Have you ever thought a speed limit was too fast?

[93JC]

I've never found a posted speed limit that was too high. A posted limit that is higher that you want to go merely means that if it's prudent you can go faster. In fact, I'd prefer that to be the case everywhere, and enforcement based on reasonable and prudent for the conditions. A posted limit that is higher than you want to go allows for judgement, and the reality of a new Lotus Elise on sticky tires being more competent a mount to decide from than a beater Cavalier. I hate limits that are based on forcing everyone to the limits of that beater Cavalier. The reason we HAVE lowest common denomintor drivers, is we force everyone to BE lowest common denominator.

"Reasonable and prudent for the conditions" is too vague. It will never happen. Lowest common denominator is easily enforceable.

[Eye of the Tiger]

"Reasonable and prudent for the conditions" is too vague. It will never happen. Lowest common denominator is easily enforceable.

But the fact that nobody really takes the lowest common denominator seriously means that in reality, we are still enforcing "reasonable and prudent for conditions", unless we have nothing better to do.

[bing_oh]

"Reasonable and prudent for the conditions" is too vague. It will never happen. Lowest common denominator is easily enforceable.

Realistically, nobody would even want "reasonable and prudent for conditions" to be the law. Drivers wouldn't want it because it makes the speed limits totally arbitrary to the opinions of each individual LEO...what one officer thinks is "reasonable and prudent," another one a mile down the road might not. LEO's wouldn't want it because they'd be spending every day in court, testifying as to what they think "reasonable and prudent" is. Prosecutors wouldn't want it because they'd have to prove "reasonable and prudent" in court...something that's nearly impossible because it's so vague. Judges wouldn't want it because it would drastically increase their caseload until they'd defined "reasonable and prudent" into a more specific legal definition...which, once they did, would put us right back to where we started, because it would make the definition of "reasonable and prudent" specific enough for enforcement and prosecution.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Realistically, nobody would even want "reasonable and prudent for conditions" to be the law. Drivers wouldn't want it because it makes the speed limits totally arbitrary to the opinions of each individual LEO...what one officer thinks is "reasonable and prudent," another one a mile down the road might not. LEO's wouldn't want it because they'd be spending every day in court, testifying as to what they think "reasonable and prudent" is. Prosecutors wouldn't want it because they'd have to prove "reasonable and prudent" in court...something that's nearly impossible because it's so vague. Judges wouldn't want it because it would drastically increase their caseload until they'd defined "reasonable and prudent" into a more specific legal definition...which, once they did, would put us right back to where we started, because it would make the definition of "reasonable and prudent" specific enough for enforcement and prosecution.

It would work fine if it wasn't enforced.

[NomisR]

Realistically, nobody would even want "reasonable and prudent for conditions" to be the law. Drivers wouldn't want it because it makes the speed limits totally arbitrary to the opinions of each individual LEO...what one officer thinks is "reasonable and prudent," another one a mile down the road might not. LEO's wouldn't want it because they'd be spending every day in court, testifying as to what they think "reasonable and prudent" is. Prosecutors wouldn't want it because they'd have to prove "reasonable and prudent" in court...something that's nearly impossible because it's so vague. Judges wouldn't want it because it would drastically increase their caseload until they'd defined "reasonable and prudent" into a more specific legal definition...which, once they did, would put us right back to where we started, because it would make the definition of "reasonable and prudent" specific enough for enforcement and prosecution.

Well, how about not enforcing it unless someone crashes.  If you crash, you very likely have gone beyond reasonable and prudent.  And tire squealing would be another sign.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Well, how about not enforcing it unless someone crashes.  If you crash, you very likely have gone beyond reasonable and prudent.  And tire squealing would be another sign.

110% agreed, although, some tires seem to squeal with even the slightest provocation (e.g. Swift). Large differentials in road speed versus wheel speed, and/or drift angles would have to be observed.

[bing_oh]

Well, how about not enforcing it unless someone crashes.  If you crash, you very likely have gone beyond reasonable and prudent.  And tire squealing would be another sign.

Now you're advocating, at the very least, reactive law enforcement. The public in general is definitely not in favor of this. The public wants law enforcement to be proactive...prevention rather than reaction. When law enforcement is reactive, the usual response by the public is "where were you when this was going on?"

