Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / June 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Towing, period

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ken Harrison - 06 Jun 2006 05:55 GMT
All this talk of what vehicle can tow how much weight for what distance
at how many MPH leads me to this remark: California law limits ANY
vehicle towing ANYTHING to 55MPH.  That's why one sees 99% of the trucks
not exceeding about 62MPH, even on I-5.

I am forever frightened by people who tow at 75MPH.  I note that many of
them are totally unaware of the fishtailing generated behind them.  And
think of the enormously increased stopping distance in the event of an
emergency.  This law is not made to be obstreperous; it is made for safety.

I realize that when one tows across Arizona, nobody seems to give a damn
about this (and the "speed limit" reflects this "concern"), but please,
when you come to California, don't speed and tow.  If you prefer not to
offer some acquiescence to the law, there are many ways to avoid us
entirely.

Again; towing at high speeds is unsafe.

Ken H
miles - 06 Jun 2006 06:19 GMT
> All this talk of what vehicle can tow how much weight for what distance
> at how many MPH leads me to this remark: California law limits ANY
> vehicle towing ANYTHING to 55MPH.  That's why one sees 99% of the trucks
> not exceeding about 62MPH, even on I-5.

I don't think I have seen many truckers traveling in California under
70mph unless in city or up mountain grades.  I just came back from
California traveling I-15 between San Diego and Riverside then I-10 to
Phoenix.  I drive those and other California highways many times each
year.  Truckers traveling 55-60mph is rare.

> I am forever frightened by people who tow at 75MPH.  I note that many of
> them are totally unaware of the fishtailing generated behind them.  And
> think of the enormously increased stopping distance in the event of an
> emergency.  This law is not made to be obstreperous; it is made for safety.

The tow vehicle, trailer, hitch etc. have a lot to do with it.  If there
is fishtailing going on then somethings wrong and speed is most likely
not the cause but certainly the two don't mix.

> Again; towing at high speeds is unsafe.

Everyone has their own opinion as to whats unsafe.  Some people view
driving at 75mph to be unsafe.  In Arizona the speed limit was lowered
from 65mph to 55mph whether towing or not.  It is now 75mph while
California is 70mph unless in city or mountainous regions etc.

Whats unsafe is the attitude of many California drivers.  Need to change
lanes?  Forget about using your turn signal.  That just tells the person
behind in the next lane to speed up and close you out.  California has
some of the fastest drivers I have seen anywhere.  Last week on I-15,
I-10 and highway 91 70mph would be among the slower drivers easily.

I tend to tow at 65-70mph if on flat ground with little traffic and no
wind.  It really depends on road, traffic conditions as well as what I'm
towing and what I'm towing with.
Bob V - 06 Jun 2006 06:52 GMT
: All this talk of what vehicle can tow how much weight for what distance
: at how many MPH leads me to this remark: California law limits ANY
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
:
: Again; towing at high speeds is unsafe.

Just completed a trip from one end of California to the other in a 32' class
A towing a Jeep Cherokee.  I was running 60 -62 mph on the interstates.
18-wheelers, and just about everyone else for that matter, were blowing by
me.

Riverside to Las Vegas was even better.  Trucks had to be doing at least 75
mph.
MoParMaN - 06 Jun 2006 23:03 GMT
> All this talk of what vehicle can tow how much weight for what distance at
> how many MPH leads me to this remark: California law limits ANY vehicle
> towing ANYTHING to 55MPH.  That's why one sees 99% of the trucks not
> exceeding about 62MPH, even on I-5.
>
> I am forever frightened by people who tow at 75MPH.

I towed at 85 on I-40 and I-30 Sunday. Yanking a 14000 pound 5th wheeler
behind me with my Dodge 2005 Ram 3500 Heavy Duty Dually 600 series truck.
(BART-Big Assed Red Truck).  I even had the over drive on and cruise
control.  I still got run off the road by the 18 wheelers heading to Dallas.

