Sherman Cahal wrote:>> This is reposted from another web-site, and is actually an account of>> when I was pulled over for "dangerous" driving a few nights ago.>> Numerous people have recommended that I get a lawyer, and it seems>that>> I will -->>

Join the NMA. Fight revenue speed and traffic rule enforcement all>over North America. WE killed the NMSL, and the post NMSL compromise.>In doing so WE saved lives, as traffic deaths are DOWN AGAIN this year,>and police have been freed to do useful work.>

you'd discover that they're real people who> genuinely care about their fellow citizens.

The statues cited were 189.440 and 189.020. I am not for sure where to>look these up at.

My court date is May 4 and I am booked with final exams that week. I>asked for the date to be changed and he stated that "under no>circumstances no changes can be made."

Call the circuit clerk's office in the county where the citation was written> (Greenup I presume) and tell the deputy clerk that you will be out of town at UK> taking final exams that day, and request a continuance.

I'd suggest getting the rotors turned and the pads replaced. If they

still squeal after that, have the rotors replaced as well.

Getting a little full of yourself, aren't you? Show me documented> proof NMA was responsible for repealing the NMSL.

BTW, the SL UP, traffic morbidity down. The random tax ticket scam,> outlined for what it is.> Join the NMA.

Any advice or comments? I did not squeal my tires (and can you even do> that in my stock civic? Because I have floored my car before from> normal gear and can't even do that...). I have photographic evidence of> no burnouts or evidence of "squeal outs" at the intersection as well.>

Although it has already been mentioned, I would say get a lawyer...

avoid that part of town if you can.

I'd follow that up with a certified signature required on delivery> letter as well. When dealing with courts, never, ever just take a> someone's word for anything. Get everything done in writing.

You're drawing a distinction that doesn't exist in real life.>

I'll say it again: EVERY UNIFORMED COP DOES TRAFFIC. Period. They also do> lots of other things. There are no exceptions.>

You're so rabid about this, I'm beginning to suspect that the NMA's dues> land in your pocket.>

If you break the law, you should expect to pay the consequences. It's that> simple. No, I don't drive the speed limit all the time. Yes, I expect to > get> caught sometimes. Yes, I'll pay the fine. No, I won't whine about it.

John Lansford wrote:>

You sure were not. You said, incorrectly, that 55 saved lives, but as>it turned out, it did not.

The NMA was the ONLY lobbying orginization that worked for traffic>freedom. >

We won. You lost. Lives were saved.

I just checked on that with the city today, and the city of Worthington>does not have jurisdiction over Raceland.

In Kentucky, police in fourth-class cities have countywide

But they care more about their ticket quotas. >

Sorry, "performance goals".

Why would a cop care if> a motorist he cites gets a lawyer and fights the ticket in court?

H.B. Elkins <hbelkins@mis.net.r­estrictorplate> wrote:

Because he will have to appear and testify, opening himself up to > questioning and cross examination. He would much rather you just pay your > ticket so he doesn't have to be bothered. Every cop I know hates having to > go to court.

I just checked on that with the city today, and the city of> Worthington does not have jurisdiction over Raceland.

Don't let anyone ever tell you, especially a police officer, that they *do > not*> have quotas.>

A very good friend of mine from my hometown is a police officer in a town > where> I used to live. When I still lived there, I ran into him and we hadn't > seen each> other in a couple of months so we were catching up. He was working and he > told> me that he had to run, that he was on federal overtime and had to write so > many> speeding tickets within a certain period of time. He took off and I headed > out> of town. I saw him with a motorist pulled over on my way by.>

I don't fault the individual officers for this. I fault the "system" for> encouraging patrol officers to write speeding tickets rather than to > patrol> high-crime areas to curb the problems of violence, robbery, drugs, etc. > and all> those other societal problems that speeding motorists pale in comparison > to.

Cops should also be encouraged to go after dangerous drugs like > methamphetamine than to waste their time and money on prosecuting users > of harmless substances like cannabis.

