happen thank goodness because you are in a distinctly small minority. > >> As far as no speed limit goes, I want limited access highways in the USA > >> to be the best in the world. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reduces safety. This is apparent to anyone with a clue who's actually > studied the topic with an open mind. Nonsense. It's only the immature who refuse to obey the speed limits and the uneducated who can't read the limit that cause the problem. Everyone goes the same speed and presto no problem. Choose to exceed the limit and risk paying a fine. > >> But to be the best, they have to pass > >> Germany's. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > High fuel prices are due to the lack of a free market in gasoline. What planet to you live on. The worldwide market for petroleum products is one of the most open commodities markets ever. > It is a highly regulated business where new comers cannot appear to > undercut existing players. Which regulations keep new players from the petroleum commodities market, the petroleum development business and the retail petroleum business? > The large corporations have a lock on the > market because they are protected by regulation. Which regulation protects the big unnamed corporations and how. > They then keep > capacity on the hairy edge. Really now. > The speed kills types usually go with the 'if it will save one life > sort of logic'. A little gasoline is certainly worth the lives saved. I don't get the tie-in of those two phrases, please explain how they are related. > >> So long as the slow-is-safe retards insist on screwing up > >> traffic flow we'll never achieve the highest possible level of safety [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is not relevant if you don't crash. Germany took an approach of not > crashing regardless of speed, I give up...how did Germany acheive the miracle of not having cars crash regardless of speed. > the USA took an approach of that if > speeds were kept down, the crashes would hurt less. Crashes would hurt less because of lower speed? Huh??? Ever been in an auto crash? I have and believe me a 25mph side-on crash can do a lot of damage. > The former has > proven superior. Again, realize that the autobahn does not carry all of Germany's traffic, indeed far from it. Have you seen the high-speed crashes on the autobahn - they are horrifically bad. But realize that the Autobahn is not the only way people use cars to move about in germany. > >> You should drive the autobahn some day. It was the safest driving > >> experience I've ever had.... average traffic speed was about 90mph and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > horrific crashes at much lower speeds on the US interstate, BTW. > Doesn't take much more than 40mph to have 'horrific' crash. You are contradicting your statement above where you state that the US took the route of slower speeds because they "hurt" less. > > And it is my understanding that the EU is bringing > > pressure on the germans to reduce the speed because of the image does [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > control freaks had to force everyone to obey some number they pulled out > of their a.s.- Hide quoted text - Ever driven in Montana? I have. And I remember the crosses stuck in the ground where people took curves too fast when there was no open road speed limit. > On Aug 8, 10:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: > > The German autobahn is faster and safer than the US interstate. Speed > > is not relevant if you don't crash. Germany took an approach of not > > crashing regardless of speed, > > I give up...how did Germany acheive the miracle of not having cars > crash regardless of speed. By having stricter education and testing requirements to get a license, very strict safety standards for vehicles, and, um. Germanic enforcement of traffic regulations, among other things. > > the USA took an approach of that if > > speeds were kept down, the crashes would hurt less. > > Crashes would hurt less because of lower speed? Huh??? Ever been in > an auto crash? I have and believe me a 25mph side-on crash can do a > lot of damage. Exactly. Which is why the German model works and the American model doesn't. > > The former has > > proven superior. > > Again, realize that the autobahn does not carry all of Germany's > traffic, indeed far from it. But the same mindset carries over into other roads. Also the speed limits, where present, are more likely to be obeyed because they are not arbitrarily set. > Have you seen the high-speed crashes on the autobahn - they are > horrifically bad. And yet their incident rate is lower than American Interstates. > But realize that the Autobahn is not the only way > people use cars to move about in germany. But it IS the world standard for an Interstate-style highway (although we should really call it Autobahn-style, as the Autobahnen predate the Interstate system by a few years.) nate >> 85th percentile method. Been here long? > An excellent way for the boys of this forum to promote ever increasing > the speed limit. Ain't gonna happen thank goodness because you are in > a distinctly small minority. I'm sorry that you are ignorant. Since you've been reading this group for some time you would know that what you have just spewed is totally false and proven false. >> >> As far as no speed limit goes, I want limited access highways in the USA >> >> to be the best in the world. >> > Our limited access highways have speed limits, so I don't understand >> > your point. >> Underposted speed limits lead to chaotic traffic flow which in turns >> reduces safety. This is apparent to anyone with a clue who's actually >> studied the topic with an open mind. > Nonsense. It's only the immature who refuse to obey the speed limits > and the uneducated who can't read the limit that cause the problem. > Everyone goes the same speed and presto no problem. Choose to exceed > the limit and risk paying a fine. the nonsense that maturity and