Signature

MoParMaN---Remove Clothes To Reply!
--SCUD Coordinates 32.61204 North: 96.92993 West--

Unk - 10 Jun 2006 00:18 GMT
If true, you are a homicidal maniac and I would hope you kill yourself
before you kill others.  But, I think you are a liar!

.

>I towed at 85 on I-40 and I-30 Sunday. Yanking a 14000 pound 5th wheeler
>behind me with my Dodge 2005 Ram 3500 Heavy Duty Dually 600 series truck.
>(BART-Big Assed Red Truck).  I even had the over drive on and cruise
>control.  I still got run off the road by the 18 wheelers heading to Dallas.
Will Sill - 10 Jun 2006 12:56 GMT
"MoParMaN" <scott.hendryx.clothes@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>I towed at 85 on I-40 and I-30 Sunday. Yanking a 14000 pound 5th wheeler
>>behind me with my Dodge 2005 Ram 3500 Heavy Duty Dually 600 series truck.
>>(BART-Big Assed Red Truck).  I even had the over drive on and cruise
>>control.  I still got run off the road by the 18 wheelers heading to Dallas.

Unk <bad_ars@whiz.com> contributed:
>If true, you are a homicidal maniac and I would hope you kill yourself
>before you kill others.  But, I think you are a liar!

Tho MoParMaN certainly appears to be several kinds of a moron, he is
probably telling the truth this time.  Virtually anywhere on the
interstate system one can see a few very heavy rigs going very very
fast.  Not just self-important twits with dooly pickups (on or over
the ragged edge on GCWR), but big-bellied potentates dragging
Escalades behind their Bulgemobiles.   Oblivious of the risks of a
good gust of wind or an unexpected traffic backup, they apparently
think (?) that they oughta be able to run with the Beemers and Benzes.

Will Sill
The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
wwemu@cwnet.com - 10 Jun 2006 15:42 GMT
Not just self-important twits with dooly pickups (on or over
>the ragged edge on GCWR), but big-bellied potentates dragging
>Escalades behind their Bulgemobiles.   Oblivious of the risks of a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Will Sill
>The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill

Will,

Are you trying to describe ME???   While we did downsize (from a 42',
53,000# rig to a 40', 38,000# rig) I am still a DEVOUT coward. Even
though both rigs were/are capable of much greater speeds, we normally
drive at 55 - 60. Fuel is a consideration but comfort is more
important.

BTW, the new rig is an '06 Alpine Apex (40'. 4 slides) towing a '94
Caddy Fleetwood. IMHO, it is a much better vehicle than the Escalade
or any of the newer vehicles....

George
Will Sill - 10 Jun 2006 21:12 GMT
I see where wwemu@cwnet.com contributed:

Will:
> Not just self-important twits with dooly pickups (on or over
>>the ragged edge on GCWR), but big-bellied potentates dragging
>>Escalades behind their Bulgemobiles.   Oblivious of the risks of a
>>good gust of wind or an unexpected traffic backup, they apparently
>>think (?) that they oughta be able to run with the Beemers and Benzes.

Geo:
>Will,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Caddy Fleetwood. IMHO, it is a much better vehicle than the Escalade
>or any of the newer vehicles....

SInce you asked, I gave some serious thought to how my remarks would
be taken.  No, I was NOT writing with you in mind.

You are one of the few regulars here who have demonstrated excellent
sense about what kind of rv is roadworthy. I specifically made no
reference to the conversion bus class of rv - one of very few capable
of reasonably safe operation at top freeway speeds IMO.

Will Sill
The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
wwemu@cwnet.com - 11 Jun 2006 01:09 GMT
>I see where wwemu@cwnet.com contributed:

>>Are you trying to describe ME???   While we did downsize (from a 42',
>>53,000# rig to a 40', 38,000# rig) I am still a DEVOUT coward. Even
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>Will Sill
>The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill

I'm sorry, Will - I forgot to add the smiley face. FWIW, I finally had
to leave the bus chassis to keep the little woman happy. Couldn't find
anything with the space she wanted on a bus chassis. The Apex drives
as well or maybe better than either of the bus rigs we had. WRV makes
their own chassis, each designed for the specific coach. So far we
have been very happy with it. Especially since we have gone full time
and got rid of the farm....

