I got my 2nd speeding ticket. What should I do?

>If 25 miles of straight highway doesn't qualify as somewhere it would
>bhe safe to drive at speeds higher than 65 MPH or whatever the speed
>limit there is now, I don't know what does. Certainly highways in MT
>are probably *more straight* than the Autobahnen in Germany.

The speed limit in MT is 75 on interstates, 70 on primaries ..........and
the median speed in MT is STILL below that....go figure....guess Montanans
know something about their roads that you don't.....

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:22:30 GMT, "truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>If speed killed, we'd have no space program, NASCAR would be gone, and
>>all cars would be governed to 5 mph.
>>Speed does not kill.
>>As trite as it may sound, it's the sudden stop that kills. The job of
>>the drivers is to apply a lot of thought to avoid that sudden stop.
>>It's not really hard, most people manage it every day.
>
>ROTFL......you sound like the guy who says sticking a gun barrel in your
>mouth doesn't kill you....it's pulling the trigger that does......
>
>Sorry Bill, but speeding is what leads to the sudden stops.......
>
And getting up leads to the speeding.
Like I said, it might sound trite, but facts is facts. People go very
fast all the time, and live to tell about it. It's doing something
*wrong* that causes the sudden stop, not the speed.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:22:30 GMT, "truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>If speed killed, we'd have no space program, NASCAR would be gone, and
>>all cars would be governed to 5 mph.
>>Speed does not kill.
>>As trite as it may sound, it's the sudden stop that kills. The job of
>>the drivers is to apply a lot of thought to avoid that sudden stop.
>>It's not really hard, most people manage it every day.
>
>ROTFL......you sound like the guy who says sticking a gun barrel in your
>mouth doesn't kill you....it's pulling the trigger that does......
>
>Sorry Bill, but speeding is what leads to the sudden stops.......
>
And getting up leads to the speeding.
Like I said, it might sound trite, but facts is facts. People go very
fast all the time, and live to tell about it. It's doing something
*wrong* that causes the sudden stop, not the speed.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:11:25 GMT, "truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Tell me WHERE you found these LONG OPEN STRETCHES and how long they
>were.....remember, I'm from MT.....25 miles of straight highway doesn't
>impress me....

WOW!
I'm impressed!

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:11:25 GMT, "truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Tell me WHERE you found these LONG OPEN STRETCHES and how long they
>were.....remember, I'm from MT.....25 miles of straight highway doesn't
>impress me....

WOW!
I'm impressed!

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:35:33 GMT, "truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>If 25 miles of straight highway doesn't qualify as somewhere it would
>>bhe safe to drive at speeds higher than 65 MPH or whatever the speed
>>limit there is now, I don't know what does. Certainly highways in MT
>>are probably *more straight* than the Autobahnen in Germany.
>
>The speed limit in MT is 75 on interstates, 70 on primaries ..........and
>the median speed in MT is STILL below that....go figure....guess Montanans
>know something about their roads that you don't.....
>

On Arizona Interstates, the SL is 75 in many places.
The median speed in AZ is below that.
Of course, I can't say what the median speeds on those stretches of
Interstate is. Can you say what the median speed on those roads you
referrence is?
In case you don't get it, you gave the SL on several roads, and then
referrenced the median speed on *all* MT roads, and sugested the two
are connected. They aren't.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:35:33 GMT, "truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>If 25 miles of straight highway doesn't qualify as somewhere it would
>>bhe safe to drive at speeds higher than 65 MPH or whatever the speed
>>limit there is now, I don't know what does. Certainly highways in MT
>>are probably *more straight* than the Autobahnen in Germany.
>
>The speed limit in MT is 75 on interstates, 70 on primaries ..........and
>the median speed in MT is STILL below that....go figure....guess Montanans
>know something about their roads that you don't.....
>

