Radar Detector Recomendation

are you serious??? did you really do that???

jeff, you need help.

 

http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/departments/transportation-faq.html#3

 

Or none at all. Remember those "RESUME SPEED" signs?

Originally, nobody said they were.

The primary impetus for the double-nickel was emissions, not "safety".
"Safety" came later.

Higher engine speeds tended to wreck early pelletized catalytic
converters. Lower road speeds meant lower engine speeds, which also
meant gentler exhaust pulses, leading to better cat life. Hence the
national 55.

It just so happened the cops discovered the new lower speed limits
(which had largely been reduced from those that a given road had
originally been designed for) meant an embarrassment of riches in
"speeding" fines, since people tended to drive at speeds they felt safe
at, which usually coincided with the speed the road was designed for.
The police to this very day are the very biggest boosters of speed
limits and enforcement.

What was it Ross Perot used to say? "Follow the money!"

 

far more dangerous is speed DIFFERENTIAL;those travelling significantly
slower or faster than the majority of traffic.

So,Mr.Brian Smith is likely creating a greater hazard than the "speeders".

 

i one time heard rumor to the effect that some speed cops used to get
"commission" based on their "yield". i don't think that's the case now,
but it sure would add zealotry to their work.

 

Florida tried to enact such an anti-LLB law and the stupid governor vetoed
it.

 

The law:

"21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing
for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or
driveway."

<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21650-21664>

As I read the law, it means that you have to drive on the right-hand
side of the road if you're traveling more slowly than the prevailing or
normal speed. It doesn't say you have to keep up if the normal speed is
faster than the speed limit.

Jeff

 

Gee, it takes 2 sec. And you never know what people put there.

Jeff

 

someone like our self-appointed internet speed cop contributed $5 to his
reelection fund, on condition he did that.

 

then you don't understand what you're reading. translated it means:
"slugs keep right or you'll get a ticket for not keeping up, regardless
of 'prima facie' posted limits." and my grandmother is multiple
testimony to that.

now you go ahead and figure out what prima facie speed limits mean.

 

jeepers, you're the kind of guy that would get stuck all day with a milk
carton that reads "open other end" on the bottom and "see other end for
instructions" on the top.

 

That's not it either. It was to save fuel during gas crisis of the '70s.
Catalytic converters didn't become common until later, I think the early
80s, although I am not sure. I think unleaded gasoline was phased in
during the '70s, but that was because the health hazards of lead. For a
long time, you could get both unleaded and leaded fuel at the same pumps
(but different hoses - the unleaded gasoline nozzle was thinner as was
the hole the nozzle went into, so that you were unlikely to put leaded
gasoline into cars that required unleaded gas for the converters).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

There is no longer a national speed law.

Well they and rescue squads.

 

That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the interstate. It
implies that you are to keep up, but without exceeding the speed limit.
Have you no common sense?

 

Damn, you're dense. Do you think I lived in Alameda and never used the
580 in Oakland? Do you think I didn't use the 280? The 880? The 80?
Get a clue, "dude".

More bullshit. In fact that's an absolute lie. The traffic doesn't flow
into town at 95. Just not true.

Quit posting bullshit just to try and make your "argument" seem
legitimate. You're a friggin liar, and a bad one, at that. FOAD.

 

There is no such law on the books here. Exceeding the posted limit is
against the law, no exceptions.

 

But, if that traffic is exceeding the posted Maximum limit, that traffic
is breaking the law. It's pretty straightforward.

None of which is applicable when looking at the regulations as stated in
the MVA.

No, I don't.

It's not only "a bunch of guys" putting the regulations into writing,
it's people who know what they're doing showing othe rpeople (who obviously
don't know what they're doing) how to drive and operate their vehicles
safely with due regard for all the other motorists and pedestrians on the
roads.

A law abiding Canadian, thank you. {;^)

With no moving violations since 1983, or incidents of any type for close
to two million miles.

 

The collisions are caused by the people (they call themselves drivers,
but are actually only people that hold on to the steering wheel and point
and go) that are exceeding the posted limit while not paying attention to
the task at hand.

 

A suspended licence won't pay my bills. You drive your way and I'll keep
my licence intact and productive.

 

No doubt authored by you, Jim.

 

I guess she needs to move to a place that encourages people to drive
within the boundaries of the law.