George
GBinNC - 16 Jun 2006 01:14 GMT
>BTW, the new rig is an '06 Alpine Apex (40'. 4 slides) towing a '94
>Caddy Fleetwood. IMHO, it is a much better vehicle than the Escalade
>or any of the newer vehicles....

What happened to the El Camino?

GB in NC
wwemu@cwnet.com - 16 Jun 2006 05:39 GMT
>>BTW, the new rig is an '06 Alpine Apex (40'. 4 slides) towing a '94
>>Caddy Fleetwood. IMHO, it is a much better vehicle than the Escalade
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>GB in NC

We still have it - own it at least. It is at my SIL's shop in
Sacramento with a for sale sign on it.  Interested?

George
GBinNC - 16 Jun 2006 05:49 GMT
>>What happened to the El Camino?
>>
>>GB in NC

>We still have it - own it at least. It is at my SIL's shop in
>Sacramento with a for sale sign on it.  Interested?

No, not at all (sorry <g>). I was just curious.

I saw one the other day and thought about yours. Then you mentioned a
different toad and I just wondered about the EC.

Hope all is well with you.

GB in NC
wwemu@cwnet.com - 16 Jun 2006 14:49 GMT
>>>What happened to the El Camino?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>GB in NC

We're doing great! Heading up to the factory in Yakima to get some
warranty problems taken care of. Then to Pigeon Forge, TN to attend
the IRV2.com rally in mid July for a week. Visiting relatives before
going to the FMCA International Convention at Lowes Motor Speedway in
Charlotte in mid - Aug. Then heading for a meeting in Hanford, CA in
mid September. Then probably to Gila Bend, AZ for the winter.

Maybe you guys can make it to Charlotte for the FMCA thingy. It is
usually pretty good.

George
GBinNC - 16 Jun 2006 15:27 GMT
>>Hope all is well with you.
>>
>>GB in NC

>Maybe you guys can make it to Charlotte for the FMCA thingy. It is
>usually pretty good.

Only two problems with that. One is that we're really not FMCA material
(Class B), and the other is that we mostly try to avoid crowds when we
travel. So I doubt we'll see you there. But thanks for the suggestion.

It's always possible we could hook up somewhere for a hello before or
after, while you're in the state. And of course you'd be welcome to
overnight here any time, but we're about 65 miles east of the speedway
and you probably aren't headed this way. (You may remember that we no
longer live in the mountains near where we met before.)

GB in NC
wwemu@cwnet.com - 16 Jun 2006 16:14 GMT
>>>Hope all is well with you.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>(Class B), and the other is that we mostly try to avoid crowds when we
>travel. So I doubt we'll see you there. But thanks for the suggestion.

Au Contraire - A class B meets the requirements for FMCA. The benefits
are great.  Check out <www.fmca.com>

>It's always possible we could hook up somewhere for a hello before or
>after, while you're in the state. And of course you'd be welcome to
>overnight here any time, but we're about 65 miles east of the speedway
>and you probably aren't headed this way. (You may remember that we no
>longer live in the mountains near where we met before.)

I knew that you had moved but didn't realize that you had to "get out
of town".  8-)  August is a bit off. We'll see what we can do.....

George

>GB in NC
wwemu@cwnet.com - 16 Jun 2006 16:16 GMT
>>>Hope all is well with you.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>(Class B), and the other is that we mostly try to avoid crowds when we
>travel. So I doubt we'll see you there. But thanks for the suggestion.

Au Contraire - A Class B meets FMCA requirements. Check out
<www.fmca.com>

>It's always possible we could hook up somewhere for a hello before or
>after, while you're in the state. And of course you'd be welcome to
>overnight here any time, but we're about 65 miles east of the speedway
>and you probably aren't headed this way. (You may remember that we no
>longer live in the mountains near where we met before.)

I knew you had moved but didn't realize that you had to "get so far
out of town".  8-)  Aug is a bit off - we'll see what we can do...