On Arizona Interstates, the SL is 75 in many places.
The median speed in AZ is below that.
Of course, I can't say what the median speeds on those stretches of
Interstate is. Can you say what the median speed on those roads you
referrence is?
In case you don't get it, you gave the SL on several roads, and then
referrenced the median speed on *all* MT roads, and sugested the two
are connected. They aren't.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:38:36 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:28:37 -0700, Big Bill wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:43:07 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:18:11 -0700, Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> The US Interstates d
>>>> and the Autobahn differ in far more than merely trhe speed limits.
>>>> The entire philosophy regarding driving is very different in the two
>>>> places.
>>>
>>>That doesn't change the fact that speeds beyond 75mph are not by default
>>>unsafe. There are US-Freeways where even 65 can be dangerous, others would
>>>allow much higher speeds without problems, and _that_ is why I told
>>>Anthony that his answer is bull****.
>>
>> Yes, you're right. Speed in and of itself is not unsafe. I never said
>> it is.
>
>Then why are you complaining that I called Anthony's assertion that it is
>bull****?

I just went back over the thread,and I can't see where I said that.
Maybe you're thinking of someone else?
>
>> But the difference between the crash rates is *not* because of the
>> different speed limits.
>
>I did not claim it is, but you are partly wrong. Many accidents in the US
>happen because the drivers have too much time on their hands to do
>everything from drinking coffee to watching TV. These accidents would
>mostly disappear if the speedlimits were lifted or at least adjusted
>properly.

I can't agree. Going faster doesn't seem to be an incentive to paying
attention; all I need to do to see this is watch the news and read the
paper to see all the idiots driving fast and screwing it up.
>
>>>In Germany driving is also seen as a necessity and the licensing rules are
>>>not nearly strict enough, but that also does not make driving faster than
>>>75 by default unsafe.
>>
>> The licensing and enforcement are indeed tougher than here in the US.
>> "Not strict enough" means nothing in this case.
>
>Yes, it does. The German Autobahns would be even safer if people were
>taught to adjust their speed to the conditions properly.

Now that I know what you mean by "Not strict enough", I agree.
>
>>>The speed laws are mainly reflecting the fact that most states (like the
>>>'Bundeslaender' in Germany) are suffering from a distinct lack of funds
>>>caused by overspending of politicians.
>>
>> How do you come to this conclusion?
>
>Speed limits are revenue generators. Big ones. And the only useful way to
>extract sufficiently large amounts of revenue is setting them so
>ridiculously low that everyone thinks they are nonsense anyway and drives
>faster. Thus the states do exactly that.

Sorry, I don't agree, and evidently, neither do you.
"The German Autobahns would be even safer if people were taught to
adjust their speed to the conditions properly."
Part of that 'being stricter' is stronger enforcement of the rules.
The idea that speed law is to collect revenue is so rediculous I don't
understand how so many can believe it.
Well, that's not really true, I do understand. If it's true, they
don't deserve the tickets they get for violating the rules.
Yes, there are some speed traps; pointing to them is not pointing to
all speed laws.
>
>>>If a driver is safe at 90mph he knows to adjust his speed to conditions
>>>and thus does not drive 90mph where the conditions, including other
>>>motorists, do not allow 90mph.
>>
>> Which is pretty much everywhere.
>
>How do you come to this conclusion?

Because most of the roads aren't that clear of other drivers.
And it's the other drivers that make that kind of speed dangerous.
They are unpredictable, and at that speed, things happen pretty fast.
>
>> Plus, your idea allows the individual drivers to determine when it's
>> safe to go 90; that's obviously not the way to do things; all one
>> needs to do is watch those who do go 90 to see that many of them are
>> not safe.
>
>How do you determine, who is safe and who isnt?