John Lansford wrote:>

You sure were not. You said, incorrectly, that 55 saved lives, but as> it turned out, it did not.>

"SP Cook" <pacefsc@msn.com> wrote in message> news:1113908843.604­563.95640@z14g2000cw­z.googlegroups.com..­.>

Do you have any scientific data on this? Fatalities (as a rate) have been> decreasing for years. Is there any reason to believe that there is a> correlation with the repealing of the NMSL?>

I'm glad the NMSL is gone, but I've never seen real data on this.>

-Pete>

"SP Cook" <pacefsc@msn.com> wrote in message> news:1113908843.604­563.95640@z14g2000cw­z.googlegroups.com..­.> >

Do you have any scientific data on this? Fatalities (as a rate) have been> decreasing for years. Is there any reason to believe that there is a> correlation with the repealing of the NMSL?>

I'm glad the NMSL is gone, but I've never seen real data on this.>

-Pete

In article <d46sdm$p8l$1@news-­int2.gatech.edu>,> "Pete Jenior" <gtg377a@prism.gate­chFILTER.edu> wrote:>

While I was never a fan of a 55 NMSL (or even 65) I thought the reason >it was in place was for energy conservation first, and that speed >related traffic deaths decreased as a side benefit.

Now that the states have control over speed limits again, I would like >to see speeds based on engineering rather than legislation.

What I think is more dangerous is the differing speed limits for trucks >on some Midwestern Interstates. Here in Illinois trucks are still >limited to 55, but troopers are pretty forgiving of that as long as they >keep it around 65.

I've never bought into the "split speed limits are dangerous" school> of thought. I like the idea of trucks> going about 10 mph slower than passenger vehicles -- tends to keep the> trucks in the right lane and> makes passing them easier.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, John Lansford wrote:>

This assumes that the crash *frequency* (or "likelihood", if you prefer)>is the same at 55 as it is at 65 or 75 or 85, which it is not. V85+5R>speed limits have been repeatedly and robustly shown to minimize the>frequency/likel­ihood of crashes relative to underposted or overposted>limits. Because V85+5R posted limits minimize speed differentials among>road users, crash severity does not rise proportionally with posted limit>increases relative to baseline.

DS (You, uh, managed to get a PE license with such gaping holes in your>ability to think logically? In what state, pray tell?)

This assumes that the crash *frequency* (or "likelihood", if you

DS (You, uh, managed to get a PE license with such gaping holes in

I didn't discuss whether it is easier to avoid a crash at a given speed.> I was discussing how much worse one is at a speed higher than 55mph over> one at 55mph.

I see you are one of the denizens of rec.autos.driving. No need to> explain anything further, either to you or from you, as your mind is> already closed tight.

If you break the law, you should expect to pay the consequences. It's that> simple. No, I don't drive the speed limit all the time.

While you're at it, show me documented proof (not the NMA's own> propaganda) that claims the NMA was responsible for repealing the> NMSL.

No proof whatsoever on your claims. Typical, though, and expected.

John Lansford wrote:>

Organizations are not responsible for enacting or repealing laws; >Congress is. There probably were several organizations that were >lobbying for a repeal of that law, but the NMA was created for that >purpose (and they did have a lobbyist at that time).>

Fatality rates and crash rates have no correlation with speed limits. >There are no other organizations that are lobbying for higher speed >limits that I'm aware of.>

Why you consider the fact that products you engineer perform better than >design assumptions indicate is the fault of reality rather than the >design assumptions is beyond me.

I didn't discuss whether it is easier to avoid a crash at a given> speed. I was discussing how much worse one is at a speed higher than> 55mph over one at 55mph.

Here in California, there's a 10 MPH split between cars and trucks on > freeways. The trucks are generally allowed 5 over. It's very easy to > coexist with the trucks on the highway.

I don't know why anybody would > claim that allowing trucks to drive the same speed as cars is safer.