George
>GB in NC
William Boyd - 18 Jun 2006 06:43 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>GB in NC
>  

GB you know the El Camino was a car in pickup descise. Last time I was
involved with one of those was in the Philippines. We were leaving the
base for a weekend at our off base quarters and they locked the main
gate due to the NCO Club being robbed. So we sat with the booze ration
destined for the home compound. What do you do lay down in the bed of
the El Camino and have a few drinks. By the time the robbery was over
and the base gates were open I'm not sure who drove home.

Signature

BILL P.
Just
Me
&
DOG

RonB - 07 Jun 2006 01:15 GMT
With all due respect, I cannot imagine towing a fishtailing trailer and any
speed, especially 75 MPH, without knowing it.  Safe speed depends on the way
the trailer and tow vehicle are set up, driver skill and road conditions (to
mention a few factors).  I do, however agree that pulling nearly any TT at
75 is over the edge.

Might not be so agreeable about 65 MPH with a well balanced 5th wheel and
tow vehicle.

RonB
RonB - 07 Jun 2006 01:16 GMT
BTW - did I detect some anti-RV sentiment in you message?  If so, why hang
out here in the first place?

RonB
Eregon - 07 Jun 2006 04:43 GMT
> BTW - did I detect some anti-RV sentiment in you message?  If so, why
> hang out here in the first place?
>
> RonB

Some just like to TROLL a bit now and then. <EG>

Signature

Quotations from Tom Gorrell:

"A wing nut without a left or right is just a nut.  Which best describes
me"
"I'm sorry about the erratic weather and must admit it's been caused by the
pinko commie Clinton & Reno supporters."
"I am hiding nothing, other than the fact that I'm homosexual."

Quotation from the Graphic Queer: "I have always advocated the death of the
human being and I see that I was right all along. This earth will be so
much better off once we are no longer part of the mix."

Will Sill - 07 Jun 2006 11:36 GMT
I see where "RonB" <rbrogan@cox.net> contributed, without any
indication of who or what he was responding to::

>BTW - did I detect some anti-RV sentiment in you message?  If so, why hang
>out here in the first place?

Many of your comments seem useful, but you might want to try observing
these posting tips:

Here is some free advice:

1) Begin by identifying to WHOM you are responding. Most decent
  newsreaders can be set to do that automatically.

2) Next, QUOTE the relevant portion of the text from the post you're
  addressing.   The normal convention is to start each quoted line
  with the ">", as I did above.  This is also an automatic feature of
  a good newsreader.  (I use Agent and recommend it)

3) Now SNIP (delete, omit, edit out) all irrelevant crap.
  Even your own.

4) Below the preceding, provide your brilliant comments.  
  Pithy is better than verbose, even though some idjits think
  quality means quantity.

5) Finally sign with a real name.  Witty/wise sig lines optional

.................

The above lesson provided free of charge.   FYI it is also a
litmus test for morons:  those who choose to take offense, refuse
to follow the normal practice and respond with outrage are widely
thought of as morons.

Will Sill
"A great many people think they are thinking when they
are merely rearranging their prejudices."
William James
MoParMaN - 07 Jun 2006 11:41 GMT
>I see where "RonB" <rbrogan@cox.net> contributed, without any
> indication of who or what he was responding to::
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> 5) Finally sign with a real name.  Witty/wise sig lines optional

Good information, specially for those stoopid top poasters out there.

Signature

MoParMaN---Remove Clothes To Reply!
--SCUD Coordinates 32.61204 North: 96.92993 West--

Jim Redelfs - 07 Jun 2006 13:13 GMT
> specially for those stoopid top poasters out there.

Oh, gawd!  Here we go again!   <sigh>
Signature

           :)
JR

Eregon - 07 Jun 2006 22:03 GMT
Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote in news:jim.redelfs-
42E51A.07132007062006@news.central.cox.net:

>> specially for those stoopid top poasters out there.
>
> Oh, gawd!  Here we go again!   <sigh>

WADDAYAMEEN by AGAIN???????

It'll *never* stop so long as top-posters continue to top-post. <EG>

Signature

Quotations from Tom Gorrell:

"A wing nut without a left or right is just a nut.  Which best describes
me"
"I'm sorry about the erratic weather and must admit it's been caused by the
pinko commie Clinton & Reno supporters."
"I am hiding nothing, other than the fact that I'm homosexual."

Quotation from the Graphic Queer: "I have always advocated the death of the
human being and I see that I was right all along. This earth will be so
much better off once we are no longer part of the mix."

RonB - 07 Jun 2006 15:56 GMT
> Here is some free advice:

Pardon's:  I did get into a hurry.

RonB
Steve B - 07 Jun 2006 16:24 GMT
>I see where "RonB" <rbrogan@cox.net> contributed, without any
> indication of who or what he was responding to::
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> are merely rearranging their prejudices."
> William James

Scary part is that these people have driver's licenses, drive ten ton RVs,
own guns, are fertile, and may have government clearances.

Let us pray.

Steve
Don Bradner - 08 Jun 2006 03:07 GMT
>All this talk of what vehicle can tow how much weight for what distance
>at how many MPH leads me to this remark: California law limits ANY
>vehicle towing ANYTHING to 55MPH.  That's why one sees 99% of the trucks
>not exceeding about 62MPH, even on I-5.

Living on the NW edge of California, one of the drawbacks is that
whenever I want to go someplace to the southeast I have to traverse
900 miles at crummy artificially-low speeds until I can get out of the
state.

I disagree with those who claim that truckers typically travel 70 on
I-5. I set my speed at 62 or 63, and it is an accurate speed
(calibrated digital speedometer checked many times via both radar and
timed distance). I pass some trucks, and a smaller number pass me, but
they are only rarely doing more than a mile or two faster than I am.

I do recognize that, on I-10 and I-40 as you approach Arizona the
speeds do tend to increase, and then of course when you cross the
border they move up to the normal traffic level of 70-75.

I also disagree completely that the split speeds in California are
safer, and I would be happy to look at objective or empirical evidence
that they are. I would offer that any time some segment of traffic is
required to go slower than another segment it is always more hazardous
than it needs to be.

Part of the craziness is that both a non-towing 50,000 lb Prevost and
a Greyhound bus can go the full car speed limit. Tack a 3500-lb car on
the back and you have to drop the speed.

The California rules have recently been clarified in two ways. It has
been noted before that the old "Trucks/Autos with Trailers" signs have
been modified to say that they apply to any vehicle towing anything. I
haven't seen anybody posting the other change, which says that trucks
with more than 2 axles have to go 55. That means a 2-axle bobtail has
also been exempted from the rule.

Signature

Don Bradner
donb (not don) at arcatapet dot com
www.arcatapet.net

Ron Recer - 08 Jun 2006 12:55 GMT
>>All this talk of what vehicle can tow how much weight for what distance
>>at how many MPH leads me to this remark: California law limits ANY
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> with more than 2 axles have to go 55. That means a 2-axle bobtail has
> also been exempted from the rule.

We spent 8 days in our 5er in the Palm Springs area last April. We came in
from AZ on I-10 and headed north to Needles and I-40 on the way back.  Due
to the 55 mph speed limit and not wanting to enrich the local economy
anymore than I had to, I drove 55-59 mph while in CA.  I got some of the
worst mileage of the whole trip in CA.  By staying in the 55-59 mph range I
was limited to 5th gear (1st OD) which cost me 1/2 mpg compared to the
average for the entire trip.  The rest of the trip I drove about 65 mph in
6th gear (2nd OD), but the truck won't shift to 6th on tow/haul mode until
you are going 62-63 mph.

