Increasing the highway speeds.

>
> So a driver may 4-wheel drift around every corner and their driving
> should be considered R&P as long as they are not involved in a crash?

If the driver is skilled enough to handle a 4-wheel drift, why not? I'd
rather see someone skilled doing 4-wheel drifts than the average driver
trying to take a corner in ANY manner. To me, the average driver is much
scarier, if the vehicle is moving at all. This is because it is way too
easy to get a license in the U.S. Most people who have one probably
shouldn't.

>
> How old did you say you are...?

Older than you, I'm quite certain. Not that I'm bragging about that.

> -----
>
> - gpsman
>

morticide wrote:
>
> I drove in Montana this month, and 75 is reasonable.

Reasonable for night driving, sure.

In the middle of summer, along I-90 from the the eastern border to the
middle of the state, everybody and their dog drives 90+. They KRETP,
and everybody gets along just fine.

See, I drove through there last year at this time, and saw speeds in
excess of 100mph plenty of times. Neither I nor my car broke any kind
of sweat over it. But my car was born and bred for the Autobahn, so
triple-digit speeds would be normal if this car has stayed in the
Fatherland.

And saw one highway patrol vehicle. Going the other way.

No tickets the entire trip.

E.P.

gpsman wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
> > morticide wrote:
> >
> > > R&P without an actual figure is useless when most people do not drive
> > > R&P.
> >
> > It isn't. The implementation in MT was flawed in that it was up to the
> > discretion of the police officer, rather than the driver. The standard
> > should have been such that not being involved in a crash is prima facie
> > evidence that the driver was operating his or her vehicle in a R & P manner.
>
> So a driver may 4-wheel drift around every corner and their driving
> should be considered R&P as long as they are not involved in a crash?

Non sequitur. We're talking about speed limits.

BTW, on most public roads, slipping tires counts as reckless or
careless driving, and will be cited as such.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > Arif Khokar wrote:
> > > morticide wrote:
> > >
> > > > R&P without an actual figure is useless when most people do not drive
> > > > R&P.
> > >
> > > It isn't. The implementation in MT was flawed in that it was up to the
> > > discretion of the police officer, rather than the driver. The standard
> > > should have been such that not being involved in a crash is prima facie
> > > evidence that the driver was operating his or her vehicle in a R & P manner.
> >
> > So a driver may 4-wheel drift around every corner and their driving
> > should be considered R&P as long as they are not involved in a crash?
>
> Non sequitur. We're talking about speed limits.
>
> BTW, on most public roads, slipping tires counts as reckless or
> careless driving, and will be cited as such.
>
> E.P.

or "exhibition of speed" depending on which way the tires are
slipping...

nate

(chirp chirp chirp)

Ed Pirrero wrote: <brevity snip>
> morticide wrote:
> >
> > I drove in Montana this month, and 75 is reasonable.
>
> Reasonable for night driving, sure.

I think many MT drivers, me among them, find 75 at night a tad too fast
considering all the wildlife we've seen dart across the interstate.
It's not uncommon to see two deer dead on the shoulder... or in the
driving lanes if the driver didn't bother to move them.

>
> In the middle of summer, along I-90 from the the eastern border to the
> middle of the state, everybody and their dog drives 90+. They KRETP,
> and everybody gets along just fine.

Mostly. I call MT "home of the one car crash". No less than once a
week some dingbat inexplicably drives off the road at high speed and
rolls. Here's a link to the latest in the Billings area
http://www.billingsgazette.net/artic...l/67-wreck.txt

>
> See, I drove through there last year at this time, and saw speeds in
> excess of 100mph plenty of times.
>
> And saw one highway patrol vehicle. Going the other way.

Probably between Crow Agency and Billings, a hot area for speeding,
drunk Native Americans. There is literally always a Trooper on patrol
there, something many residents of Crow Agency and Hardin seem to have
not noticed.

Stationary speed traps are rare if not nonexistent in MT and if my
experience is any indication it's still pretty tough to get cited for
speeding on an interstate since repeal of the R&P law... if you have MT
plates anyway.
-----

- gpsman

In article . com>,
Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>Non sequitur. We're talking about speed limits.
>
>BTW, on most public roads, slipping tires counts as reckless or
>careless driving, and will be cited as such.

At the risk of sounding like gpsman: CITE?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article om>,
gpsman > wrote:
>
>Mostly. I call MT "home of the one car crash". No less than once a
>week some dingbat inexplicably drives off the road at high speed and
>rolls. Here's a link to the latest in the Billings area
>http://www.billingsgazette.net/artic...l/67-wreck.txt

Nice try, nothing inexplicable about that one -- "...alcohol was believed
to be a factor"

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> >
> >Non sequitur. We're talking about speed limits.
> >
> >BTW, on most public roads, slipping tires counts as reckless or
> >careless driving, and will be cited as such.
>
> At the risk of sounding like gpsman: CITE?

Feel free to find any locale in which spinning tires or skidding tires
isn't included in reckless, careless or other cite-worthy driving.

Pretty much EVERYWHERE has such laws.

I will grant there might be exceptions in certain places. Feel free to
peruse whatever laws are in your location. If you care about my
location - WA state RCWs.

E.P.

In article .com>,
Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>> >
>> >Non sequitur. We're talking about speed limits.
>> >
>> >BTW, on most public roads, slipping tires counts as reckless or
>> >careless driving, and will be cited as such.
>>
>> At the risk of sounding like gpsman: CITE?
>
>Feel free to find any locale in which spinning tires or skidding tires
>isn't included in reckless, careless or other cite-worthy driving.

Maryland has a separate offense for "spinning of wheels", but it
doesn't apply to a drift. It's a lesser offense than reckless or careless.

>Pretty much EVERYWHERE has such laws.

Yet you are unable to actually cite one.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article om>,
> gpsman > wrote:
> >
> >Mostly. I call MT "home of the one car crash". No less than once a
> >week some dingbat inexplicably drives off the road at high speed and
> >rolls. Here's a link to the latest in the Billings area
> >http://www.billingsgazette.net/artic...l/67-wreck.txt
>
> Nice try, nothing inexplicable about that one -- "...alcohol was believed
> to be a factor"

Spurious conclusion. "Believed to be a factor" means very, very little
and possibly nothing. The "belief" could be... "wrong"! Imagine that!

If a sober you runs over a drunk me sitting in a lawn chair in my front
yard... alcohol *would* be a factor and the incident would probably be
chalked up as "alcohol related".

"Alcohol was believed to be a factor" could mean the person in the R
seat was "believed" to be drunk and grabbed the wheel, or was in the
back seat and reached forward and covered the driver's eyes.

I believe you have the "I know things I couldn't possibly know"
disease. That doesn't make it a fact... but I think you are unlikely
to post much other than supporting evidence... and that still won't
make it a fact.
-----

- gpsman