obeying so called authority go together. It's quite false. Obeying a ruler or rulers is no more mature than an usually obedient two year old or a well trained dog. Maturity comes from being able to make good decisions on one's own, not relying on a government or ruler to make decisions for you. It is you sir, who needs a ruler to tell him what to do, need someone to control his actions so he doesn't hurt others, that is immature. Trying to force people to obey under posted speed limits has been tried for decades. It hasn't worked, and it won't work. A better system is needed. >> High fuel prices are due to the lack of a free market in gasoline. > What planet to you live on. The worldwide market for petroleum > products is one of the most open commodities markets ever. So you'll be opening a refinery next week to make huge profits on the current price of gasoline which is driven by a gasoline supply issue? Right? Or would you have about a decade of red tape to deal with before you could even move the first shovel full of dirt before you could even think of profiting from the current gasoline supply problem? >> It is a highly regulated business where new comers cannot appear to >> undercut existing players. > Which regulations keep new players from the petroleum commodities > market, the petroleum development business and the retail petroleum > business? I guess you haven't been paying attention to the news in the last 3 years. Not surprising. See articles on why no new refineries have been built. Then there's the whole thing about how commodities markets allow price setting by easily paniced and manipulated traders, but that's another thing entirely. >> The large corporations have a lock on the >> market because they are protected by regulation. > Which regulation protects the big unnamed corporations and how. Probably several thousand pages worth. Try to build your own refinery and find out. >> They then keep >> capacity on the hairy edge. > Really now. I'm sorry, have you been living in a cave? Why did gasoline go 50 cents a gallon? Planned repairs at the XXXX refinery reducing capacity... they keep it at the hairy edge by when they run balls to the wall 24x7, they just barely meet demand. It's business 101. >> The speed kills types usually go with the 'if it will save one life >> sort of logic'. A little gasoline is certainly worth the lives saved. > I don't get the tie-in of those two phrases, please explain how they > are related. You're willing to do all sorts of nonsense, adding all sorts of expensive things to automobiles, and control freakism to save a few lives but burning a little extra gasoline is too much for ya? >> >> So long as the slow-is-safe retards insist on screwing up >> >> traffic flow we'll never achieve the highest possible level of safety >> >> sort of achieving the speed of stop from the congestion. >> > Are you equating safe driving equated with driving at high speeds? >> > If so I don't understand the connection. >> The German autobahn is faster and safer than the US interstate. Speed >> is not relevant if you don't crash. Germany took an approach of not >> crashing regardless of speed, > I give up...how did Germany acheive the miracle of not having cars > crash regardless of speed. Read "American Autobahn" find out how they crash less. >> the USA took an approach of that if >> speeds were kept down, the crashes would hurt less. > Crashes would hurt less because of lower speed? Huh??? Ever been in > an auto crash? I have and believe me a 25mph side-on crash can do a > lot of damage. which is a big part why the whole forcing people to drive slow but allowing them to drive idiotically fails. >> The former has >> proven superior. > Again, realize that the autobahn does not carry all of Germany's > traffic, indeed far from it. Neither do the US interstates carry all of the USA's. > Have you seen the high-speed crashes on the autobahn - they are > horrifically bad. But realize that the Autobahn is not the only way > people use cars to move about in germany. US interstate crashes are Horrifically bad. We don't just use cars in the USA either. >> >> You should drive the autobahn some day. It was the safest driving >> >> experience I've ever had.... average traffic speed was about 90mph and >> >> safer than any speed limit 55 interstate I've ever driven. >> > I have and it's fast. And when they have an accident it is usually >> > horrifically bad. >> So your basis is one of emotion, rather than logic. There are many >> horrific crashes at much lower speeds on the US interstate, BTW. >> Doesn't take much more than 40mph to have 'horrific' crash. > You are contradicting your statement above where you state that the US > took the route of slower speeds because they "hurt" less. No, I am saying that the speed threshold of a horrific crash is very low. >> > And it is my understanding that the EU is bringing >> > pressure on the germans to reduce the speed because of the image does [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> control freaks had to force everyone to obey some number they pulled out >> of their a.s.- Hide quoted text - > Ever driven in Montana? I have. And I remember the crosses stuck in > the ground where people took curves too fast when there was no open > road speed limit. And your number on the sign would have stopped that exactly how? >On Aug 8, 10:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >the speed limit. Ain't gonna happen thank goodness because you are in >a distinctly small minority. Distinctly small minority? Oh yeah, he has a clue. You're right, he is in the minority. <snip> >> The German autobahn is faster and safer than the US interstate. Speed >> is not relevant if you don't crash. Germany took an approach of not >> crashing regardless of speed, > >I give up...how did Germany acheive the miracle of not having cars >crash regardless of speed. No wonder you give up: education is the answer to your question, in more than one way. >> the USA took an approach of that if >> speeds were kept