 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / February 2008Radar Detector Recomendation
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? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So where's the most bang for the buck/sweet spot to buy-- and any specific > recommendations? Use your cruise control. Then, you don't have to worry about speeding. Jeff >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> So where's the most bang for the buck/sweet spot to buy-- and any >> specific recommendations? > Use your cruise control. Then, you don't have to worry about speeding. > > Jeff Well, if I accidentally set it a little too high, the radar detector will still be helpful. So can you recommend anything? >> Use your cruise control. Then, you don't have to worry about speeding. > Well, if I accidentally set it a little too high, the radar detector will > still be helpful. So can you recommend anything? If you "accidently set it a little too high", you're a f.cking moron and deserve to get a ticket. Slow the f.ck down, asswipe, and keep yourself and all of us safe.  Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". >>> Use your cruise control. Then, you don't have to worry about speeding. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > deserve to get a ticket. Slow the f.ck down, asswipe, and keep yourself > and all of us safe. You obviously have an IQ in the single digits or else are deficient in the English language, if you can not express yourself without resorting to name calling and the use of profanities. So, in order for you to comprehend my meaning, stop wasting my bandwidth you f.cking moron. Stop the f.ck from posting meaningles, useless bullshit. DaveD >>> Well, if I accidentally set it a little too high, the radar detector will >>> still be helpful. So can you recommend anything? >> If you "accidently set it a little too high", you're a f.cking moron and >> deserve to get a ticket. Slow the f.ck down, asswipe, and keep yourself >> and all of us safe. > You obviously have an IQ in the single digits or else are deficient in the > English language, if you can not express yourself without resorting to name > calling and the use of profanities. So, in order for you to comprehend my > meaning, stop wasting my bandwidth you f.cking moron. Stop the f.ck from > posting meaningles, useless bullshit. You don't think my post was accurate, and truthful? You think it's just fine for idiots to go blasting down the highway endangering the rest of us because they want to? Is that what you believe, you ignorant f.ck? f.ck off and die, dimwit. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So where's the most bang for the buck/sweet spot to buy-- and any specific > recommendations? Valentine One! $399.00 Top rated. Buying a cheap radar detector makes as much sense as buying a smoke detector that "usually" works well but is guaranteed to work once the house is actually burning well. I have had a passport solo for several years. It is nice in that it runs on batteries and doesn't have a cord hanging. I does a pretty good job, but you still have to be fast on the brake. >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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >So where's the most bang for the buck/sweet spot to buy-- and any specific >recommendations? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So where's the most bang for the buck/sweet spot to buy-- and any specific > recommendations? Get a Valentine One. Drive with traffic in the right lane. Don't tailgate. Don't swerve in and out of traffic. A radar detector by itself is meaningless. A radar detector against lidar is meaningless. A radar detector against radar, coupled with intelligent driving, will keep you safe. > A radar detector against radar, coupled with intelligent driving, will > keep you safe. Intelligent driving by itself will keep you safe. "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in news:YjLqj.18493 $C61.11322@edtnps89: >> A radar detector against radar, coupled with intelligent driving, will >> keep you safe. > > Intelligent driving by itself will keep you safe. Intelligent driving does not necessarily entail adhering to the posted speed limit. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Intelligent driving does not necessarily entail adhering to the posted > speed limit. Not driving within the Posted Maximum Speed limit is not intelligent. >>Intelligent driving does not necessarily entail adhering to the posted >>speed limit. > > Not driving within the Posted Maximum Speed limit is not intelligent. Not driving at the prevailing speed of surrounding traffic is dangerous. > Not driving at the prevailing speed of surrounding traffic is dangerous. I agree, for the fools and idiots that can't or won't obey the law and use common sense. >> Not driving at the prevailing speed of surrounding traffic is dangerous. > > I agree, for the fools and idiots that can't or won't obey the law and > use common sense. how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing speed of traffic? >>> Not driving at the prevailing speed of surrounding traffic is dangerous. >> I agree, for the fools and idiots that can't or won't obey the law and >> use common sense. > how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing > speed of traffic? That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the interstate. It implies that you are to keep up, but without exceeding the speed limit. Have you no common sense? Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". >>>> Not driving at the prevailing speed of surrounding traffic is dangerous. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the interstate. It > implies that you are to keep up, but without exceeding the speed limit. actually, it's "prima facie speed limit" - that means prevailing speed. > Have you no common sense? here's where you, and brian and jeff are failing in your efforts: you should stick to challenging the idea - instead, all y'all do is challenge the person. unless y'all are trolls looking to simply provoke personal disagreement, stick to just challenging the idea - that way people won't wait for you in a dark alley with a crowbar looking to get personal back. try it - y'all may be surprised at the result. getting facts straight in the first place helps too. [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. > [snip] >>> That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > prima facie speed which is adopted and becomes the legal limit for a > given area. the stumbling block for this debate seems to be not understanding what "prima facie" means. in english, "on the face of it" or "on first appearance" would be working translations. if you're trying to make a legal case, something may have prima facie merit to proceed, but those initial facts will be tested in the court. "prima facie" does /NOT/ mean the case is done and dusted. same applies to speed enforcement. there is a prima facie limit of 65 on many freeways in california. but the speed limit enforced by the highway patrol is about 80. and that depends on the weather. bad weather, they'll enforce 65, or lower. no such thing as black and white. >> [snip] >>>> That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "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. >>> [snip] >>>>> That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > 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! >>>> [snip] >>>>>> That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 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. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > 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??? >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > 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. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>> [snip] >>>>> That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > 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 > 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 > how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing > speed of traffic? There is no such law on the books here. Exceeding the posted limit is against the law, no exceptions. > > how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing > > speed of traffic? > > There is no such law on the books here. But as pointed out, there is such a law elsewhere. What does that say about you, Brian? >>> how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing >>> speed of traffic? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What does that say about you, Brian? There is no such law in the US. Jeff > There is no such law in the US. Nor in Canada. >> There is no such law in the US. > > Nor in Canada. but there is - it was cited earlier. you guys are apparently not too familiar with reading legal stuff. either that or you're clutching at straws because you don't like the facts. > 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. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Canada. What you do in your little portion of Yankeetown is of no > consequence to the rest of the world. good job you live there! > But as pointed out, there is such a law elsewhere. > > What does that say about you, Brian? What does it say about you, that you didn't know that there are no such laws here? > > But as pointed out, there is such a law elsewhere. > > > > What does that say about you, Brian? > > What does it say about you, that you didn't know that there are no such > laws here? The discussion wasn't about the laws where you were. You said flat-out that there were no such laws, period. Now all of the sudden you've changed what you say to "no such laws here"? Which is it? You lost this one. Best to remain quiet about it. >>> But as pointed out, there is such a law elsewhere. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You lost this one. Best to remain quiet about it. Why don't you show us that there is such a law in the US that makes it illegal to go less than the prevailing speed even if that is over the posted speed limit? jeff > 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 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 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 > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 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. >>>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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. >> 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 >> Not driving at the prevailing speed of surrounding traffic is >> dangerous. Reworded: Driving at the prevailing speed of traffic is safe. This premise is abundantly supported by readily available evidence. > I agree, for the fools and idiots that can't or won't obey the law > and use common sense. Do you know Latin? Lex mala, lex nulla. Just because a bunch of guys got together and wrote some stuff down on a piece of paper does not mean they knew what they were doing. Are you a Weberian? Or a Prussian? You must be either, or both. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Reworded: > Driving at the prevailing speed of traffic is safe. But, if that traffic is exceeding the posted Maximum limit, that traffic is breaking the law. It's pretty straightforward. > This premise is abundantly supported by readily available evidence. None of which is applicable when looking at the regulations as stated in the MVA. > Do you know Latin? No, I don't. > Lex mala, lex nulla. ? > Just because a bunch of guys got together and wrote some stuff down on a > piece of paper does not mean they knew what they were doing. It's not only "a bunch of guys" putting the regulations into writing, it's people who know what they're doing showing othe rpeople (who obviously don't know what they're doing) how to drive and operate their vehicles safely with due regard for all the other motorists and pedestrians on the roads. > Are you a Weberian? Or a Prussian? You must be either, or both. A law abiding Canadian, thank you. {;^) With no moving violations since 1983, or incidents of any type for close to two million miles. >> Intelligent driving does not necessarily entail adhering to the >> posted speed limit. > > Not driving within the Posted Maximum Speed limit is not > intelligent. Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set too low? SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>> Intelligent driving does not necessarily entail adhering to the >>> posted speed limit. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set too > low? Good point. There's a 10 mile stretch of westbound I-20 about 35 miles east of Birmingham, AL where the S/L is 55 for no reason other than so the local cops can bag "speeders". The S/L on either side of this speed trap is 70 and the road there is wide, in good repair, has gentle curves and hills only. >>>> Intelligent driving does not necessarily entail adhering to the >>>> posted speed limit. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cops can bag "speeders". The S/L on either side of this speed trap is 70 and > the road there is wide, in good repair, has gentle curves and hills only. take that up with the feds. i understand that there have been a whole bunch of these kinds of "local economy boosters" that have been eliminated in ca and nv. apparently, there's some kind of law against arbitrary local authority speed limits, and there's a "percentage of local income" economic test applied when scrutinizing. > Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set too > low? My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has been for over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive because of any reasons, political or not. >> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >> too low? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive > because of any reasons, political or not. Nobody said you had to change anything. And hey, my license is clean too! Now that the seat belt and speeding charges have finally aged off, that is. ;^) SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Nobody said you had to change anything. I took it as being suggested. Sorry. > And hey, my license is clean too! Now that the seat belt and speeding > charges have finally aged off, that is. ;^) It's freshly cleaned <g>. >> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set too >> low? > > My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has been for > over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive because > of any reasons, political or not. What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. Or become an elected official. Jeff > What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits are > bad limits, complain to you elected officials. Or become an elected > official. I have no complaints about the speed limits. I operate my vehicles within the limitations happily watching the morons flying by, and down the road ending up beside them at the next red light. >> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. Or become an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > within the limitations happily watching the morons flying by, and down > the road ending up beside them at the next red light. You are aware that exessively low speed limits are associated with increased collisions due to inattention? SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >>> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. Or become an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You are aware that exessively low speed limits are associated with > increased collisions due to inattention? http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/departments/transportation-faq.html#3 >>> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >>> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. Or become an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> within the limitations happily watching the morons flying by, and down >> the road ending up beside them at the next red light. > You are aware that exessively low speed limits are associated with > increased collisions due to inattention? far more dangerous is speed DIFFERENTIAL;those travelling significantly slower or faster than the majority of traffic. So,Mr.Brian Smith is likely creating a greater hazard than the "speeders". SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > You are aware that exessively low speed limits are associated with > increased collisions due to inattention? The collisions are caused by the people (they call themselves drivers, but are actually only people that hold on to the steering wheel and point and go) that are exceeding the posted limit while not paying attention to the task at hand. >>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>> too low? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits > are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. that's NAIVE at best. 55mph -used- to be the National Motor Speed Limit(NMSL);before that many highways were posted 70-75 mph. Were they "unsafe" before the 55 NMSL? No. And much later,speed limits got changed back to 65-70 mph in most non- Socialist states. Traffic deaths continued to decrease. BUT,the Unintended Consequence of the 55 NMSL was that LANE DISCIPLINE was lost forever. 55 NMSL brought about the self-rightous LLB,Left Lane Blocker,and passing on the right,necessary to get around LLBs. Look at Germany's Autobahn;they have lane discipline,and higher traffic speeds. > Or become an > elected official. > > Jeff Who still doesn't have the authority to alter posted speed limits. Most SLs come from traffic "engineering" manuals. To deviate from them usually requires a legislative majority to vote to change them. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>> too low? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Who still doesn't have the authority to alter posted speed limits. as i understand it, you can post lower limits, not higher. > Most SLs come from traffic "engineering" manuals. > To deviate from them usually requires a legislative majority to vote to > change them. >>>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>>> too low? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> changed back to 65-70 mph in most non- >> Socialist states. What are the Socialist states? >> Traffic deaths continued to decrease. Traffic deaths decreased in large part because of cars that were able to protect their occupants better, as well as using safety equipment and decreasing drunk driving. >> BUT,the Unintended Consequence of the 55 NMSL was that LANE DISCIPLINE >> was lost forever. 55 NMSL brought about the self-rightous LLB,Left >> Lane Blocker,and passing on the right,necessary to get around LLBs. ROTFL. You should write to Dave Letterman. He can use it for his show. >> Look at Germany's Autobahn;they have lane discipline,and higher >> traffic speeds. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > as i understand it, you can post lower limits, not higher. That's because of laws, which are made legislators, who are elected officials. >> Most SLs come from traffic "engineering" manuals. >> To deviate from them usually requires a legislative majority to vote >> to change them. And who votes for the legislature? Jeff >>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>> too low? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 55mph -used- to be the National Motor Speed Limit(NMSL);before that > many highways were posted 70-75 mph. Or none at all. Remember those "RESUME SPEED" signs? > Were they "unsafe" before the 55 NMSL? No. Originally, nobody said they were. The primary impetus for the double-nickel was emissions, not "safety". "Safety" came later. Higher engine speeds tended to wreck early pelletized catalytic converters. Lower road speeds meant lower engine speeds, which also meant gentler exhaust pulses, leading to better cat life. Hence the national 55. It just so happened the cops discovered the new lower speed limits (which had largely been reduced from those that a given road had originally been designed for) meant an embarrassment of riches in "speeding" fines, since people tended to drive at speeds they felt safe at, which usually coincided with the speed the road was designed for. The police to this very day are the very biggest boosters of speed limits and enforcement. What was it Ross Perot used to say? "Follow the money!" SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>>> too low? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > The police to this very day are the very biggest boosters of speed > limits and enforcement. 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. > What was it Ross Perot used to say? "Follow the money!" > i one time heard rumor to the effect that some speed cops used to get > "commission" based on their "yield". i don't think that's the case now, > but it sure would add zealotry to their work. It was just revealed recently that in a suburb of Detroit, cops will get an hour of overtime for each ticket written over a certain amount. If that's not a commission, I don't know what is. > 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. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>>> too low? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > meant gentler exhaust pulses, leading to better cat life. Hence the > national 55. That's not it either. It was to save fuel during gas crisis of the '70s. Catalytic converters didn't become common until later, I think the early 80s, although I am not sure. I think unleaded gasoline was phased in during the '70s, but that was because the health hazards of lead. For a long time, you could get both unleaded and leaded fuel at the same pumps (but different hoses - the unleaded gasoline nozzle was thinner as was the hole the nozzle went into, so that you were unlikely to put leaded gasoline into cars that required unleaded gas for the converters). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law There is no longer a national speed law. > It just so happened the cops discovered the new lower speed limits > (which had largely been reduced from those that a given road had [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The police to this very day are the very biggest boosters of speed > limits and enforcement. Well they and rescue squads. > What was it Ross Perot used to say? "Follow the money!" >>>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>>> too low? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The primary impetus for the double-nickel was emissions, not "safety". > "Safety" came later. No,originally,the US 55 NMSL was enacted in 1974 to save gas,after the 1973 OPEC oil crisis.(embargo) (I was wrong;it's the National -Maximum- Speed Limit) > Higher engine speeds tended to wreck early pelletized catalytic > converters. Lower road speeds meant lower engine speeds, which also > meant gentler exhaust pulses, leading to better cat life. Hence the > national 55. In the US,catalytics were first used in 1975. NMSL predates that. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > In the US,catalytics were first used in 1975. NMSL predates that. And required by the US in 1981. The NMSL was touted as an energy saver and then the numbers were cooked to show how much safer everything was... NOT! >> Intelligent driving does not necessarily entail adhering to the posted >> speed limit. > > Not driving within the Posted Maximum Speed limit is not intelligent. around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. >> Not driving within the Posted Maximum Speed limit is not intelligent. > around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would > cause a 50 vehicle pile-up Bullshit. Poor attempt at rationalization. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". >>> Not driving within the Posted Maximum Speed limit is not intelligent. > >> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up > > Bullshit. Poor attempt at rationalization. sorry dude, it's not bullshit. you're just so enraged in your argument with dave, you're not thinking straight. come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95. that's bumper to bumper too. >>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up >> Bullshit. Poor attempt at rationalization. > sorry dude, it's not bullshit. you're just so enraged in your argument > with dave, you're not thinking straight. Wrong. I'm not "enraged" about anything. You apparently are, which may explain your need to speed on the highways. It's called "road rage". > come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you > go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. > it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is > posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from > l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95. > that's bumper to bumper too. More bullshit. I lived in Alameda for 6 years, and frequently went to S.F. I also go to Vegas at least 6-8 times a year, and that's just not the truth. Keep trying to rationalize your speeding, though. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". >>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Wrong. I'm not "enraged" about anything. You apparently are, which may > explain your need to speed on the highways. It's called "road rage". Speeding is not road rage. Some people are quite calm at 10+ over the limit. Speeding is speeding. Driving angry as a result of something another driver did or you perceive they did, is road rage. >> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you >> go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > S.F. I also go to Vegas at least 6-8 times a year, and that's just not > the truth. Keep trying to rationalize your speeding, though. I can't speak to those roads, but I-80 in NJ, if you're not keeping up with traffic you are causing a problem. > I can't speak to those roads, but I-80 in NJ, if you're not keeping up > with traffic you are causing a problem. I-80 NJ to OH, same story. Anyone at 65 is a rolling roadblock. >>>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit >>>>> would cause a 50 vehicle pile-up [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > limit. Speeding is speeding. Driving angry as a result of something > another driver did or you perceive they did, is road rage. "speeding" is usually just ignoring an arbitrary number painted on a road sign. No actual relation to road safety.In many urban areas,sticking to the speed limit actually makes things MORE unsafe.It causes traffic to bunch up.That's more unsafe than the "speeding". I suspect "Dan C." speeds too. ONE mph over the SL -IS- "speeding". >>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if >>> you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> just not the truth. Keep trying to rationalize your speeding, >> though. Even police speed,both on-duty and off-duty,even when not needed for work purposes. > I can't speak to those roads, but I-80 in NJ, if you're not keeping up > with traffic you are causing a problem. Hairballs in the throat of traffic. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Wrong. I'm not "enraged" about anything. You apparently are, which may > explain your need to speed on the highways. It's called "road rage". you're projecting there dan because what you describe is not what i'm experiencing. you might want to see a therapist about that. > >> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > More bullshit. I lived in Alameda for 6 years, and frequently went to > S.F. dude, alameda is on the 880, not 580. you're lucky to ever reach 55 on 880, but if you do, you'd better be sure to keep up with the guys in front. > I also go to Vegas at least 6-8 times a year, and that's just not > the truth. Keep trying to rationalize your speeding, though. how odd - i drove down three weekends ago, and was barely keeping up with traffic at 95 on the 15 headed into town on the friday evening. do you think my speedometer was showing 40 over? can you check it for me please? >>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you >>> go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. >>> it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is >>> posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from >>> l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95. >>> that's bumper to bumper too. >> More bullshit. I lived in Alameda for 6 years, and frequently went to >> S.F. > dude, alameda is on the 880, not 580. you're lucky to ever reach 55 on > 880, but if you do, you'd better be sure to keep up with the guys in front. Damn, you're dense. Do you think I lived in Alameda and never used the 580 in Oakland? Do you think I didn't use the 280? The 880? The 80? Get a clue, "dude". >> I also go to Vegas at least 6-8 times a year, and that's just not >> the truth. Keep trying to rationalize your speeding, though. > how odd - i drove down three weekends ago, and was barely keeping up > with traffic at 95 on the 15 headed into town on the friday evening. do > you think my speedometer was showing 40 over? can you check it for me > please? More bullshit. In fact that's an absolute lie. The traffic doesn't flow into town at 95. Just not true. Quit posting bullshit just to try and make your "argument" seem legitimate. You're a friggin liar, and a bad one, at that. FOAD. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". >>>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you >>>> go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > More bullshit. In fact that's an absolute lie. The traffic doesn't flow > into town at 95. Just not true. whoops. IF (facts don't agree with entrenched position) THEN (call poster a liar) ELSE (look ridiculous). > Quit posting bullshit just to try and make your "argument" seem > legitimate. You're a friggin liar, and a bad one, at that. FOAD. see above. maybe i should post gas station receipts with location and time of purchase on them. you can use google to figure out driving distances can't you? > whoops. > > IF (facts don't agree with entrenched position) THEN (call poster a > liar) ELSE (look ridiculous). If traffic flowed into town at 95 MPH, there would be a lot of collisions when it reached the first traffic light and the vehicle in front stopped (according to the law) and the people behind didn't due to inattention and the fact that they were breaking the law. >> whoops. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stopped (according to the law) and the people behind didn't due to > inattention and the fact that they were breaking the law. sorry brian, that wasn't the case. i was there. i was looking at my speedo. we were all doing the same speed, keeping the same distance. no accidents because there was no speed differential. > come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you go > much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. it's 4 > lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is posted > 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from l.a. on a > friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95. that's bumper > to bumper too. I'm sorry Jim, but someone obeying the law is not the one responsible (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). The ones responsible for the collision(s) are the people who aren't willing to obey the law. On 2/8/08 5:09 PM, in article ki5rj.18760$C61.16113@edtnps89, "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote: >> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you go >> much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. it's 4 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). The ones responsible > for the collision(s) are the people who aren't willing to obey the law. I think I smell one of those guys who camp out in the passing lane self-righteously driving exactly the speed limit, forming a rolling roadblock for everyone behind them. Used to be a lot of that during the 55 mph days. Less now, but still a few left. Texas passed a "road-rage" law a few years ago that includes a $200 fine for camping out in the passing lane. Regardless of your