GA is priceless

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Ron Lee writes:

Name one.

California, which is the model for a number of other States. Others
include Arizona, Texas, Utah, and Rhode Island.


Site the statute please.

In these States, exceeding a posted speed limit may be taken as prima
facie evidence of speeding, but it is not actually illegal. A person
cited for speeding under this type of statute may successfully defend
against the citation by demonstrating that his speed was in fact
reasonable and prudent for conditions despite being above the posted
speed limit.

This is crap. Not true. If you get a tciket for going over the posted
limit and try to get out of it using the defense described above, the judge
will probably give you a greater fine than if you had just paid the ticket.

Montana was the last state that had reasonable and prudent, during daylight
hours and good weather, speed limits. They were lost when some a**hole
decided to fight his $5 ticket.


There are also absolute limits, which may be universal in some States,
but may apply only to certain situations in others. For example, in
Arizona, speed limits in school zones and on highways are absolute,
but most others are subject to the "reasonable and prudent" law.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

BucFan writes:

Site the statute please.

You can look this up in about eight seconds on Google, but the statute
in California is the California Vehicle Code, Division 11, Chapter 7,
Article 1, Section 22350, Basic Speed Law.

In Arizona, see the Arizona Revised States, 28-701.

This is crap. Not true. If you get a tciket for going over the posted
limit and try to get out of it using the defense described above, the judge
will probably give you a greater fine than if you had just paid the ticket.

Some judges are corrupt. But reasonable and prudent speed is a valid
defense, and the corruption of individuals does not invalidate the
law.

Montana was the last state that had reasonable and prudent, during daylight
hours and good weather, speed limits. They were lost when some a**hole
decided to fight his $5 ticket.

MCA 2005 61-8-803 still mentions reasonable and prudent speeds,
although they are quite restricted in application.

In any case, California and Arizona still have reasonable and prudent
laws, as I've just demonstrated, so Montana is not the "last state."
You can look up the specifics for other States yourself.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic writes:

In Arizona, see the Arizona Revised States, 28-701.

States = Statutes

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
BucFan writes:

Site the statute please.

You can look this up in about eight seconds on Google, but the statute
in California is the California Vehicle Code, Division 11, Chapter 7,
Article 1, Section 22350, Basic Speed Law.

You are, of course, wrong.

Section 22350 says that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon
a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having
due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface
and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which
endangers the safety of persons or property."

OK, so that establishes that it's illegal to drive faster than a speed
which is reasonable and prudent. It does NOT establish that it
is LEGAL to drive at any reasonable and prudent speed, if your
reasonable and prudent speed exceeds the speed established
by other law.

In particular, it doesn't override section 22349, which says
"Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive
a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles
per hour. ... Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided
highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless
that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a
higher speed by the Department of Transportation or
appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering
and traffic survey."

Nor does it override section 22356, which says (paraphrased)
that the department of transportation may, after conducting
an engineering traffic study, raise the speed limit to 70
mph on designated sections of freeways, but that no person
shall drive faster than 70 MPH on any highway under
any conditions.

Some of California's speed limits are prima facie,
meaning that you may be able to get away with
exceeding them if you can convince the judge that
your speed was reasonable and prudent. But the
55, 65, and 70 mph limits quoted above are
absolute.

The law you cited never gives you the right to
exceed an absolute speed limit, regardless of
how safe the conditions were. In fact, that
law means that you may be charged with
speeding in California even while travelling well
UNDER the posted speed limit, if conditions are such
that the posted speed limit would be unreasonable
or imprudent.

All the California vehicle code is available online
at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm

writes:

Section 22350 says that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon
a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having
due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface
and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which
endangers the safety of persons or property."

Yes, I know.

OK, so that establishes that it's illegal to drive faster than a speed
which is reasonable and prudent.

See above.

It does NOT establish that it is LEGAL to drive at any
reasonable and prudent speed, if your reasonable and prudent
speed exceeds the speed established by other law.

But in many cases there is no other governing law, in which case any
reasonable and prudent speed is legal.

In particular, it doesn't override section 22349, which says
"Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive
a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles
per hour. ... Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided
highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless
that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a
higher speed by the Department of Transportation or
appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering
and traffic survey."

Yes, I know. Those are two special circumstances.

Nor does it override section 22356, which says (paraphrased)
that the department of transportation may, after conducting
an engineering traffic study, raise the speed limit to 70
mph on designated sections of freeways, but that no person
shall drive faster than 70 MPH on any highway under
any conditions.

I've read all these, thanks.

Some of California's speed limits are prima facie,
meaning that you may be able to get away with
exceeding them if you can convince the judge that
your speed was reasonable and prudent. But the
55, 65, and 70 mph limits quoted above are
absolute.

I know.

The law you cited never gives you the right to
exceed an absolute speed limit, regardless of
how safe the conditions were. In fact, that
law means that you may be charged with
speeding in California even while travelling well
UNDER the posted speed limit, if conditions are such
that the posted speed limit would be unreasonable
or imprudent.

Yes. I know. I've done this research. In fact, I did most of it
years ago.

You said I was wrong about something, but you haven't said what it is.
Where was I wrong?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

BucFan wrote:


Montana was the last state that had reasonable and prudent, during daylight
hours and good weather, speed limits. They were lost when some a**hole
decided to fight his $5 ticket.

It wasn't a $5 ticket. He got a ticket for going about 120 mph on a two
lane highway. His car was a late 70's big hunk of steel, a big old
Caprice or similar. Ticket was well over $100. He went to court.
Judge upheld the ticket but threw out the reasonable and prudent law,
which forced the next legislature to set a speed limit. That's how we
have a 75 MPH limit and the first 10 over are still the $5 ticket that
does not get entered into the computer.