I don't need to, except for those near me. And most of them are pretty
obvious in their unsafeness. They do stupid things. I see them do
these stupid things.
Don't you read the rest of the threads here? Don't you see that others
notice these stupid drivers too?
>
>
>Chris

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:38:36 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:28:37 -0700, Big Bill wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:43:07 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:18:11 -0700, Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> The US Interstates d
>>>> and the Autobahn differ in far more than merely trhe speed limits.
>>>> The entire philosophy regarding driving is very different in the two
>>>> places.
>>>
>>>That doesn't change the fact that speeds beyond 75mph are not by default
>>>unsafe. There are US-Freeways where even 65 can be dangerous, others would
>>>allow much higher speeds without problems, and _that_ is why I told
>>>Anthony that his answer is bull****.
>>
>> Yes, you're right. Speed in and of itself is not unsafe. I never said
>> it is.
>
>Then why are you complaining that I called Anthony's assertion that it is
>bull****?

I just went back over the thread,and I can't see where I said that.
Maybe you're thinking of someone else?
>
>> But the difference between the crash rates is *not* because of the
>> different speed limits.
>
>I did not claim it is, but you are partly wrong. Many accidents in the US
>happen because the drivers have too much time on their hands to do
>everything from drinking coffee to watching TV. These accidents would
>mostly disappear if the speedlimits were lifted or at least adjusted
>properly.

I can't agree. Going faster doesn't seem to be an incentive to paying
attention; all I need to do to see this is watch the news and read the
paper to see all the idiots driving fast and screwing it up.
>
>>>In Germany driving is also seen as a necessity and the licensing rules are
>>>not nearly strict enough, but that also does not make driving faster than
>>>75 by default unsafe.
>>
>> The licensing and enforcement are indeed tougher than here in the US.
>> "Not strict enough" means nothing in this case.
>
>Yes, it does. The German Autobahns would be even safer if people were
>taught to adjust their speed to the conditions properly.

Now that I know what you mean by "Not strict enough", I agree.
>
>>>The speed laws are mainly reflecting the fact that most states (like the
>>>'Bundeslaender' in Germany) are suffering from a distinct lack of funds
>>>caused by overspending of politicians.
>>
>> How do you come to this conclusion?
>
>Speed limits are revenue generators. Big ones. And the only useful way to
>extract sufficiently large amounts of revenue is setting them so
>ridiculously low that everyone thinks they are nonsense anyway and drives
>faster. Thus the states do exactly that.

Sorry, I don't agree, and evidently, neither do you.
"The German Autobahns would be even safer if people were taught to
adjust their speed to the conditions properly."
Part of that 'being stricter' is stronger enforcement of the rules.
The idea that speed law is to collect revenue is so rediculous I don't
understand how so many can believe it.
Well, that's not really true, I do understand. If it's true, they
don't deserve the tickets they get for violating the rules.
Yes, there are some speed traps; pointing to them is not pointing to
all speed laws.
>
>>>If a driver is safe at 90mph he knows to adjust his speed to conditions
>>>and thus does not drive 90mph where the conditions, including other
>>>motorists, do not allow 90mph.
>>
>> Which is pretty much everywhere.
>
>How do you come to this conclusion?

Because most of the roads aren't that clear of other drivers.
And it's the other drivers that make that kind of speed dangerous.
They are unpredictable, and at that speed, things happen pretty fast.
>
>> Plus, your idea allows the individual drivers to determine when it's
>> safe to go 90; that's obviously not the way to do things; all one
>> needs to do is watch those who do go 90 to see that many of them are
>> not safe.
>
>How do you determine, who is safe and who isnt?

I don't need to, except for those near me. And most of them are pretty
obvious in their unsafeness. They do stupid things. I see them do
these stupid things.
Don't you read the rest of the threads here? Don't you see that others
notice these stupid drivers too?
>
>
>Chris

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:38:36 -0800, "C.H." >
> wrote:

>>Speed limits are revenue generators.

> Sorry, I don't agree,

Then why not just make the penalty for speeding points on license only.
Make it enough points so that 2 speeding convictions in a period of
one year would result in the loss of one's license for the same period
of time.

The fact that they collect fines, and are more than willing to plea
bargain down speeding offenses to fine only without points or not
reporting a conviction to the DMV supports the theory that speed limit
enforcement is primarily about revenue, not safety.