down, the crashes would hurt less. > >Crashes would hurt less because of lower speed? Huh??? Ever been in >an auto crash? I have and believe me a 25mph side-on crash can do a >lot of damage. Learn how to drive, and you won't have to worry about it. >> The former has >> proven superior. > >Again, realize that the autobahn does not carry all of Germany's >traffic, indeed far from it. No, but it serves as a fine example of how safely properly trained drivers can operate their automobiles. It's in sharp contrast to what I've seen in the US. >Have you seen the high-speed crashes on the autobahn - they are >horrifically bad. But realize that the Autobahn is not the only way >people use cars to move about in germany. Agreed; high speed accidents are going to be more horrific than lower speed accidents, all other factors being equal. Here's the part where your lack of education is showing: the idea is to avoid the accidents in the first place. Through driver training, the accident rate is lower. Germans believe the best way to survive being in an accident is to avoid being in it in the first place; Americans are merely looking for damage control after the accident. Consider it this way: airline accidents are far more horrendous than autobahn accidents, but flying on an airliner is much safer than driving on an US interstate. <snip> >Ever driven in Montana? I have. And I remember the crosses stuck in >the ground where people took curves too fast when there was no open >road speed limit. Hmm. Those speed limits we've always had don't seem to be preventing those crosses from springing up like daisies around here. Reasonable and prudent means knowing your situation, and not driving beyond those limits. Exceeding those limits is the cause of accidents; not some magical number on a sign. However, that number on a sign may protect you if you're too stupid to be R&P; at least it will provide some damage control. I prefer to take the German approach, and avoid the accidents all together. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. >Yes, this is the group who wants to make >driving dangerous for all because they want to drive beyond their >abilities. You're capable of judging the abilities of others, sight unseen, HOW? Look up "credibility" and get back to us, buffoon. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. > drbra...@aol.com wrote: > > Wait, you aren't saying I get the penalty from both states, are you? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (or the equivalent agency), or check online at <http://www.state.ky.us> > to get your answer. In addition to your home state's point assesment you will now have a driving record in the other state listing you as not licensed there but with their points assessed against it...at least that is what would happen here in WA. Were you to get a lic in that state, those points would be on it (if they hadn't expired). Harry K > In addition to your home state's point assesment you will now have a > driving record in the other state listing you as not licensed there > but with their points assessed against it...at least that is what > would happen here in WA. Were you to get a lic in that state, those > points would be on it (if they hadn't expired). That is true, but it isn't anything to really be concerned about unless the OP plans to change his state of residence to IN in the near future. I know I would probably have points on my license if I were to attempt to get a VA drivers license, but WV state law doesn't record points for the offense I was convicted of in VA. > > In addition to your home state's point assesment you will now have a > > driving record in the other state listing you as not licensed there [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to get a VA drivers license, but WV state law doesn't record points for > the offense I was convicted of in VA. I believe there's another trick to a state keeping points on you even if you don't live there. If those points add up to a suspension, which is rather easy in some states for younger drivers, the drivers home state may reciprocate on that suspension. So, even with a WV license. if you get enough points in VA to warrant a suspension by VA law, VA will suspend your non-existent VA license. WV will then suspend your license due to repricity with VA, until your VA suspension is up. Of course, the only time I've known of this to come up the offender had a license in the sate for years, racking up points. He then moved just over the border, and thinking his points started over again started speeding in that state again. He got a suspension letter from that state and laughed, thinking "I don't even have a license in your state". The suspension did prohibit him from driving in that state, but he was still ok in his home state. Then his home state suspended his license due to reciprocity with the state he had all those points and a suspension in. On Aug 8, 5:18 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In addition to your home state's point assesment you will now have a > > > driving record in the other state listing you as not licensed there [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > his license due to reciprocity with the state he had all those points > and a suspension in. You can also be cited and arrested for driving in your home state on a good lic, but suspended in another state. I booked in many out-of- staters on that 'hook'. The arrest wasn't automatic, usually only a mandatory appearance ticket but not a good idea to start arguing with the cop when is writing the ticket. Only the states in the interstate compact do that and probably not all of them at that. And another more serious hook is ignoring tickets in another state. Stack up enough 'Fail to appear's and the other state can issue a warrant for arrest. Not good outside that state but don't get caught driving in that state. Harry K On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > > On Aug 7, 1:33 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I have a better idea. Instead of asking this internet group why don't you do the following: 1. Go down to the DMV show them your license and the tickets and explain the situation. Tell them when and where you got the speeding tickets and ask if they will show up on your driving record. 