Ed Pawlowski said...

>
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>>>> Knowing that same phrase as you quoted, I decided that 55
>>>> was safest. He dinged me for it! In fact, I read somewhere lately
>>>> (don't ask me where), that in some state in the US, they can actually
>>>> *flunk* you for driving 15mph or more below the speed limit during
>>>> your driving test!
>>>>
>>>
>>> As well they should. Driving 15 below is also a ticketable offence
>>> (weather permitting) as it is unsafe and can cause an accident worse
>>> than speeding.
>>
>> Speed limits are upper limits, not lower limits. There may be an
>> argument that driving excessively slow is especially dangerous in
>> combination with other traffic that travelling excessively fast. Speed
>> alone does not necessarily cause accidents, but accidents at high speed
>> cause more damage, more injuries and more deaths.
>
> Perhaps in Canada, but in the US, the Interstate system has a lower
> limit. It is not posted, but it is on the books. A guy I used to work
> with was stopped once (CT State Police) for going to slow and he was
> given a warning. Very rare, but it does happen. It is a safety hazard.


The posted speed limit is null and void if everyone is driving 90mph since
the posted speed limit would become the slow speed hazard. This can be
routinely witnessed on the New Jersey Turnpike!!! Bumper to bumper! About
like driving at Daytona International Speedway!!!

Best,

Andy

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> As well they should. Driving 15 below is also a ticketable offence
> (weather permitting) as it is unsafe and can cause an accident worse
> than speeding.

I have seen road signs saying driving more than (10?) miles
under the limit was a violation. Wherever I saw it must have
had some condition that caused people to drive far too slowly.

> Couple of years ago I wanted to do an experiment. My car has an
> instant readout of mpg. I chose a section of highway that is flat
> and the reading is steady for at least a half mile. The idea was to
> see how speed affect mileage on my particular car. One day I drove
> at 75, next day at 70, then 65, 60, but at 55 I feared for my life as
> cars sped around me.

If people can't keep up with the flow of traffic for whatever
reason, one hopes they stay in the right lane at least. You see
it once in a while, someone driving quite a bit more slowly than
everyone else, and people do wind up swerving around them. I
imagine some of those people think they are safe drivers. Yikes.

nancy

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> Speed limits are upper limits, not lower limits.
>
> \
> Check this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_l..._United_States
>
> http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/...9p767-775.html
> This paper presents the results of the mail out survey conducted in the
> United States to unveil the current state of practice related to the posting
> of minimum speed limit signs on Interstate freeway system. The analysis of
> the survey results has revealed that half of the country (25 states) posts
> the minimum speed limit on Interstate freeways. The most common posting is
> 40Â mph. There are few states that post 45Â mph and 55Â mph in some sections
> on Interstate freeways. The survey results has also discovered that many
> states raised the maximum speed limits on Interstate freeways as the
> consequence of the National Highway System (NHS) designation Act of 1995
> without revising or studying the effect of the existing minimum speed limits
> on traffic operation. Implications for future research relates to a multi
> state study which will evaluate the relevance of minimum speed limits on
> speed variability that is created by the posting of minimum speed limit.
>
>

So it would appear that 25-30mph under the speed limit is an offence in
some places, not 15.

In article >,
"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message

> > Speed limits are upper limits, not lower limits. There may be an argument
> > that driving excessively slow is especially dangerous in combination with
> > other traffic that travelling excessively fast. Speed alone does not
> > necessarily cause accidents, but accidents at high speed cause more
> > damage, more injuries and more deaths.
>
> Perhaps in Canada, but in the US, the Interstate system has a lower limit.
> It is not posted, but it is on the books. A guy I used to work with was
> stopped once (CT State Police) for going to slow and he was given a
> warning. Very rare, but it does happen. It is a safety hazard.

According to this cite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_l..._United_States

once the 55 law was repealed in the US, the individual states set all
speed limits, including interstate highways. There is a picture in the
above cite of a posted minimum and maximum speed limit. In my limited
experience, there are laws on the books that prohibit impeding traffic.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:46:13 -0800 in rec.food.cooking, sf
> wrote,
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:32:04 -0800, David Harmon >
>wrote:
>>Here in California, I can really never be sure at any given moment
>>whether I am breaking the law or not.
>>
>Ain't *that* the truth? It changes suddenly and often with no posted
>speed limit in sight. Speed limits in town are equally as hard to
>figure out. It's 25 here and 35 there, no wait! It's 15 now.
>Where's the speed limit sign?

Case in point, yesterday I was out driving and it was sprinkling a bit,
and I saw numerous cars with wipers on and headlights off. For over a
year now, that's been against the law in Ca.

David wrote on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:35:48 -0800:

> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:46:13 -0800 in rec.food.cooking, sf
> > wrote,
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:32:04 -0800, David Harmon >
>> wrote:
>>> Here in California, I can really never be sure at any given
>>> moment whether I am breaking the law or not.
>>>
>> Ain't *that* the truth? It changes suddenly and often with
>> no posted speed limit in sight. Speed limits in town are
>> equally as hard to figure out. It's 25 here and 35 there, no
>> wait! It's 15 now. Where's the speed limit sign?

>Case in point, yesterday I was out driving and it was sprinkling a bit,
>and I saw numerous cars with wipers on and headlights off. For over a
>year now, that's been against the law in Ca.

