If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
States Boost Speed Limits On Major Highways
N8N wrote: <brevity snip>
> Prove that speed limits set NOT ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES AND > GUIDELINES (e.g. MUTCD etc.) are Constitutional. Holy ****, that's a pretty slim straw you're grasping at. No, you prove they're unconstitutional. And cite one example of one SL in non-compliance with consideration of *all* the criteria the MUTCD requires. Then prove your constitutional rights are being trampled because you are required to obey the SL, like everyone else, whether it is in compliance with the federal MUTCD or not. While you're at it, prove any US governmental agency isn't allowed to act unconstitutionally until such time as prevented from doing so by the courts. Then, explain why any government entity could reasonably be expected to be perfect under the best of circumstances. I'll wait here. ----- - gpsman |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
States Boost Speed Limits On Major Highways
gpsman wrote: > N8N wrote: <brevity snip> > > Prove that speed limits set NOT ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES AND > > GUIDELINES (e.g. MUTCD etc.) are Constitutional. > > Holy ****, that's a pretty slim straw you're grasping at. > > No, you prove they're unconstitutional. And cite one example of one SL > in non-compliance with consideration of *all* the criteria the MUTCD > requires. There's any number of underposted freeways and Interstates on the east coast. Pick any one with a 55 MPH speed limit; I'm willing to bet that it is underposted. > > Then prove your constitutional rights are being trampled because you > are required to obey the SL, like everyone else, whether it is in > compliance with the federal MUTCD or not. > Well, I'm actually not being required to obey them, which is probably why I and most other drivers don't. However, I am still theoretically at risk of receiving a speeding ticket, which most people recognize as wrong (or else they are of the Claybrookian slow = safe mindset, and therefore experience unwarranted guilt every time they drive on a highway.) This also exposes pretty much any motorist to the risk of being detained and searched at any time, which law enforcement loves, of course, but it nicely sidesteps the Constitution in a rather elegant yet sinister manner. The only way to avoid this would be to actually obey all traffic laws at all times, which is so unusual that the act of doing so might arouse the suspicion of law enforcement. If you've been reading this group for any amount of time you've undoubtedly heard of this happening. > While you're at it, prove any US governmental agency isn't allowed to > act unconstitutionally until such time as prevented from doing so by > the courts. > No government entity is allowed to act unConstitutionally; you have an odd way of interpreting the usual way that an unConstitutional law or act is overturned. By your logic, then, no government entity or person could ever be punished for knowingly violating the Constitution so long as they stop doing so immediately upon a court decision being rendered. I'm sure you can see that this is not a desirable state of affairs. Now perhaps this is not a Constitutional matter; I don't think there are any articles or amendments that specifically address traffic law. However, there are established laws and guidelines for the setting of speed limits, and they aren't being followed. > Then, explain why any government entity could reasonably be expected to > be perfect under the best of circumstances. I'm not asking for perfect, I'm asking for minimally competent. nate |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
States Boost Speed Limits On Major Highways
In article .com>, N8N wrote:
>> Your desire to drive as fast as you please, in violation of a >> constitutional law that applies to all, and cowardly avoiding >> punishment for same by slowing in the presence of LE, is not an act of >> civil disobediance and is incomparable to the actions of Rosa Parks... >> you ****ing dunderhead. > > Prove that speed limits set NOT ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES AND > GUIDELINES (e.g. MUTCD etc.) are Constitutional. I don't know about constitutional, however, IL law mandates that all traffic control devices follow the MUTCD. Not that judges care about this law or the MUTCD or anything, but that is the law. It's funny how the pro-police-state speed-kills crowd cry law-is-the-law but when the law actually demands setting speed limits properly it all becomes warm and fuzzies. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
States Boost Speed Limits On Major Highways
In article .com>,
N8N > wrote: > >gpsman wrote: >> N8N wrote: <brevity snip> >> > Prove that speed limits set NOT ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES AND >> > GUIDELINES (e.g. MUTCD etc.) are Constitutional. >> >> Holy ****, that's a pretty slim straw you're grasping at. >> >> No, you prove they're unconstitutional. And cite one example of one SL >> in non-compliance with consideration of *all* the criteria the MUTCD >> requires. > >There's any number of underposted freeways and Interstates on the east >coast. Pick any one with a 55 MPH speed limit; I'm willing to bet that >it is underposted. In Massachusetts every 55 zone on a freeway is too low, and most 55 zones on two lane roads are too low. I'm going by the state's standards, not just my judgment. -- John Carr ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why you should never buy a car without a tachometer | Ted B. | Driving | 112 | September 19th 05 04:09 AM |
Speed limits are not personalized | MidnightDad | Driving | 54 | January 11th 05 06:38 AM |
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info | [email protected] | Driving | 40 | January 3rd 05 07:10 AM |
Co must be full of 'em | Brent P | Driving | 58 | December 26th 04 10:45 PM |