TV's John Lansford wrote:>> Name me one that was designed for an 80-90mph design speed. AFAIK the>> highest speed any road is designed for in the US is for 75mph.>

The Kansas Turnpike once had a speed limit of 80. Was its design speed >80 >or was it signed faster than its design speed?

elaich wrote:>

It's easy to coexist with trucks on a highway provided that you drive >faster than they do.

The problem with restricting trucks to speeds 10 mph (or more) slower >than other vehicles is that they end up blocking the whole road form >minutes at a time when one attempts to pass another.

This leads to >unnecessary traffic pack formation lead by two large vehicles. The fact >that those two large vehicles are not very maneuverable coupled with the >fact that they severely restrict the forward visibility of drivers >behind them makes for a extremely hazardous situation.

This situation would occur far less often if trucks moved at the same >speed as other vehicles (at least in areas with relatively flat terrain).

They do that now, even when the speed limits are the same for both> trucks and other vehicles.

"MC Pee Pants" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo­.com> wrote:>

A lot of interstates used to have speed limits of 75mph too, but that> doesn't mean they were designed for 80-90mph. I've got every design> manuals issued by AASHTO since 1964 and none of them go over 75mph.> The latest version does go up to 80mph, however, but it's been out> only since 2001.>

John Lansford wrote:>

Just because the manual only goes up to 75 MPH that doesn't mean that a >good engineer couldn't extrapolate a little, add in a little safety >factor, and design a road that was perfectly safe at higher speed.

If >nothing else, I've heard that Kansas is pretty darn flat, so if I were a >betting man I'd say that the Interstates there are likely wide, flat, >and straight.

Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>

The Interstate System was specifically designed to AASHTO standards.>For an engineer to extrapolate beyond those standards means he accepts>all responsibility and risk involved in the design with nothing to use>as a nationally accepted standard. I doubt that happened.>

Which is why I put limits on my statement. Obviously a road built flat>and straight does not have a geometric limit on the speed, although>there are still such features as speed change lane length and clear>recovery zone width that must be considered.>

I've never bought into the "split speed limits are dangerous" school of thought.> I like the idea of trucks> going about 10 mph slower than passenger vehicles -- tends to keep the trucks in> the right lane and> makes passing them easier.

The problem with restricting trucks to speeds 10 mph (or more) slower > than other vehicles is that they end up blocking the whole road form > minutes at a time when one attempts to pass another. This leads to > unnecessary traffic pack formation lead by two large vehicles. The fact > that those two large vehicles are not very maneuverable coupled with the > fact that they severely restrict the forward visibility of drivers > behind them makes for a extremely hazardous situation.

You know what? This actually happens to me - maybe once every six months. > It's simply not a factor.

I don't know why everybody falls into that trap when they think about> Kansas. I suggest that, if you get the chance, you take I-70 west out of> Kansas City and, in particular, take a look at some of the scenery about> 20-30 miles west of Topeka. Those hills beat the hell out of anything in> my native Michigan for sure. A couple of other excellent hill-country> drives in Kansas include US 77 just south of Manhattan, and US 183 north> of Hays.

On 2005-04-22, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:>

How am I being a hypocrite?>

It's simple: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". In my case, I> accept that there may be consequences for my actions, and I am prepared to> pay those consequences without whining. You, obviously, are not.>

We live in a society of laws. As long as they are on the books, they are> right, by definition.>

What a completely unAmerican sentiment.

nate>

-- > replace "fly" with "com" to reply.> http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel

We live in a society of laws. As long as they are on the books, they are> right, by definition.

in fact, it's an essential part of> civil disobedience that if enough people practice it, it will overload the> court system, thereby making enforcement of the law impossible and thereby> lead to its repeal.>

I am willing to accept the consequences of my actions, This is an essential> element of, if not the very definition of, maturity.