speed, if you are passed on the right, you have committed the violation. The reason for this: in some cases the one driving the speed limit was the one responsible for causing the collision. >> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you go >> much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > responsible for the collision(s) are the people who aren't willing to obey > the law. When you're injured or worse, who care's who is responsible? Hurt is hurt. I'd rather not be hurt. If the prevailing speed is 7 over on a particular highway, I'll do 7 over. Righteous indignation won't cover my a.s. > When you're injured or worse, who care's who is responsible? Hurt is > hurt. I'd rather not be hurt. If the prevailing speed is 7 over on a > particular highway, I'll do 7 over. Righteous indignation won't cover my > a.s. A suspended licence won't pay my bills. You drive your way and I'll keep my licence intact and productive. >> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you go >> much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. it's 4 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). The ones responsible > for the collision(s) are the people who aren't willing to obey the law. there's a website just for people like you brian: sanctimoniousclaptrap.com >>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if >>> you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > there's a website just for people like you brian: sanctimoniousclaptrap.com I looked for the site. It doesn't exist. However, you're able to make it your own site, if you want. Jeff >>>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if >>>> you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I looked for the site. It doesn't exist. are you serious??? did you really do that??? > However, you're able to make it > your own site, if you want. > > Jeff jeff, you need help. >>>>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if >>>>> you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > jeff, you need help. Gee, it takes 2 sec. And you never know what people put there. Jeff >>>>>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if >>>>>> you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Jeff jeepers, you're the kind of guy that would get stuck all day with a milk carton that reads "open other end" on the bottom and "see other end for instructions" on the top. > there's a website just for people like you brian: > sanctimoniousclaptrap.com No doubt authored by you, Jim. > around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would cause > a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. Not for the morons that won't obey the law, it isn't. >> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would cause >> a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. > > Not for the morons that won't obey the law, it isn't. see previous post. oh, and my grandmother has gotten multiple tickets for "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what speed she drives... >>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what speed she > drives... Let's see the tickets where it says that. >>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Let's see the tickets where it says that. she's 600 miles away and i don't get tickets like that, so forgive my laziness if i don't head on down there just because you can't be bothered to look up something simple like ca vehicle code 21654(a). now, you go ahead and tell me your state doesn't have an equivalent. >>>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > now, you go ahead and tell me your state doesn't have an equivalent. Florida tried to enact such an anti-LLB law and the stupid governor vetoed it. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Florida tried to enact such an anti-LLB law and the stupid governor vetoed > it. someone like our self-appointed internet speed cop contributed $5 to his reelection fund, on condition he did that. >>>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > now, you go ahead and tell me your state doesn't have an equivalent. The law: "21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway." <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file =21650-21664> As I read the law, it means that you have to drive on the right-hand side of the road if you're traveling more slowly than the prevailing or normal speed. It doesn't say you have to keep up if the normal speed is faster than the speed limit. Jeff >>>>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit >>>>>> would cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Jeff then you don't understand what you're reading. translated it means: "slugs keep right or you'll get a ticket for not keeping up, regardless of 'prima facie' posted limits." and my grandmother is multiple testimony to that. now you go ahead and figure out what prima facie speed limits mean. > then you don't understand what you're reading. translated it means: > "slugs keep right or you'll get a ticket for not keeping up, regardless of > 'prima facie' posted limits." and my grandmother is multiple testimony to > that. Maybe your Grandmother needs to have her licence taken away form her if (as you imply) she is unable to follow the rules of the road. >> then you don't understand what you're reading. translated it means: >> "slugs keep right or you'll get a ticket for not keeping up, regardless of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Maybe your Grandmother needs to have her licence taken away form her if > (as you imply) she is unable to follow the rules of the road. eh? so what /are/ the rules of the road then? stick to the speed limit or keep up with prevailing speed? there's a logical disconnect in your argument. > eh? so what /are/ the rules of the road then? stick to the speed limit > or keep up with prevailing speed? there's a logical disconnect in your > argument. Perhaps you should take an English comprehension course. >> eh? so what /are/ the rules of the road then? stick to the speed limit >> or keep up with prevailing speed? there's a logical disconnect in your >> argument. > > Perhaps you should take an English comprehension course. i'm simply pointing out the logical flaw in your argument. because you can't or won't deal with that doesn't mean it's anything to do with me. > 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. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message