On 26 Nov 2006 02:30:14 GMT, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:06:36 -0500, CBFalconer wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

That should be the offense, not "offending some bureaucrat by
second guessing his judgment as to the maximum safe speed on a
particular stretch of road".

AIUI the Germans have a more intelligent system on the Autobahn.
They concentrate on unsafe driving habits, such as tailgating, or
failure to keep right, combined with careful initial licensing
provisions. I also understand that the resultant statistics
confirm the efficacy of this.

In 1995 the Congress rescinded the National Maximum Speed Limit
and in Montana the speed limit reverted to "reasonable and prudent".
There was a decline in fatalities each year that that was in effect. In
1999 the Montana legislature for whatever reason chose to implement a 75
MPH speed limit. The result was a doubling in fatalities.

Bingo. They made it "Reasonable and Prudent" during daylight hours,
and 75 at night AIUI. That made everyone think about being reasonable
and prudent while they were driving... And an officer can still bust
people with that, but he has to make his case before the Judge.

Things that can easily knock down the limit are blind curves,
upcoming ramps or interchanges, "Lane Ends Merge Left/Right" and other
momentary changes in road conditions. You have to pay attention to
the signs and the other cars around you.

If the drivers coming up on these types of hazards aren't at least
off the gas and covering the brake, ready to react, and actively
leaving holes for merging traffic and other courtesies, those
omissions can easily be considered unsafe by a reasonable person.

But it's a lot easier to hand out drivers licenses to practically
anyone with a pulse, and set artificially low speed limits to
allegedly make it safe for them to be out there with those of us who
take our driving seriously.

-- Bruce --