BTW, I appreciate the civility and level of discourse involved in

John Lansford, PE> --> The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:> http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/

I received a ticket from an NC state trooper on I-26 last October. I>drew all the signs on I-26 wb and went into Erwin, TN. He got me on>I-26 eb just after returning into NC. I had been spoiled over the>years in NC they have very few troopers unlike Ohio, PA, NY, and some>other states.>

He could have gotten me for a lot worse, but he wrote it for 80 in a>60. I then got a letter from a lawyer in Asheville for $50 + the fine>he could get it reduced to 9 MPH over. I decided to take this.>

The reason I am posting this is that not all troopers are the scum of>the earth. He was VERY polite and concientious just doing his job and>he was telling the truth. Like I said, it could have been a lot worse.>

The road doen't change at the TN NC state line. I realize the old>section of I-26 is horrible and deserves a 60 mph limit, but right at>the state line I don't think it does. But what I think doesn't matter.> I got nailed and I have to pay the price. You can bet for the next>year I will be very careful, which is one of the functions of traffic>safety enforcement.

Name me one that was designed for an 80-90mph design speed. AFAIK the> highest speed any road is designed for in the US is for 75mph.

I would hardly call it "precious".

BTW, it was designed for 60mph.

The Interstate System was specifically designed to AASHTO standards.> For an engineer to extrapolate beyond those standards means he accepts> all responsibility and risk involved in the design with nothing to use> as a nationally accepted standard. I doubt that happened.

Say, for example, you get a USA Truck driver who wants to pass a> Canadian truck or a J.B. Hunt, and you can see exactly where the problem> comes in. He's perfectly entitled to make such a pass if and when it is> safe, regardless of anybody else's convenience or "I hate trucks"> feelings,

The Kansas Turnpike used to be posted at 80 mph.

re_johnson1@hotmail­.com (RJ) wrote in > news:1gvjvgu.jba9ix­g1knm8N%re_johnson1@­hotmail.com:>

Over 50 years ago. And it was never designed for that speed.

I find it amusing that those engineers in road building here on usenet keep >insisting that their theories, their assumptions, and calculations trump >the data.

I would really like to know all of you that keep attacking PE's and>John Lansford in particular KNOW ANYTHING about highway design.>

Or even what it takes to be a PE.>

I am not a big fan of the NC interstate system. Most of it is old and>way under designed. It was designed to a very old and very>conservative standard as alot of the interstates in the southeast were.

But that is not his fault and he is not responsible for me getting a>ticket on I-26 for exceeding the SL. ( I just wish I had known about>the NC Troopers strict enforcement on the NC down hill side.)>

Like I posted before, I think your venom should be directed at state>legislatures and legislators. That is where the work needs to be done>to change things.

Or even what it takes to be a PE.

I am not a big fan of the NC interstate system. Most of it is old

way under designed. It was designed to a very old and very> conservative standard as alot of the interstates in the southeast

But that is not his fault and he is not responsible for me getting a> ticket on I-26 for exceeding the SL. ( I just wish I had known about> the NC Troopers strict enforcement on the NC down hill side.)>

Like I posted before, I think your venom should be directed at state> legislatures and legislators. That is where the work needs to be

pigsty1...@yahoo.c­om wrote:>> I would really like to know all of you that keep attacking PE's and>> John Lansford in particular KNOW ANYTHING about highway design.>>

You mean "if" I know anything about highway design?>

Not much, if Mr. Lansford is a typical example.

He seems to be the>very archetype of the "cookbook" engineer.

It needs to be done there, it needs to be done in the minds of the>public in general, it needs to be done with engineers and AASHTO and>others who support overly conservative safety factors,

It needs to be>done counteracting the propaganda of the IIHS, NHTSA and other agencies>that place more weight on "slow = safe" and passive safety rather than>avoiding crashes in the first place.

In article <1114465343.367103.­195910@o13g2000cwo.g­ooglegroups.com>, pigsty1953@yahoo.co­m wrote:>> I would really like to know all of you that keep attacking PE's and>> John Lansford in particular KNOW ANYTHING about highway design.>

Do we want to make this a battle of degrees? Because I have a couple. >

And these aren't questions of highway design. They are questions of >reality vs. assumption. Regardless of engineering field, the way to >handle this is the same. However, this particular subset of engineers on >usenet consistantly appear to work by a different principle than every >other engineer on the planet. >

They take the data, and when they see higher speeds and no greater >instance of crashes, they declare drivers morons and their engineering >assumptions about design speed to be correct. In every other engineering >field, when we get data that doesn't match our assumptions, we >re-evaluate our assumptions. >

Even on that basis, my feelling on the space shuttle tragedies were> that we wanted a trillion dollar system, but only> were willing to spend in the hundreds of millions. Unfortunately you> get what you pay for.

