Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Progress)   City says there must have been a reason the speed limit was lowered from 55 to 35 in 1967 but the dog ate it   (www2.dailyprogress.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, reasonable doubt, speed limits, dogs, motion to dismiss, limited access  
•       •       •

5843 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2012 at 10:56 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-04-05 11:01:18 AM  
Clever lawyer tactic.
 
2012-04-05 11:04:33 AM  
I think this is alongside McIntire Park. The speed limit has always seems strangely low along there.
 
2012-04-05 11:07:38 AM  

Wellon Dowd: I think this is alongside McIntire Park. The speed limit has always seems strangely low along there.


Possibly, but the headline is a bit... OF A LIE. I'm willing to bet that they did a study and the city isn't just trying to pull a fast one; locating paperwork from 50 years ago isn't always possible.
 
2012-04-05 11:08:32 AM  
1967
I think they had ample warning between Oct. 13, 2010 and April 24 to SLOW THE FARK DOWN
 
2012-04-05 11:08:58 AM  

Wellon Dowd: The speed limit has always seems strangely low along there.


That's not an uncommon phenomenon. Speed limits are often set based on the high performance envelope exhibited by the Model T.

That and residential areas adjacent can drag down speed limits. Think of the children!
 
2012-04-05 11:10:58 AM  
I'm $ure there wa$ a very good rea$on for it. You know, like for $afety or $ome shiat like that.
 
2012-04-05 11:11:13 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Wellon Dowd: I think this is alongside McIntire Park. The speed limit has always seems strangely low along there.

Possibly, but the headline is a bit... OF A LIE. I'm willing to bet that they did a study and the city isn't just trying to pull a fast one; locating paperwork from 50 years ago isn't always possible.


Yeah, they did a study that said they could raise ticket revenue by xx% by lowering the speed limit.
 
2012-04-05 11:11:44 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Clever lawyer tactic.


No, stupid lawyer tactic. The relevant law provides a rebuttabal presumption that: "requires the defendants to provide "clear evidence" that the speed limit was not established with the required traffic study."

That means that it's up to the defendants to prove that the study doesn't exist, so it's not up to the city to prove that it does exist. This is why they lost, wasted the judge's time, and wasted their money.
 
2012-04-05 11:12:54 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: locating paperwork from 50 years ago isn't always possible.


Then STFU and bale this cotton.
 
2012-04-05 11:13:17 AM  
I can think of 2 reasons to have a ridiculously low speed limit. Just for the money from speeding tickets or there is a toll road nearby and the city wants to force people to use it.

In my mind both of these are criminal uses of authority. Too bad the 'defenders of freedom' are so busy trying to save everyone from affordable heath care.
 
2012-04-05 11:25:22 AM  

Rincewind53: Satanic_Hamster: Clever lawyer tactic.

No, stupid lawyer tactic. The relevant law provides a rebuttabal presumption that: "requires the defendants to provide "clear evidence" that the speed limit was not established with the required traffic study."

That means that it's up to the defendants to prove that the study doesn't exist, so it's not up to the city to prove that it does exist. This is why they lost, wasted the judge's time, and wasted their money.


That's pretty much what they are doing. They subpoenaed the study and everything related to the change in the limit. If it can't be produced it doesn't exist or was done improperly.
 
2012-04-05 11:27:30 AM  
There are places in C'ville where the speed limit drops abruptly to 0.
www.readthehook.com
/wahoo wah
 
2012-04-05 11:33:47 AM  

aseras: That's pretty much what they are doing. They subpoenaed the study and everything related to the change in the limit. If it can't be produced it doesn't exist or was done improperly.


No, what they did was waste everyone's time and money, because all they found was strong evidence that the survey was done at one point. That the city can't find a speed limit survey that's probably been moldering away somewhere in a box for the last five decades in no way indicates it doesn't exist or was done improperly or changes the rebuttable presumption against the defendants.
 
2012-04-05 11:38:13 AM  

Rincewind53: aseras: That's pretty much what they are doing. They subpoenaed the study and everything related to the change in the limit. If it can't be produced it doesn't exist or was done improperly.

No, what they did was waste everyone's time and money, because all they found was strong evidence that the survey was done at one point. That the city can't find a speed limit survey that's probably been moldering away somewhere in a box for the last five decades in no way indicates it doesn't exist or was done improperly or changes the rebuttable presumption against the defendants.


Well, it does beg the question...does the speed limit still today need to be that low. Vehicle technology has progressed so much, cars today handle WAY better than they did 10 years ago, let alone almost 50 years ago.
 
2MS
2012-04-05 11:39:56 AM  
t1.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-05 11:43:22 AM  
This is what I love about California. When radar or LIDAR is used for a speed below the state maximums (55 on 2 lane roads, 65 almost everywhere else, and 70 when signed), not only must an Engineering and Traffic Study (ETS) be provided by the state, it can't be older than 10 years old (with additional requirements placed on the state at 5 and 7 years) and it has to be set at the 85th percentile, unless good cause can be shown for a maximum of 5 mph decrease. If the state fails to meet those requirements, then by statute the officer is barred (considered incompetent) from testifying.

A 40+ year old study would be laughed out of court out here.
 
2012-04-05 11:51:50 AM  

Rincewind53: aseras: That's pretty much what they are doing. They subpoenaed the study and everything related to the change in the limit. If it can't be produced it doesn't exist or was done improperly.

No, what they did was waste everyone's time and money, because all they found was strong evidence that the survey was done at one point. That the city can't find a speed limit survey that's probably been moldering away somewhere in a box for the last five decades in no way indicates it doesn't exist or was done improperly or changes the rebuttable presumption against the defendants.


You know, if you have a way to prove a negative, science would add your name right alongside Netwon, Einstein, and Hawking.

Otherwise you're just being an abrasive choad.
 
2012-04-05 12:05:56 PM  
Virginia = speeding tickets.

Virginia: home of big gov't republicans.

//Glad I got away, still want my 1.5 years back.
 
2012-04-05 12:06:04 PM  

hitlersbrain: I can think of 2 reasons to have a ridiculously low speed limit. Just for the money from speeding tickets or there is a toll road nearby and the city wants to force people to use it.

In my mind both of these are criminal uses of authority. Too bad the 'defenders of freedom' are so busy trying to save everyone from affordable heath care.


The nearest toll road is 70 miles away in downtown Richmond. But nice try.

As for money from speeding tickets, that's always going to happen. There's even a red light revenue camera at a busy intersection not far from the road in question. But this particular road is winding, hilly, and has limited merge areas on the on and off ramps. I could probably make a case for 40 mph along that part of the road, maybe 45 at a stretch, but basically, these whiners belong in Charlottesville, because they're douchebags.
 
2012-04-05 12:07:11 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Wellon Dowd: I think this is alongside McIntire Park. The speed limit has always seems strangely low along there.

Possibly, but the headline is a bit... OF A LIE. I'm willing to bet that they did a study and the city isn't just trying to pull a fast one; locating paperwork from 50 years ago isn't always possible.


It's not even remotely possible that this was originally done to create an illegal speed trap, right?
 
2012-04-05 12:07:26 PM  
Endive Wombat
Well, it does beg the question...does the speed limit still today need to be that low...

That's not begging the question. It's raising the question.
 
2012-04-05 12:09:38 PM  

Rincewind53: aseras: That's pretty much what they are doing. They subpoenaed the study and everything related to the change in the limit. If it can't be produced it doesn't exist or was done improperly.

No, what they did was waste everyone's time and money, because all they found was strong evidence that the survey was done at one point. That the city can't find a speed limit survey that's probably been moldering away somewhere in a box for the last five decades in no way indicates it doesn't exist or was done improperly or changes the rebuttable presumption against the defendants.


Strong evidence in your mind is a reference in meeting minutes? How stupid are you exactly?
 
2012-04-05 01:06:27 PM  
I used a similar tactic to get out of a speeding ticket by asking the prosecutor to show the speed study that allowed the limit to drop from 45 mph to 20 mph instantly for construction work. He sighed, fumbled through a book that weighed 50 lbs. and agreed to drop the "Workers present" so I could take defensive driving and avoid a ticket on my record. Of course I knew that a speed study was not required for a construction zone but you have to really dig for that kind of boring details and it was more trouble than a small town circuit prosecutor was willing to deal with.


// Cool story bro?
 
2012-04-05 02:53:04 PM  

JPINFV: This is what I love about California. When radar or LIDAR is used for a speed below the state maximums (55 on 2 lane roads, 65 almost everywhere else, and 70 when signed), not only must an Engineering and Traffic Study (ETS) be provided by the state, it can't be older than 10 years old (with additional requirements placed on the state at 5 and 7 years) and it has to be set at the 85th percentile, unless good cause can be shown for a maximum of 5 mph decrease. If the state fails to meet those requirements, then by statute the officer is barred (considered incompetent) from testifying.

A 40+ year old study would be laughed out of court out here.


The 25 mph presumption for minor little residential roads is also OK, no surveys needed there.

