kkw4p

Yes it does. A state case in '98 overturned that "safe and resonable" stuff because it wasn't objective enough. Believe me. I drove there the summer of '99.

j9fd3s

Yes it does. A state case in '98 overturned that "safe and resonable" stuff because it wasn't objective enough. Believe me. I drove there the summer of '99. [/quote]

i remember reading that, it was too hard to say if someone was speeding or not, so they made reasonable and prudent = 65



mike

kkw4p

Not only a "90-year-old grey" cadillac driver.. but also every minivan on the road that is doing 85 on H rated tires down the Interstate with the driver not watching the road because he/she is too busy fighting with the kids in the backseats.



I think a sportscar with Z rated tires doing 90 is much less dangers than the mentioned minivan doing 80.



IMHO.

kkw4p

Yes it does. A state case in '98 overturned that "safe and resonable" stuff because it wasn't objective enough. Believe me. I drove there the summer of '99. [/quote]

i remember reading that, it was too hard to say if someone was speeding or not, so they made reasonable and prudent = 65



mike [/quote]

75 I think. At least it was when I was there.

kkw4p

Reading through this thread last night before I went to bed made me have a nightmare about getting 3 tickets in one weekend.



Damn Gen D.

pengaru

but mix them both together and you have a much worse situation, each one is a risk to the other.



the major dangers with driving are where there are differences in velocity, greater the difference, greater the risk. The speed limits also have to deal with the shitheaps that people can't afford to replace or improve which simply are incapable of going over 55mph without shaking and breaking down.... In theory ,it should make roads safer to have lower speed limits if everyone obeys them.



problem is, people don't, they should just make shitheaps illegal, make drivers licenses harder to get (better tests) then crank up the speed limit.



and the roads should be privately owned, not state.

j9fd3s

but mix them both together and you have a much worse situation, each one is a risk to the other.



the major dangers with driving are where there are differences in velocity, greater the difference, greater the risk. The speed limits also have to deal with the shitheaps that people can't afford to replace or improve which simply are incapable of going over 55mph without shaking and breaking down.... In theory ,it should make roads safer to have lower speed limits if everyone obeys them.



problem is, people don't, they should just make shitheaps illegal, make drivers licenses harder to get (better tests) then crank up the speed limit.



and the roads should be privately owned, not state. [/quote]

yea here in california they only care about the emissions, the car can be literally totaled and its legal as long as it passes smog. my fd ran and drove just fine after the wreck, safe? no, smog legal? yes.



mike

kkw4p

Uhh.. why's that? Where's the incentive for a private business to make roads meet XYZ specs?

pengaru

money? that is, if the state wasnt already doing it with your tax dollars, inefficiently at that.



why else does a private business do anything?

kkw4p

So, where do they get the money from? Tolls? They're not going to fork over profit for roads that are publically used. Screw more tolls..