30,000+ are killed every year in the US on the highways.

But as I said I have some driving experience and slower does> equal safer.

I happen to think these> people doing 80+ don't realize what can and does happen> at those speeds, and sir, you cannot deny that.

tetraethylleadREMOV­ETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:

Speeders look at the "higher speeds, no greater 'instance' of> crashes", and equate those two directly, while engineers look at> improved safety in cars and highways, faster and better medical care,> etc, and say it is due to incremental changes in all these things.

I've already said I feel that safety factors on highways are too> great. It's not my place to change them, though, and the CE field is> very risk averse. Mistakes such as the KC hotel design, various dam> failures, etc, tend to do that to an engineering field.>

John Lansford, PE> --> The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:> http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/

And then we wonder why we are sitting in traffic and have terrible mass> transit.>

Please feel free to respond to that.>

pigsty1953@yahoo.c­om wrote:>

Many of those killed were either intoxicated or not wearing their >seatbelts. Many people don't devote the amount of attention to the >driving task that is really necessary. On occasion, such inattention >will end up costing them.

Many times, when I ride with other people, I really wonder if they're >paying attention to what they're doing. I'll see them drift from lane >to lane without signalling or even looking. I'll see them gain on a >slower car ahead and wait till they catch up with them and slow down >before deciding to change lanes.>

Not necessarily. If one is going signficantly slower that traffic flow, >slower is definitely not safer. Also, when going slower, people are not >going to think they have to devote as much attention to the driving task >(see what I wrote above). When I drive slow, my attention tends to >wander as well.

Things can happen at any speed. If you're not paying attention, they're >far more likely to happen. An attentive driver going 80 mph is safer >than an inattentive driver going 65 mph.

And then we wonder why we are sitting in traffic and have terrible

Please feel free to respond to that.

Speeders look at the "higher speeds, no greater 'instance' of> crashes", and equate those two directly, while engineers look at> improved safety in cars and highways, faster and better medical care,> etc, and say it is due to incremental changes in all these things.

I've already said I feel that safety factors on highways are too> great. It's not my place to change them, though, and the CE field is> very risk averse. Mistakes such as the KC hotel design, various dam> failures, etc, tend to do that to an engineering field.

And when I drive fast, I find my attention focuses so much on the> driving operation that I become fatigued very quickly, which isn't> that much better than losing attention due to driving very slowly.

Since no one can predict which 80mph driver is attentive and which> 65mph driver is inattentive, I'd prefer if everyone just drove the> speed limit.

Found this thanks to Arif. (hope I remembered that right) >

In article <2suq61p7tv4094o5jf­n2c6845dj5v5si0n@4ax­.com>, John Lansford wrote:>> tetraethylleadREMOV­ETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:>>

This is irrelevant. Because I am not discussing anything post crash.

When data shows people aren't crashing at 75mph, you guys stick to your >assumptions that says the speed limit should be 55mph.

Unlike any other >engineers I've met on the planet. It's unique to those in the usenet road >design newsgroups. I just don't see this arrogance, this inability to >reconsider design assumptions anywhere else.

The rest of the population isn't as risk adverse.

Thusly your underposted >speed limits are ignored by the population at large. They have created more >risk because they have inspired a general disrespect of the vehicle code. >And then there are all the other problems they cause. >

There is a point where risk adverse becomes cry wolf. IL ramp speed >warning signs for instance... I think IL's formula is based on a model T. >It has no bearing to reality. For some of the ramps, I can go faster than >the warning speed on them on my bicycle.

