I personally would rather know the "speed limit", then have
some subjective rule as to what is safe/legal. At least then I'd
know exactly when i'm braking the law, and how much it`s liable to
cost me if I choose to brake it...
Personaly if I go to Montana, I think I'll keep it at a resaonable
speed, trying to avoid those cops who are having a bad day or simply
want to ruin my day...
I sniped a little of the original post to cut down slightly on
bandwidth...
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, KEN MANSFIELD wrote:
> Instead, Montana has the "basic rule" - a driver may not
> exceed speeds that are "reasonable and
> prudent" for conditions. But the lack of specific numbers has
> been widely misinterpreted as no speed
> limit at all.
>
> "It's interpretive. It's discretionary. It's difficult to explain and
> understand," acknowledged Maj. Steve
> Barry of the Highway Patrol. "There's a lot of variables
> involved."
Yeah, like if the cop is in a good or bad mood, or if he likes the way
you look or something...
>
> While there is no fixed rule of thumb in Montana, drivers
> moving with the pack - even if the pack is
> really moving - should escape the long arm of the law.
> "People who are passing everything - that's the
> type of person we're going to be focusing on," Barry said.
>
> Violators face stiffer penalties under the new law. Instead of
> the $5 nuisance charge under the old
> posted limits, fines now run from $70 to more than $500,
> depending on the degree of driver
> "imprudence."
>
> Sgt. Craig Palmer said the Highway Patrol issued 530 basic
> rule tickets in April, about 200 more than
> in the same month last year.
> Fatalities compared to the same period last year are down -
> 56 as of May 19 compared to 60 in 1995
> - though the number of accidents has run about 15 percent
> higher, according to the head of the
> Highway Patrol, Craig Reap.
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:28 EDT