If CA's 55 mph speed limit for vehicles towing isn't for safety and in my
case it wasn't for improved fuel economy so why do they have it?  Because
they can! <g>

Ron
Norman D. Crow - 08 Jun 2006 13:23 GMT
<snippage>

>> Part of the craziness is that both a non-towing 50,000 lb Prevost and
>> a Greyhound bus can go the full car speed limit. Tack a 3500-lb car on
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> case it wasn't for improved fuel economy so why do they have it?  Because
> they can! <g>

Apparently all the hubbub here is about CA and their differing speed limits
As a former OTR trucker, I can tell you they are a pain in the A**! Ohio
also has this ridiculous system, keeping trucks to 55 and cars @ 65. The
distinction for Greyhounds, motohomes, etc. has always been a little
fuzzy(to me). I can quote the stories about truckers being ticketed for
57MPH.

One Mother's Day afternoon/evening, headed from Cleveland to Cincinnati on
I-71, looked like they were trying to evacuate Cleveland. The traffic was so
thick you couldn't move out into the left lane at all, so the right lane was
confined to whatever speed the slowest truck could maintain, with the left
lane trying to run 65-70 bumper to bumper. Nightmare, complete with both
lanes in "accordion" mode, at times coming to complete stop! Amazingly, I
only saw one accident in that 200mi. plus run.

I'll get off my soap box now.

Signature

Nahmie
The only road to success is always under construction.

wwemu@cwnet.com - 08 Jun 2006 16:32 GMT
>>>All this talk of what vehicle can tow how much weight for what distance
>>>at how many MPH leads me to this remark: California law limits ANY
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
>Ron

While CA gets most of the blame about the 55 mph limit for large
vehicles, there are several other states with the same situation.  I
think that you have a good argument for it to be changed based upon
the current fuel price situation.  Maybe require all vehicles to be
equipped with "mpg instrumentation" and only allow the speed which
gives the best mpg????

George
Don Bradner - 08 Jun 2006 17:22 GMT
>If CA's 55 mph speed limit for vehicles towing isn't for safety and in my
>case it wasn't for improved fuel economy so why do they have it?  Because
>they can! <g>

I figure it has to be political. Clearly if you brought the towing
speed limit up to match the non-towing you would be able to find a
case where a truck-combo loses control and wipes out a family in a
sedan. How are you going to get a legislator to carry the ball on a
law change knowing that would come up in a future election? The fact
that you can find a similar accident that occurred at 55mph would be
irrelevant.

I don't know what the history of the split is - probably a compromise
when the statewide 55mph was lifted, to appease those that didn't want
to lift it "We'll keep the most dangerous vehicles at 55" or something
similar. Once done, hard to undo.
Signature

Don Bradner
donb (not don) at arcatapet dot com
www.arcatapet.net

lanman - 08 Jun 2006 20:18 GMT
>>If CA's 55 mph speed limit for vehicles towing isn't for safety and in my
>>case it wasn't for improved fuel economy so why do they have it?  Because
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>to lift it "We'll keep the most dangerous vehicles at 55" or something
>similar. Once done, hard to undo.

It's mostly financial under the guise of safety. Politically, it's a
risk free way to increase revenue because - who could possibly be
against protecting the safety of families and children.
Don Bradner - 09 Jun 2006 01:53 GMT
>It's mostly financial under the guise of safety. Politically, it's a
>risk free way to increase revenue because - who could possibly be
>against protecting the safety of families and children.

I'm not much of a conspiracy fan, and you have to at least make it
plausible. How do you reconcile the above with the fact that the
state, which controls the interstate speed limits, doesn't get the
money from speeding fines, but does bear much of the enforcement cost?
Signature

Don Bradner
donb (not don) at arcatapet dot com
www.arcatapet.net

Dave Lee - 09 Jun 2006 02:26 GMT
"Don Bradner" <don@arcatapet.com> wrote in message:

>How do you reconcile the above with the fact that the
> state, which controls the interstate speed limits, doesn't get the
> money from speeding fines, but does bear much of the enforcement cost?

In my state, it  supose it depends on who writes the ticket. On the
interstates, it is typically state police, and I'm fairly certain the state
gets the proceeds. But, I guess I could be wrong.
RAM³ - 09 Jun 2006 04:01 GMT
>>It's mostly financial under the guise of safety. Politically, it's a
>>risk free way to increase revenue because - who could possibly be
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> state, which controls the interstate speed limits, doesn't get the
> money from speeding fines, but does bear much of the enforcement cost?