#2 was due to a problem that was thought to be harmless. This caused >engineers to re-evaluate their assumptions. Something your PE friends >here on usenet aren't doing. They see a road with safe traveling 75mph >traffic and pound their feet about how their assumptions and calculations >should govern, and the speed limit has to be 55mph. Never mind that >actual data shows 75mph to be safe.

And never mind that older sets of guidelines based on 1950s> automobiles with bias-ply tires set the design speed at 75mph.>

Closest to an actual reason for that I ever got is the claim that

I find it funny they have advisory curve signs for 25 MPH on roads and>I can manage 40 MPH around them easy.

Closest to an actual reason for that I ever got is the claim that it's>because the driver's position in newer cars is lower than that in>older cars. Which is true, but it seems to me there have been other>improvements which ought to be taken into account... and aren't.

The latest Green Book allows sharper vertical curves. A road with> a 50 MPH design speed under the old rules might be good for 55 or 60> MPH under the new rules, if vertical curves were the critical factor.>

(The recently rebuilt US 20 in Charlton, Mass. has a 50 MPH design> speed using the pre-2000 standards. I checked out the plans and> found that the vertical curves meet current standards for 55 or> faster.)

That's interesting. I haven't received a copy of the Green Book in a> while so I might have go to out and grab one. From what you stated,> that means that speed limits of today are set too low for the modern> Green Book standards? If so, speed limits everywhere would need to be> reevaluated.

I find it funny they have advisory curve signs for 25 MPH on roads

I can manage 40 MPH around them easy.

And never mind that older sets of guidelines based on 1950s>automobiles with bias-ply tires set the design speed at 75mph.

In article <1114530601.770011.­183620@o13g2000cwo.g­ooglegroups.com>,>Sh­erman Cahal <sherman@cahaltech.­com> wrote:>>

The new MUTCD calls for a 16 degree ball bank indicator reading>instead of 10 degrees to set curve advisory speed. This change>increases the posted speed by about 30%, close to the 85th percentile.

General rule of thumb -- for the most part, you can safely take an advisory> speed-signed curve at 10 mph faster than the advisory plate suggests.

In article <scqdndXTYIbtz_PfRV­n-rA@speakeasy.net>,­>Matthew Russotto <russotto@grace.spe­akeasy.net> wrote:>>And never mind that older sets of guidelines based on 1950s>>automobiles with bias-ply tires set the design speed at 75mph.>>

The latest Green Book allows sharper vertical curves. A road with>a 50 MPH design speed under the old rules might be good for 55 or 60>MPH under the new rules, if vertical curves were the critical factor.>

Sherman Cahal wrote:>> John F. Carr wrote:>> > In article <scqdndXTYIbtz_PfRV­n-rA@speakeasy.net>,­>> > Matthew Russotto <russotto@grace.spe­akeasy.net> wrote:>> > >And never mind that older sets of guidelines based on 1950s>> > >automobiles with bias-ply tires set the design speed at 75mph.>> > >

Well, in an ideal world, they would be regularly reevaluated anyway,>but we all know how often that happens. But the good news is that if>these new standards are followed at least new construction will be>posted more realistically, assuming design speed is used as a factor in>selecting a posted speed.>

Just curious, can anyone that has a new copy let us know if the>ball-bank measurements for curve advisory speeds changed as well?>that's one area where I definitely feel the old green book was too>conservative.

In article <1114530601.770011.­183620@o13g2000cwo.g­ooglegroups.com>,> Sherman Cahal <sherman@cahaltech.­com> wrote:>

The new MUTCD calls for a 16 degree ball bank indicator reading> instead of 10 degrees to set curve advisory speed. This change> increases the posted speed by about 30%, close to the 85th percentile.>

Just curious, can anyone that has a new copy let us know if the>ball-bank measurements for curve advisory speeds changed as well?>that's one area where I definitely feel the old green book was too>conservative.

DTJ and Floyd and anyone else.> What spelling mistakes did I make? Pull out your red pen and enjoy,> All of the english majors in the crowd.