At the worst, it could end up in law enforcement being sued or criminally-prosecuted. What if an officer is sitting alongside the roadway and sees a vehicle driving at a high rate of speed. The officer doesn't enforce the "reasonable and prudent" speed law because he doesn't think he can prove it and the vehicle crashes a half mile up the road, killing an uninvolved third party. Chances of the department being sued for the officer not stopping the vehicle or the officer being criminally-prosecuted for misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance is highly likely.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Now you're advocating, at the very least, reactive law enforcement. The public in general is definitely not in favor of this. The public wants law enforcement to be proactive...prevention rather than reaction. When law enforcement is reactive, the usual response by the public is "where were you when this was going on?"

At the worst, it could end up in law enforcement being sued or criminally-prosecuted. What if an officer is sitting alongside the roadway and sees a vehicle driving at a high rate of speed. The officer doesn't enforce the "reasonable and prudent" speed law because he doesn't think he can prove it and the vehicle crashes a half mile up the road, killing an uninvolved third party. Chances of the department being sued for the officer not stopping the vehicle or the officer being criminally-prosecuted for misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance is highly likely.

A liability issue for the sake of the police department has nothing to do with public interest, and everything to do with police interest, which makes it irrelevant.
The public, in general, is a bunch of assholes that want to have their cake, and eat it, too, but anyone else with cake shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it as they like. Well, the public's interest in controlling other people is really the only problem. People seem to think there is a real need to have something in the books to make sure the other people don't eat too much cake. But it's my fucking cake, assholes, and unless my cake spills onto your plate, you have no business telling me what to do with it. Are you going to give me shit just because my cake is huge and it just looks like it might fall on your head? Yes, you are, but you can't do anything about it unless it actually does. In that case, I will take full responsibility for the actions of my cake. The system will never be perfect, but given the choice, I think we need to err on the side of freedom and personal responsibility, rather than a police state. This is fucking America. I want some cake.

[bing_oh]

A liability issue for the sake of the police department has nothing to do with public interest, and everything to do with police interest, which makes it irrelevant.

Really? Irrelevant? Tying the hands of law enforcement isn't exactly "irrelevant" to the public interest. If law enforcement is unable to do its job because the laws are so poorly, vaguely written as to make enforcement impossible, then that would have a direct impact on the public, would it not?

How about you just admit that you don't have a rebuttal for my point instead of trying to label it "irrelevant" and we can move on.

The public, in general, is a bunch of assholes that want to have their cake, and eat it, too, but anyone else with cake shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it as they like. Well, the public's interest in controlling other people is really the only problem. People seem to think there is a real need to have something in the books to make sure the other people don't eat too much cake. But it's my fucking cake, assholes, and unless my cake spills onto your plate, you have no business telling me what to do with it. Are you going to give me shit just because my cake is huge and it just looks like it might fall on your head? Yes, you are, but you can't do anything about it unless it actually does. In that case, I will take full responsibility for the actions of my cake. The system will never be perfect, but given the choice, I think we need to err on the side of freedom and personal responsibility, rather than a police state. This is fucking America. I want some cake.

Yes, YOU want some cake. Sounds more like you're the one who wants to have his cake and eat it too. The public has every right to have the roadways as safe as we can reasonably make them. That's not an unreasonable expectation. Your proposal doesn't support that, though. Your proposal is to let everybody do whatever the hell they want to and then, when it hurst or kills somebody else, doll out punishment. Somehow, I don't think that the victim or their family would consider that a fair trade-off. The public is willing to give up certain freedoms for the greater good...even if you're not.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Really? Irrelevant? Tying the hands of law enforcement isn't exactly "irrelevant" to the public interest. If law enforcement is unable to do its job because the laws are so poorly, vaguely written as to make enforcement impossible, then that would have a direct impact on the public, would it not?

How about you just admit that you don't have a rebuttal for my point instead of trying to label it "irrelevant" and we can move on.

