Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Right Wing Assault

Of course the DOT agrees, but they kind of have to. It's not as though a DOT spokesman could say, "It's bloody insane to think you can go exactly 55 on 285, and the law that says you have to is meant strictly to let us increase revenue and give us an excuse for pulling over anyone we think is suspicious."


28 posted on 03/02/2006 7:54:35 PM PST by Turbopilot (Nothing in the above post is or should be construed as legal research, analysis, or advice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Turbopilot
Of course the DOT agrees, but they kind of have to. It's not as though a DOT spokesman could say, "It's bloody insane to think you can go exactly 55 on 285, and the law that says you have to is meant strictly to let us increase revenue and give us an excuse for pulling over anyone we think is suspicious."

The DOT could argue that their behavior was unsafe because, had an emergency vehicle needed to get somewhere at faster than 55mph, their actions would likely have prevented it from doing so (the emergency vehicle could have gotten stuck in traffic far enough back that the obstructors would have been unable to see it and yield).

Of course, another issue that needs to be considered is that if a certain number of cars per minute are entering a road, stopping distance will be proportional to speed minus a constant. Thus, under some traffic conditons, 60mph may be safer than 55mph.

31 posted on 03/02/2006 8:01:39 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson