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

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

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.

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 )