Your previous statement showed no thought other than how to make it the most convenient for cops to punish civilians. That is the attitude that leads to a police state. The government should exist to serve the people, not itself.  Oh, sorry, I AM NOT COP SO I AM DUMB ME SO SORRY I ADMIT HAVE NO REBUTTAL.

Yes, YOU want some cake. Sounds more like you're the one who wants to have his cake and eat it too. The public has every right to have the roadways as safe as we can reasonably make them. That's not an unreasonable expectation. Your proposal doesn't support that, though. Your proposal is to let everybody do whatever the hell they want to and then, when it hurst or kills somebody else, doll out punishment. Somehow, I don't think that the victim or their family would consider that a fair trade-off. The public is willing to give up certain freedoms for the greater good...even if you're not.

MOVE TO CHINA, YOU COMMIE BASTARD

[NomisR]

Now you're advocating, at the very least, reactive law enforcement. The public in general is definitely not in favor of this. The public wants law enforcement to be proactive...prevention rather than reaction. When law enforcement is reactive, the usual response by the public is "where were you when this was going on?"

At the worst, it could end up in law enforcement being sued or criminally-prosecuted. What if an officer is sitting alongside the roadway and sees a vehicle driving at a high rate of speed. The officer doesn't enforce the "reasonable and prudent" speed law because he doesn't think he can prove it and the vehicle crashes a half mile up the road, killing an uninvolved third party. Chances of the department being sued for the officer not stopping the vehicle or the officer being criminally-prosecuted for misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance is highly likely.

Well, the general public is full of assholes and hypocrites.  I see it all the time, it's ok for them to speed down a residential street but when someone else is driving less than speed limit down their own street with kids playing, the other guy's a maniac that should be stopped. 

So in reality, what the public want may not always be what's right because it's largely skewed by their hypocrisy.

Now, I'm not recommending all speed limits to be abolished here but at least on freeways. 

Now of course the punishment for being the primary cause of accident will have to result in a really severe punishment though, this is a given.  Without that, it just doesn't work. 

Of course, knowing our society, we prefer to create severe laws only to hinder law abiding citizens but those who do break the law, they get a slap on the wrist because they're the victims. 

[bing_oh]

Your previous statement showed no thought other than how to make it the most convenient for cops to punish civilians. That is the attitude that leads to a police state. The government should exist to serve the people, not itself.  Oh, sorry, I AM NOT COP SO I AM DUMB ME SO SORRY I ADMIT HAVE NO REBUTTAL.

MOVE TO CHINA, YOU COMMIE BASTARD

Hmm. I do so love a nice, logical, adult debate. Nothing like a pleasant discourse between two intelligent people of differing ideas.

[NomisR]

MOVE TO CHINA, YOU COMMIE BASTARD

Hey,  Just so  you know.. after driving in China.. it's actually more the way "we" prefer the roads to be.. sorta. 

It's definitely not a police state, the police don't care at all unless you've done something really bad or someone from up top says to crack down on something for a little while, otherwise, you get to speed as much as you feel safely can.

Of course, with the number of poor drivers out there and the road constructions going on, I limited my speed to 85 or less.

[bing_oh]

Well, the general public is full of assholes and hypocrites.  I see it all the time, it's ok for them to speed down a residential street but when someone else is driving less than speed limit down their own street with kids playing, the other guy's a maniac that should be stopped. 

So in reality, what the public want may not always be what's right because it's largely skewed by their hypocrisy.

Now, I'm not recommending all speed limits to be abolished here but at least on freeways. 

Now of course the punishment for being the primary cause of accident will have to result in a really severe punishment though, this is a given.  Without that, it just doesn't work. 

Of course, knowing our society, we prefer to create severe laws only to hinder law abiding citizens but those who do break the law, they get a slap on the wrist because they're the victims.

I'm not going to argue that the public isn't hypocritical. Generally, they are.

The idea of a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit is simply not possible from an enforcement standpoint. As I've said, you'll have to define "reasonable and prudent" legally...without a legal definition, the law is pointless and unenforceable. You'd be better off abolishing speed laws totally...not something that I advocate, but it makes more sense that replacing them with an unenforceable law. If you were to make such a "reasonable and prudent" law, but limit enforcement to only when it results in a crash, you're creating an unacceptable trade-off between human life and individual freedom. While some people might argue that the current system is skewed toward security at the cost of freedom, a "reasonable and prudent" law would skew exactly the opposite way.