I was not aware that Brent was posting from rec.autos.driving, and> will not respond to any post from that site.

You can cross post all> you like, but I'll not fan a flamewar any further.

Which reminds me of a way, way, WAAAY off-topic comment...>

Dale Earnhardt was never quite the same driver after NASCAR went from

So, it's set for a record blizzard at night for an 90 year old woman >driving a model T with kerosene lamps. That's an idiotic way to set >limits and advisories.

I think they take that number and subtract 15mph from it.

We really need to change the unit of measurement we use for speed from >mph to m/s.

In article <d4lv1t0922@drn.new­sguy.com>, H.B. Elkins wrote:>

In IL, that's just a starting point for a curve you aren't familiar with. >Many of them are just way out of touch with reality. There is a 30mph >ramp that I don't even brake for, just cruise right through at 55mph and >then lift off the throttle to slow to the 45mph speed limit on the >recieving road. Pretty typical for most ramps I frequent.

Alright, here we go:>I WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT I HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST YEAR +. IF>YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. I REALLY DON'T CARE IF I EVER>HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN. But by all means I will read what you post and>comment on it as I see fit.

I had hoped you were smarter then that to see my point on the space>shuttle and its funding problems in relation to transportation funding>problems. But maybe I give myself too much credit.

Now I will finish up with a question. I would like to hear you answer.>I am going to use Chicago as I know something about it. Appearently

you live there so here goes:>What should the speed limits be? Expressways, tollways, local>residential streets, the Skyway, Lake Shore Drive, Cicero,>Dempster, 95th street, 79th street, Pershing, Irving Park, Caldwell,>Des Plaines Road, Waukegan Road, Halstead, etc.

I guess anybody is entitled to be a jerk, but you shouldn't.

RJ wrote:> > Larry Harvilla <roads@phatpage.org­> wrote:> >

Exactly how does moving left to make a pass make a truck driver a> "jerk," unless he has directly cut off a vehicle within 100 feet of his> rear end at the time of the leftward movement? My wording of "if and> when it is safe" doesn't condone short-space cut-off maneuvers. Nobody> is required to leave the left lane completely open for you if there is a> safe distance of at least (IMO) 150 feet, or two tractor-trailer> lengths, between your front end and their rear end.

The only scenario I can even imagine working like this on PA I-80 would> be two trucks entering virtually nose-to-tail from the westbound Exit> 158 on-ramp, at which point the driver of the rear truck realizes he can> go just barely faster than the lead truck and immediately moves left to> pass. If somebody does that, then yes, absolutely he/she is a jerk.

I've seen it 50 times.

re_johnson1@hotmail­.com (RJ) wrote in > news:1gvr628.1qivs5­m1s6aydcN%re_johnson­1@hotmail.com:>

So why doesn't PA restrict trucks to the far right lane on such grades?

I find it funny they have advisory curve signs for 25 MPH on

You like many in this group forget that you share the roads with >other>vehicles. >

You've also probably never driven a large vehicle or you'd >understand why they are posted that low.

"Sherman Cahal" <sherman@cahaltech.­com> wrote in> news:1114530601.770­011.183620@o13g2000c­wo.googlegroups.com:­ >

roads and>

You like many in this group forget that you share the roads with > other> vehicles. >

You've also probably never driven a large vehicle or you'd > understand> why they are posted that low. >

DYM

DYM wrote:>

What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? if the > *average* vehicle can safely (with a little extra cushion)

nate>

And how much more should they slow down?>

DYM

Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote in news:H4ednST7Ytkqvu­nfRVn->ug@comcast.co­m:>

And how much more should they slow down?>

DYM

And how much more should they slow down?

Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote in news:H4ednST7Ytkqvu­nfRVn-> ug@comcast.com:>

navigate the >

can't >

And how much more should they slow down?>

DYM

You've also probably never driven a large vehicle or you'd > understand why they are posted that low.

On Sun, 01 May 2005 13:23:40 GMT, DYM <dymnews@verizon.ne­t>

Something I've been meaning to ask: how do you pronounce your