Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / June 2006
Towing, period
|
|
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.
|
|
|