As for the chance of "severe punishment" for a violation of such a law, I think we both know that isn't going to happen. I recall a thread not too long ago about the consequences of drunk driving resulting in a death and how absurdly miniscule the resulting punishments were. If we can't get consistantly severe punishments for DUI's, what's the chance of getting such punishments for a modified speed law?

[Eye of the Tiger]

I'm not going to argue that the public isn't hypocritical. Generally, they are.

The idea of a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit is simply not possible from an enforcement standpoint. As I've said, you'll have to define "reasonable and prudent" legally...without a legal definition, the law is pointless and unenforceable. You'd be better off abolishing speed laws totally...not something that I advocate, but it makes more sense that replacing them with an unenforceable law. If you were to make such a "reasonable and prudent" law, but limit enforcement to only when it results in a crash, you're creating an unacceptable trade-off between human life and individual freedom. While some people might argue that the current system is skewed toward security at the cost of freedom, a "reasonable and prudent" law would skew exactly the opposite way.

As for the chance of "severe punishment" for a violation of such a law, I think we both know that isn't going to happen. I recall a thread not too long ago about the consequences of drunk driving resulting in a death and how absurdly miniscule the resulting punishments were. If we can't get consistantly severe punishments for DUI's, what's the chance of getting such punishments for a modified speed law?

Really? "Simply not possible"? Tying the hands of civilians for the sake of convenient law enforcement isn't exactly the way to ensure truth, justice and the American way... If law enforcement is unable to do its job because they can't figure it out for themselves, then we just need new cops that know what the hell America is supposed to be about.

How about you just admit that you don't have a rebuttal for anything other than a police state instead of trying to label it "simply not possible" and we can move on.

[NomisR]

The idea of a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit is simply not possible from an enforcement standpoint. As I've said, you'll have to define "reasonable and prudent" legally...without a legal definition, the law is pointless and unenforceable. You'd be better off abolishing speed laws totally...not something that I advocate, but it makes more sense that replacing them with an unenforceable law. If you were to make such a "reasonable and prudent" law, but limit enforcement to only when it results in a crash, you're creating an unacceptable trade-off between human life and individual freedom. While some people might argue that the current system is skewed toward security at the cost of freedom, a "reasonable and prudent" law would skew exactly the opposite way.

I personally prefer the other way as the trade-off as you have to be responsible for your own safety.  Especially with the current speed limit, it does not prove to make traveling safer, just enforceable.  And even then, you don't really know whether or not you may get a ticket for one offense by one officer while completely let off by another.  So it's still a crap shoot. 

[NomisR]

Really? "Simply not possible"? Tying the hands of civilians for the sake of convenient law enforcement isn't exactly the way to ensure truth, justice and the American way... If law enforcement is unable to do its job because they can't figure it out for themselves, then we just need new cops that know what the hell America is supposed to be about.

How about you just admit that you don't have a rebuttal for anything other than a police state instead of trying to label it "simply not possible" and we can move on.

I'll have to say, if speed limit was abolished, initially, there will be great confusion and a lot of accidents.  However, in about 6 months time, things will calm down and be even better than previous as people will realize what they feel is safe and they don't have the cover of the speed limit to help them.  Also, people might finally get off their damn phone and stop texting while driving!!!!!!

[bing_oh]

I personally prefer the other way as the trade-off as you have to be responsible for your own safety.  Especially with the current speed limit, it does not prove to make traveling safer, just enforceable.  And even then, you don't really know whether or not you may get a ticket for one offense by one officer while completely let off by another.  So it's still a crap shoot.

If you look at it that way, you're actually expecting everybody else on the road to be responsible for your safety. At the extreme end of enforcement, such a law would essentially remove the government from taking any kind of preventative measure in ensuring speed-related safety, meaning that you're placing all your faith on the abilities of the least responsible driver in your general vacinity. Personally, I think I'll pass on that...

As for the legal crap shoot, it would be much, much worse with a "reasonable and prudent" law as opposed to the current set speed limit. Now, at least, you actually know if you're in violation of the law. With a "reasonable and prudent" standard, it's totally arbitrary and based upon an individuals personal opinion...not exactly a fair way to write a law.