In Texas, the State gets the money from fines and surcharges imposed for
violations of State Laws. The local court only gets a fixed-rate "Court
Cost". [This, for mailed-in "voluntary payments", is a real money-maker for
the local gummints since their only collection expenses amount to a couple
of clerks' salaries and a bit of shared computer time. <G>]

Local govts. only get the proceeds from fines for violations of purely
local ordinances and Warrant Fees [a kind of "Late Charge"] for those who
delayed their payment(s). [Impounded vehicles also supply a modest income.]
wwemu@cwnet.com - 09 Jun 2006 05:02 GMT
>>>It's mostly financial under the guise of safety. Politically, it's a
>>>risk free way to increase revenue because - who could possibly be
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>local ordinances and Warrant Fees [a kind of "Late Charge"] for those who
>delayed their payment(s). [Impounded vehicles also supply a modest income.]

In CA, traffic fines go to the county in which the offense is
incurred. The state gets nothing.

George
Dave Lee - 09 Jun 2006 20:06 GMT
Well, doesnt county government provide much service??as opposed to ri, where
county is really nothing more than geographic description.

>>>>It's mostly financial under the guise of safety. Politically, it's a
>>>>risk free way to increase revenue because - who could possibly be
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> George
Don Bradner - 11 Jun 2006 06:15 GMT
>Well, doesnt county government provide much service??as opposed to ri, where
>county is really nothing more than geographic description.

Sure, but they provide none of the maintenance of the interstate where
the ticket was written.

Several people said that, in their states, the state gets the revenue.
That has no bearing on this topic, which is about the 55mph limit in
California. In California, the limit is imposed by the state. The
state pays for the interstate highway construction and maintenance.
The state pays for the Highway Patrol. The county in which a ticket is
written gets the revenue.

That makes a conspiracy theory that supposes that state legislators
impose the limit to increase revenue rather implausible. There is
ample evidence that the state of California operates with little
regard to the revenue that counties get, or don't get. Probably
surprising that they haven't changed the way ticket revenue is
collected, but I don't think we want to put ideas in their heads.

Signature

Don Bradner
donb (not don) at arcatapet dot com
www.arcatapet.net

Dave Lee - 11 Jun 2006 12:41 GMT
>>Well, doesnt county government provide much service??as opposed to ri,
>>where
>>county is really nothing more than geographic description.
>
> Sure, but they provide none of the maintenance of the interstate where
> the ticket was written.

Whether they provide maintenance of the interstate or not has little
bearing on fiscal distribution , for instance, most lottery proceeds go
toward education costs. I guess all I'm trying to say is government, whether
that be local, state, or county, provide services. Whether one particular
source of that income goes to another particular need is irrelevant, since
in the end it's always money in and money out.
Dave Lee - 11 Jun 2006 13:39 GMT
"Don Bradner" <don@arcatapet.com> wrote in message The
> state pays for the interstate highway construction and maintenance.
> The state pays for the Highway Patrol. The county in which a ticket is
> written gets the revenue.

If I remeber when I was in Monterey, traffic violation are heard at a county
courthouse, therefore it would be safe to say that county government plays a
hand in enforcement, since county couthouses employ a fair amount of people.
Don Bradner - 11 Jun 2006 19:23 GMT
>it would be safe to say that county government plays a
>hand in enforcement, since county couthouses employ a fair amount of people.

I would have no argument with any of that. The issue at hand was a
conspiracy theory that the state (not the counties) was using 55mph
rules just as a revenue enhancement.

Signature

Don Bradner
donb (not don) at arcatapet dot com
www.arcatapet.net

Dave Lee - 11 Jun 2006 19:50 GMT
I understand, and I don't buy it either ( the conspiracy). I was just trying
to clarify somethings and to learn also

>>it would be safe to say that county government plays a
>>hand in enforcement, since county couthouses employ a fair amount of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> conspiracy theory that the state (not the counties) was using 55mph
> rules just as a revenue enhancement.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.