Speeding through Arizona on the 40, what's the real deal? (Tucson: firms, drive)

[teddyearp]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

This whole thread seems to be an effort by speeders to condemn another group of law breakers.

You should check out this thread then:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/arizo...adot-gets.html

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by teddyearp

You should check out this thread then:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/arizo...adot-gets.html

I've seen that. So what.

Here's the bottom line: Can you cite Arizona law that states the conditions under which it's legal to speed?

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I've seen that. So what.

Here's the bottom line: Can you cite Arizona law that states the conditions under which it's legal to speed?

Not one person has argued or suggested that exceeding the speed limit in allowable by law. Common sense, however, dictates that a slight deviation from the speed limit is far less dangerous than a traffic impediment that causes congested conditions.

What exactly are you trying to prove? Speeding is against the law. Impeding traffic is against the law. So what?

[Axxlrod]

A few years ago, I did an exotic car rally around the west. One of the legs was from PHX to Vegas. I was in a group of about 20 cars, going about 120mph, mostly Ferraris, Lambos, and Porsches. When we came around a bend, a cop was sitting on the side of the road. Needless to say we were pulled over.

Surprisingly, he was quite a cool guy. Just gave us a lecture about speed and safety, and asked us to slow down. He spent more time looking at our cars.

Heard later on that the later groups weren't so lucky. Several hefty tickets handed out.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I've seen that. So what.

Here's the bottom line: Can you cite Arizona law that states the conditions under which it's legal to speed?

When you get pulled over for speeding, you’re getting pulled over for unreasonable driving of which speeding is evidence. If you read the statute, speed limits are not absolute, but evidence.

On the other hand keep right to pass is absolute.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Not one person has argued or suggested that exceeding the speed limit in allowable by law. Common sense, however, dictates that a slight deviation from the speed limit is far less dangerous than a traffic impediment that causes congested conditions.

What exactly are you trying to prove? Speeding is against the law. Impeding traffic is against the law. So what?

I am suggesting that both groups start obeying the law instead of one group making excuses.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

When you get pulled over for speeding, you’re getting pulled over for unreasonable driving of which speeding is evidence. If you read the statute, speed limits are not absolute, but evidence.

On the other hand keep right to pass is absolute.

Cite that speed limits are not absolutes.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Cite that speed limits are not absolutes.

A.R.S. 28-701 Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions

A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.
B. Except as provided in subsections C and D of this section or except if a special hazard requires a lesser speed, any speed in excess of the following speeds is prima facie evidence that the speed is too great and therefore unreasonable:
1. Fifteen miles per hour approaching a school crossing.
2. Twenty-five miles per hour in a business or residential district.
3. Sixty-five miles per hour in other locations.
C. The speed limits prescribed in this section may be altered as authorized in sections 28-702 and 28-703.
D. The maximum speed provided in this section is reduced to the speed that is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, including the following conditions:
1. Approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad crossing.
2. Approaching and going around a curve.
3. Approaching a hillcrest.
4. Traveling on a narrow or winding roadway.
5. A special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.
E. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that is less than the speed that is reasonable and prudent under existing conditions unless the speed that is reasonable and prudent exceeds the maximum safe operating speed of the lawfully operated implement of husbandry.

Relatedly, but not directly on point:

Driving in excess of definitely specified speed limits is not negligence per se for the reason that the statute provides that exceeding such limits is only prima facie evidence of negligence. Deering v. Carter.

Likewise:

Turning to the law, the posting of a speed limit zone . . . establishes a prima facie safe speed. A person driving within that established speed limit has a right to rely on the reasonableness of the established speed zone.
On the other hand, a person driving in excess of the established speed limit on Arizona roads is not negligent per se but such fact does constitute prima facie evidence that such excess speed is not reasonable and prudent. Ruiz v. Faulkner

While I understand those cases pertain to negligence, the point of using them is to show you how the statutes are interpreted. There would be no occasion for the court of appeals to have a traffic ticket case, so there is no similar opinion.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I am suggesting that both groups start obeying the law instead of one group making excuses.

You expect people to drive at or below the speed limit at all times? Not only is that ridiculous, but it accomplishes nothing.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

A.R.S. 28-701 Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions
Relatedly, but not directly on point:



Likewise:





While I understand those cases pertain to negligence, the point of using them is to show you how the statutes are interpreted. There would be no occasion for the court of appeals to have a traffic ticket case, so there is no similar opinion.

You're awfully good at pointing out what you want. The chart you provided gives SPECIFIC SPEED LIMITS.