[Eye of the Tiger]

If you look at it that way, you're actually expecting everybody else on the road to be responsible for your safety. At the extreme end of enforcement, such a law would essentially remove the government from taking any kind of preventative measure in ensuring speed-related safety, meaning that you're placing all your faith on the abilities of the least responsible driver in your general vacinity. Personally, I think I'll pass on that...

As for the legal crap shoot, it would be much, much worse with a "reasonable and prudent" law as opposed to the current set speed limit. Now, at least, you actually know if you're in violation of the law. With a "reasonable and prudent" standard, it's totally arbitrary and based upon an individuals personal opinion...not exactly a fair way to write a law.

That's exactly the way it is right now, with your precious government intervention. Somehow, we trust all these other idiots to not kill us. It probably has something to do with the fact that they don't want to get killed, either.

You need some:

[NomisR]

If you look at it that way, you're actually expecting everybody else on the road to be responsible for your safety. At the extreme end of enforcement, such a law would essentially remove the government from taking any kind of preventative measure in ensuring speed-related safety, meaning that you're placing all your faith on the abilities of the least responsible driver in your general vacinity. Personally, I think I'll pass on that...

As for the legal crap shoot, it would be much, much worse with a "reasonable and prudent" law as opposed to the current set speed limit. Now, at least, you actually know if you're in violation of the law. With a "reasonable and prudent" standard, it's totally arbitrary and based upon an individuals personal opinion...not exactly a fair way to write a law.

I don't know, after going to China, I think relative anarchy works reasonably well especially when you get into the bigger cities where people have more experience in driving.

There are a lot of conditions there if it were with typical American drivers, I would expect a lot more accidents.  But because everyone is so used to random events occurring on the road such as a farmer with a bike climbing out of a ditch onto the freeway or a motorcycle coming at the wrong way right at you or a pedestrian randomly crossing the street without looking that people know exactly what to do at the right time. 

If there's any accidents, it's typically minor fender benders, I don't see the typical SUV rolling their car on a multi lane freeway with no cars around like I do over here. 

And of course, there's the random construction that pops up without proper warning that forces people to pay attention to the road.

I'm not saying I'm for that type of driving but to a certain extent, it works.  And police doesn't really get involved until you get in an accident. 

[bing_oh]

I don't know, after going to China, I think relative anarchy works reasonably well especially when you get into the bigger cities where people have more experience in driving.

There are a lot of conditions there if it were with typical American drivers, I would expect a lot more accidents.  But because everyone is so used to random events occurring on the road such as a farmer with a bike climbing out of a ditch onto the freeway or a motorcycle coming at the wrong way right at you or a pedestrian randomly crossing the street without looking that people know exactly what to do at the right time. 

If there's any accidents, it's typically minor fender benders, I don't see the typical SUV rolling their car on a multi lane freeway with no cars around like I do over here. 

And of course, there's the random construction that pops up without proper warning that forces people to pay attention to the road.

I'm not saying I'm for that type of driving but to a certain extent, it works.  And police doesn't really get involved until you get in an accident.

Of course, if you kill someone there (or ding the fender of someone with high government connections), you'll spend the rest of your life in a camp for hard labor...or with a 7.62x39 round penetrating your skull and your brains decorating a wall behind you a split second later.

What I'm saying is, there are different expectations and standards for different cultures. What works there might not, necessarily, work in a culture that holds things like individual freedom and personal ownership in high regard.

[NomisR]

Of course, if you kill someone there (or ding the fender of someone with high government connections), you'll spend the rest of your life in a camp for hard labor...or with a 7.62x39 round penetrating your skull and your brains decorating a wall behind you a split second later.

If it were only that easy.. they're still struggling with the conviction of the guy who killed 4 people in a DUI.

What I'm saying is, there are different expectations and standards for different cultures. What works there might not, necessarily, work in a culture that holds things like individual freedom and personal ownership in high regard.

I find that comment funny considering the direction our country is headed towards but i'll leave that for another discussion.  I just think that if Montana was able to do it and it was basically done pre 55 mph national speed limit.. it can still be done today.