2. Write a letter to your insurance agent that explains in detail when the tickets were given and where. And ask whether your insirance rates will go up. > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > when the tickets were given and where. And ask whether your insirance > rates will go up. Sure, that's a great idea. If the OP has followed your advice, he has now just destroyed any chance he had of getting a break from either entity. nate > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Why should he (or she) get a break. Indeed that was my intention that the full price for such dangerous driving habits be paid. > > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Why should he (or she) get a break. Indeed that was my intention that > the full price for such dangerous driving habits be paid. Please explain exactly what "dangerous driving habits" the OP has exhibited. nate > > > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Hmmm...lets see...what could those be. Ah, yes I have it. The OP accumulated two...not one....but two out of state speeding tickets that are apparently close enough together that they have not made it to her driving record. Ipso facto dangerous driving habits. And I'm going to guess there are points already on the license. > > > > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > to her driving record. Ipso facto dangerous driving habits. And I'm > going to guess there are points already on the license. Please provide a cite that explains how acquiring a speeding ticket is evidence of dangerous driving habits. nate > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Ipso facto. > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Ipso facto. In other words, you can't. Because it doesn't exist. Now, the OP may, or may not, have been driving dangerously, but you just can't tell. The act of exceeding an arbitrary number on a sign is meaningless when a) the safest speed, statistically, at which to travel is at or slightly above the median flow speed of traffic and b) the median flow speed of traffic is usually above the speed limit. Unless you can provide a cite to disprove any part of the above paragraph, we'll have to assume that you're suffering from rectalalia again. nate > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > paragraph, we'll have to assume that you're suffering from rectalalia > again. Uh oh, Nat is trying to impress with his multi syllable fancy words again. But this time he even changing the spelling of his own made up words. Bet saying that secret word really gets you all worked up and excited doesn't it. Regarding a citation, simply consider this as proof: Ipso facto. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > Regarding a citation, simply consider this as proof: Ipso facto. IOW, you're illiterate, and you have no proof. "Because I said so" is not proof. nate > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > "Because I said so" is not proof. A little research on your part into the meaning of my proof would help your vocabulary. > nate- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > A little research on your part into the meaning of my proof would > help your vocabulary. It is clear that you yourself do not understand the words that you are using. Your "proof," which consists of two words, translates as "by the fact itself." Attempting to apply that to the statement "receiving a speeding ticket is evidence of dangerous driving habits" does not make any sense whatsoever. Thanks for playing, too bad for you that you ASSumed that all your readers were illiterate. nate > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Do you believe that a non-speeding driver can pass a speeding driver? Your answer will tell us which is more important to you: Law or safety. >Regarding a citation, simply consider this as proof: Ipso facto. LMAO. That's only proof you're delusional. Of course, the rest of your posts confirm it. :)) SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. On Aug 7, 1:33 pm, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > > On Aug 7, 12:41 am, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Actually, I live in KY and BOTH tickets were in IN. So that would be > 8 points, right? You realize that he's just yanking your chain, right? nate > On Aug 7, 12:41 am, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Actually Kentucky and Indiana have a reciprocal agreement that is > aimed at improving driver safety in both states. Since when do speeding tickets have anything to do with "driver safety"? Revenue, baby! Sock it to 'em! > Hey everyone, > > I received a couple of speeding tickets in Indianna, where they are > worth 4 points. My license is in Kentucky, where they are 6 points. > Which amount it going to be assessed to my license? More than likely, you can get an authoritative answer simply by looking at the Kentucky DMV's web site. On Aug 7, 12:41 am, drbra...@aol.com wrote: > Hey everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for the help! The question you should be asking but aren't is "do Indiana and Kentucky have reciprocity when it comes to speeding tickets." Once you find out the answer to that question, then you'll know whether or not you need to worry about the question that you did ask. The best way to find the information would really be to ask the KY authorities, but do so anonymously for obvious reasons. What you *shouldn't* do is not pay and/or fight the tickets you received in IN. A lot of states have reciprocity when it comes to license suspensions, and even if IN and KY do not, you may want to move to a state that does have reciprocity with IN someday. nate |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message