What I don't understand is why every state doesn't have a law like this. Unless your sleepy little town hasn't grown, shrunk, or changed in any way in 50 years, there's no way a study from that long ago is going to have any bearing whatsoever on the current traffic situation. Traffic signals probably exist that didn't then, in fact whole crossroads might have opened up. It's silly to give a city a pass for saying they maybe once did a study half a century ago but can't find it even if they did. It should be criminal.
 
2012-04-05 03:05:51 PM  

foxyshadis: The 25 mph presumption for minor little residential roads is also OK, no surveys needed there.


True, but there are very very specific requirements for what qualifies as a "local road." I also didn't mention school and senior zones (also 25 mph zones). However I don't think those makes up even a small portion of non-freeway speeding tickets.
 
2012-04-05 03:10:48 PM  

JPINFV: foxyshadis: The 25 mph presumption for minor little residential roads is also OK, no surveys needed there.

True, but there are very very specific requirements for what qualifies as a "local road." I also didn't mention school and senior zones (also 25 mph zones). However I don't think those makes up even a small portion of non-freeway speeding tickets.


I also want to add that another catch is violating a non-maximum is more of a presumption violation of the basic speed law ('faster than conditions allow') than violation of a hard speed limit (the 25, 55, 65, and 70 limits). Technically, if a defendant can prove that his speed was safe for conditions, he isn't guilty of speeding (CVC 22351).
 
2012-04-05 04:26:55 PM  
There is a lot more traffic now than there was 45 years ago so I'd be careful asking for traffic studies or you might be driving 25 MPH through there. And this is a stretch of road that does include a park entrance and a fire station.

In my area VDOT has been lowering speed limits on many roads.
 
2012-04-05 04:44:54 PM  
I have to drive through that area every day and I honestly think the speed limit there is reasonable. I've seen a lot of accidents there - heck, I was even in one of them. These guys are just whining because they can't get away with speeding there any more now that the police are cracking down.
 
2012-04-05 04:50:50 PM  

Endive Wombat: Rincewind53: aseras: That's pretty much what they are doing. They subpoenaed the study and everything related to the change in the limit. If it can't be produced it doesn't exist or was done improperly.

No, what they did was waste everyone's time and money, because all they found was strong evidence that the survey was done at one point. That the city can't find a speed limit survey that's probably been moldering away somewhere in a box for the last five decades in no way indicates it doesn't exist or was done improperly or changes the rebuttable presumption against the defendants.

Well, it does beg the question...does the speed limit still today need to be that low. Vehicle technology has progressed so much, cars today handle WAY better than they did 10 years ago, let alone almost 50 years ago.


Yes, but traffic volume has likely increased 5-fold in that time, making higher speeds just as dangerous, despite the safety features of newer vehicles.

Also, traffic studies are done in order to promote traffic flow, and how best to PREVENT accidents in the first place. Just because new cars make accidents less likely to be fatal, does not negate the fact that certain stretches of road are prone to far too many accidents when the speed limit is raised.
 
2012-04-05 05:06:21 PM  
Oakwood Rd in northern part of Oakland county, Oxford area, has a really messed up speed limits. The first mile east bound from M-15 is 45mph, the next mile is 35 mph than unmarked 55mph the rest of the way to M-24. West bound is the problem. When you heading down a steep hill is when the 35 zone starts and as the road finally levels off enough to not require brakes to obey the speed limit, it rises to 45 mph. The county likes to sit 1/4 mile after the start of the 35 zone nailing west bound traffic. Since I have to go to this road once a week I will take M-24 down just to avoid that mess. Well that and M-15 is a deadly combination of mixed speed drivers on a two lane 55mph road.
 
2012-04-05 05:56:51 PM  
"The city'$ $peed limit ordinance i$ not invalidated $imply becau$e a 45-year-old traffic $urvey cannot be produced," Hog$hire wrote.
 
2012-04-05 07:42:49 PM  

Jackal_N: "The city'$ $peed limit ordinance i$ not invalidated $imply becau$e a 45-year-old traffic $urvey cannot be produced," Hog$hire wrote.


Bo$$ Hog$hire?
cltampa.com
 
2012-04-05 09:20:56 PM  
First change needs to be a universal law that all fines must be destroyed money and never benefiting any institution, especially the institution enforcing the fine. The conflict of interest is so obvious as to be obvious. It'd also provide a nice little deflation sink.

Second there must be some "you have to prove that limitations of liberty are THIS worth it" standard to lowering liberties. The "improves safety" is only one half the argument. 1 mph is safer than 2 mph speed limit. That can't be the only driving force in seeking what's a proper limit.
 
2012-04-05 10:44:42 PM  
Here is all the study most cities need:

Ticket Revenue will increase by 350% if we lower the speed limit on this portion of the freeway from 55 to 35.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report