I think it's the law in MD and VA too. Most people do obey and there are
lots of signs informing drivers but there are stubborn hold-outs.


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article >,
says...
>
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> >>> Knowing that same phrase as you quoted, I decided that 55
> >>> was safest. He dinged me for it! In fact, I read somewhere lately
> >>> (don't ask me where), that in some state in the US, they can actually
> >>> *flunk* you for driving 15mph or more below the speed limit during your
> >>> driving test!
> >>>
> >>
> >> As well they should. Driving 15 below is also a ticketable offence
> >> (weather permitting) as it is unsafe and can cause an accident worse than
> >> speeding.
> >
> > Speed limits are upper limits, not lower limits. There may be an argument
> > that driving excessively slow is especially dangerous in combination with
> > other traffic that travelling excessively fast. Speed alone does not
> > necessarily cause accidents, but accidents at high speed cause more
> > damage, more injuries and more deaths.
>
> Perhaps in Canada, but in the US, the Interstate system has a lower limit.
> It is not posted, but it is on the books. A guy I used to work with was
> stopped once (CT State Police) for going to slow and he was given a
> warning. Very rare, but it does happen. It is a safety hazard.

Here in RI I-95 through the urban core is posted 55MPH and in some parts
they also post a minimum speed limit of 45MPH.

The thing is, hit the I-95 stretch called the viaduct and it's a miracle
if you can get up to 35MPH.

Of course that's good for the viaduct since it's deteriorating as I
speak.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> So it would appear that 25-30mph under the speed limit is an offence in
> some places, not 15.
>
Varies. I'd rather take my chances with a speeder going 30 over than coming
upon a car doing 15 under in fast moving congestion.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> So it would appear that 25-30mph under the speed limit is an offence in
>> some places, not 15.
>>
> Varies. I'd rather take my chances with a speeder going 30 over than coming
> upon a car doing 15 under in fast moving congestion.
>

You prefer to have people travelling at high speed in congested traffic??

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>> So it would appear that 25-30mph under the speed limit is an offence in
>>> some places, not 15.
>>>
>> Varies. I'd rather take my chances with a speeder going 30 over than
>> coming upon a car doing 15 under in fast moving congestion.
>
> You prefer to have people travelling at high speed in congested traffic??

Sure, it happens every day on most every major highway. Here in CT it is
I84, I91 and I95. Traffic can move along at 75 or 80 with no problems. One
idiot trying to do 50 will cause a serious accident.

I travel I395 in the morning. The only thing that keeps me at 70 is the
cost of a speeding ticket ($250 and up) or I'd be doing 85 or so. Safely as
traffic is moderate. I've topped 110 but only briefly in once section. The
troopers are out there about 3 days a week so it keeps me honest.
>

Edwin wrote on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:12:42 -0500:


> "Dave Smith" > wrote in
> message m...
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> So it would appear that 25-30mph under the speed limit is
>>>> an offence in some places, not 15.
>>>>
>>> Varies. I'd rather take my chances with a speeder going 30 over
>>> than coming upon a car doing 15 under in fast moving
>>> congestion.
>>
>> You prefer to have people travelling at high speed in
>> congested traffic??

> Sure, it happens every day on most every major highway. Here in CT it
> is I84, I91 and I95. Traffic can move along at 75 or
> 80 with no problems. One idiot trying to do 50 will cause a
> serious accident.

> travel I395 in the morning. The only thing that keeps me at 70 is the
> cost of a speeding ticket ($250 and up) or I'd be doing 85 or so.
> Safely as traffic is moderate. I've topped 110 but only briefly in
> once section. The troopers are out there about 3 days a week so it
> keeps me honest.

Speed limits in the various states seem often to be set on a basis of
"the squeaky wheel" or appeasement of vocal voters. It would keep me a
bit more honest if the DMV would publicize the bases and statistics for
setting limits. My usual speed is set on my speed control at 10% over
the posted limit. This seems to be more or less the usual practice. Of
course, seeing a state trooper gives me a guilty conscience and I slow
down.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>>> So it would appear that 25-30mph under the speed limit is an offence in
>>>> some places, not 15.
>>>>
>>> Varies. I'd rather take my chances with a speeder going 30 over than
>>> coming upon a car doing 15 under in fast moving congestion.
>> You prefer to have people travelling at high speed in congested traffic??
>
> Sure, it happens every day on most every major highway. Here in CT it is
> I84, I91 and I95. Traffic can move along at 75 or 80 with no problems. One
> idiot trying to do 50 will cause a serious accident.
>
> I travel I395 in the morning. The only thing that keeps me at 70 is the
> cost of a speeding ticket ($250 and up) or I'd be doing 85 or so. Safely as
> traffic is moderate. I've topped 110 but only briefly in once section. The
> troopers are out there about 3 days a week so it keeps me honest.

Sorry, but that is not keeping you honest. That is keeping you
compliant, and you are only compliant because there presence makes you
wary of being caught If you were a matter of honesty, you would would
not speed even if you knew there were no cops around.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>
> Sorry, but that is not keeping you honest. That is keeping you compliant,
> and you are only compliant because there presence makes you wary of being
> caught If you were a matter of honesty, you would would not speed even if
> you knew there were no cops around.

Call it whatever you want. I don't get tickets and they don't stop me and
ask my intent.