[James Young]

bing_oh writes:  {Realistically, nobody would even want "reasonable and prudent for conditions" to be the law. Drivers wouldn't want it because it makes the speed limits totally arbitrary to the opinions of each individual LEO...what one officer thinks is "reasonable and prudent," another one a mile down the road might not.}

That?s no different from what we currently have.  Local cops in Kiowa, OK will cite you for going 2 mph over their 45 mph limit but Chippies routinely ignore traffic running 20 mph over the 70 mph limit along I-15 between San Bernardino and San Diego. 

We had R&P laws in Kansas, Nevada, Montana, and Germany, all with results that compared favorably with states with lower limits.  After Montana moved to rescind R&P in favor of a numerical limit ? to benefit enforcement and the judiciary -- the number of fatal crashes doubled on interstate highways and the fatality rate increased.  The second year after implementation, Montana suffered a record-high number of fatal crashes.  The phenomenon known as the Montana Paradox describes and corroborates experience during NMSL, R&P after rescission of NMSL and then a return to a numerical limit.  It says:  The desired safety effect from posting speed limits was achieved by removing them. 

In short, R&P works.  However, to overlay enforcement onto R&P, seeking to punish drivers arbitrarily, does not work. 

{ LEO's wouldn't want it because they'd be spending every day in court, testifying as to what they think "reasonable and prudent" is.}

Who cares what R&P is?  Is not your real goal to avoid crashes altogether?  Or is there another dynamic at work here, a sub-rosa theme that enforcement is more important than allowing traffic to travel at its own speed without crashing?  Perhaps I am cynical, but I still believe that making enforcement easier is far less important than keeping traffic flowing smoothly, quickly and safely.     

[NomisR]

Perhaps I am cynical, but I still believe that making enforcement easier is far less important than keeping traffic flowing smoothly, quickly and safely.     

You know what?  While driving around in China, at first, I was afraid to drive in front of a police car because like here, you're just asking for trouble since you can be randomly pulled over if you make a mistake.  But then I was told that there's nothing to worry about, cops there don't really care.  And you know what?  They're right.. they don't care.. and that feels good to not have to worry about randomly being pulled over for minor infractions whether valid or not. 

[ChrisV]

Now you're advocating, at the very least, reactive law enforcement. The public in general is definitely not in favor of this. The public wants law enforcement to be proactive...prevention rather than reaction. When law enforcement is reactive, the usual response by the public is "where were you when this was going on?"

Of course they do. The general public does not want to take responsibility for their own actions. This is the root cause of all of this, from too low speed limits, passing the buck on enforcement, to "free healthcare" to welfare.

You talk about variable opinions of "reasonable and prudent." We all seem to be able to tell when someone is being stupid on the roads. And we're not trained. Proper officer training (and internal discipline about being too strict) would have officers being quite capable of telling when someone is being too stupid on the road.

Reactive enforcement? ALL traffic stops are "reactive" anyhow (when was the last time you stopped someone because they were going to speed in a few minutes, or because it was Friday morning and you felt that later that evening, the guy might drive drunk?). At the point you see them and stop them, you are "reacting" to something they've already been doing for a while.

[bing_oh]

You talk about variable opinions of "reasonable and prudent." We all seem to be able to tell when someone is being stupid on the roads. And we're not trained. Proper officer training (and internal discipline about being too strict) would have officers being quite capable of telling when someone is being too stupid on the road.

You're assuming that the officer is the last link in the enforcement chain when, in reality, we're the first. Remember that all people accused of a violation...from the most serious felony right down to the average speeder...is innocent until proven guilty. That means that, for such a law to be enforcable, you're going to have to make "reasonable and prudent" a standard that can be proven in a court of law to a judge. It's easy enough for an officer to say that a person isn't driving in a "reasonable and prudent" manner along the side of a road, but a totally different thing when I have to testify to it in a court and prove through that testomony beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver's actions weren't "reasonable and prudent." That's what nobody seems to understand in this argument...if you make it a law, then it has to be a standard that can be proven in court.

Reactive enforcement? ALL traffic stops are "reactive" anyhow (when was the last time you stopped someone because they were going to speed in a few minutes, or because it was Friday morning and you felt that later that evening, the guy might drive drunk?). At the point you see them and stop them, you are "reacting" to something they've already been doing for a while.

Actually, alot of traffic stops are proactive in nature. Despite what James says, most traffic enforcement is made to proactively prevent crashes. Drunk driving, for example, is very proactive. I stop and arrest drunk drivers because people under the influence have poor reaction time, and less aware of their surroundings, and make bad decisions...all things that contribute to crashes.

[Tave]

The "reasonable person" standard of care is quite common in civil litigation.

Montana's statute was challenged on the ground that it violated the due process clause of the Montana constitution. It was pled through the courts by some freemen asshole who was probably exceeding the reasonable and prudent speed for that particular road, and rather than pay his measly fine and move on with his life, he chose to spend thousands of dollars to battle his obnoxious point and ruin the fun for all of us.

Of course, I think the court did it to make a point to the Montana legislature more than it did to uphold fair standards of justice. Note that almost every state in the union has the "reasonable and prudent" language in their speed/motor vehicle statutes to allow officers who ticket people that drive too fast for conditions (the focus being visibilty, weather, road conditions).

[bing_oh]

The "reasonable person" standard of care is quite common in civil litigation.

Montana's statute was challenged on the ground that it violated the due process clause of the Montana constitution. It was pled through the courts by some freemen asshole who was probably exceeding the reasonable and prudent speed for that particular road, and rather than pay his measly fine and move on with his life, he chose to spend thousands of dollars to battle his obnoxious point and ruin the fun for all of us.

Of course, I think the court did it to make a point to the Montana legislature more than it did to uphold fair standards of justice. Note that almost every state in the union has the "reasonable and prudent" language in their speed/motor vehicle statutes to allow officers who ticket people that drive too fast for conditions (the focus being visibilty, weather, road conditions).

Civil litigation normally doesn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt like criminal does. Civil litigation usually only requires a preponderance of the evidence...essentially, evidence greater than that 50/50 point. With the higher requirement of proof comes more stringent standards and more exacting legal definitions.

Aren't you in law school, Tave? You should know this stuff.

While "reasonable and prudent" is a part of most states' speed laws for adverse weather consitions, it's not normally enforced unless there's a loss of control of the vehicle (and, frequently, not then, as most officers will cite for Failure to Maintain Reasonable Control or their states' equivalent...easier to prove in court). So, we're right back to enforcing a "reasonable and prudent" speed law only when such speed results in a crash.

[Tave]

Civil litigation normally doesn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt like criminal does. Civil litigation usually only requires a preponderance of the evidence...essentially, evidence greater than that 50/50 point. With the higher requirement of proof comes more stringent standards and more exacting legal definitions.

Oh yeah, just throwing it out there.

Interestingly enough, I was talking to a classmate who just finnished a term with the border patrol in AZ. We were b-sing about the speed cameras in Phoenix, and he mentioned that the state was contemplating a revision of the code to make photo radar tickets a civil infraction. That way the fine would be payable on receipt in the mail and they could avoid situations like this guy:

http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=19894.0

Even cooler: he told me about one of his coworkers who was popped @ 142 in the middle of a pursuit. Said the Feds were all too happy to tell Maricopa County what to do with their cute little slip of paper.  They also blew it up and hung a massive poster in the office.

[ChrisV]

The "reasonable person" standard of care is quite common in civil litigation.

Montana's statute was challenged on the ground that it violated the due process clause of the Montana constitution. It was pled through the courts by some freemen asshole who was probably exceeding the reasonable and prudent speed for that particular road, and rather than pay his measly fine and move on with his life, he chose to spend thousands of dollars to battle his obnoxious point and ruin the fun for all of us.

Of course, I think the court did it to make a point to the Montana legislature more than it did to uphold fair standards of justice. Note that almost every state in the union has the "reasonable and prudent" language in their speed/motor vehicle statutes to allow officers who ticket people that drive too fast for conditions (the focus being visibilty, weather, road conditions).

Montana changed it's "reasonable and prudent" law because they were in danger of losing federal highway money.

It's always about money.