Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wasn't there a fact out there that MOST accidents happen at 45mph, on local roads?
Just admit you do it to save on gas and be done with it.
You are leaving out the fact that local roads have 90 degree turns, stop signs, driveways, stop lights, pedestrians, stores, parking lots and yields. Obviously those increase accidents.
You are leaving out the fact that local roads have 90 degree turns, stop signs, driveways, stop lights, pedestrians, stores, parking lots and yields. Obviously those increase accidents.
Other states have better roads and more patient drivers that allow for speed limits of 65mph.
Better roads? The LIE is pretty much a straight-away for the most part (and in some parts, 10 lanes). I'm pretty it's made with the same asphalt and concrete that roads in other states are made out of. Also, I have done quite a bit of interstate driving, and the more I do the more I begin to think that the "NYers are impatient drivers" dilemma is just an Old Wives' Tale.
Says you. I think the LIE is plenty capable of handling 65. Says me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayfouroh
Where'd you get your civil engineering degree, pidge?
Interstate design standards are set for them to be designed for a 75mph speed. Since we know not all the LIE was built this was, the old standard pre 2007 was for a 65mph design in non-urban areas.
Both parties agree that defendant was travelling at a legal rate of speed. To find defendant guilty of the violation charged-V & T Law § 1120(b) when he was travelling within the speed limit, albeit at the maximum, would require that I interpret the statute to mandate an incongruous result: that law-abiding drivers risk a ticket and a fine for failing to move to the right to accommodate speeders in the passing lane.
That is so beautiful but I suspect the road ragers will still not see the logic.
Great, so when you eventually run across a police officer who is put off by your parade grand marshal act on the left lane of the Long Island Expressway and you get cited for the same violation - make sure your schuyster traffic lawyer brings to the court's attention the landmark VTL case of People v. Ilieveski. I'm sure this groundbreaking ruling set by the Honorable Karen Morris, Justice of an all-purpose Town Court in the small Rochester suburb of Brighton, NY will bear considerable persuasive precedent in ANY court of law which hears matters pertaining to violations of the NY Vehicle and Traffic Law code. Surely Judge Morris, in her experience hearing matters of small claims, tenant/landlord disputes and hard hitting, modern Quality of Life issues such as failing to maintain aesthetic standards of property, or dealing swift justice to those who allow loud pet dogs to bark incessantly in a bustling municipality half the size of Levittown, offers a unique and compelling counterpoint to the opinion of the New York State Legislature which put these laws into effect.
Her revolutionary, though unfortunately (for your sakes) non-binding precedent is truly a marvel of the judicial process. Let's hear from the Judge herself...
ssss: Hello, Judge Morris! How are you today?
JM: "Town courts do much more than just process tickets. Judges seek to remind drivers, particularly young ones, that a car is a killing machine."
ssss: That's outstanding! Please go on...
JM: "My extrajudicial experience serving in an advisory role to several Woman's Rights and LGBT Advocacy groups gives me a unique perspective on what State governing bodies 'really meant' when they established laws with regards to the flow of traffic."
ssss: You are so right. We are all special snowflakes.
JM: "When I presided over the famous case of People v. Ilieveski, the prosecution provided copious materials of 'articles printed out from the internet' on the phenomenon of Road Rage. While I was extremely disconcerted at these shocking statistics, I ultimately was more confused as to how one law could seemingly contradict another law... and I thought it was just 'really mean' to punish someone who everyone agreed had been driving at the posted speed limit."
ssss: Thank you for your time, Judge Morris - you are a scholar and a patriot.
JM: "You're welcome. You know, I authored a book called Law Made Fun Through Harry Potter's Adventures and I am highly influenced by the philosophy of Dumbledore. When I punish the guilty in my courtroom, I typically make them write contemplative essays relative to their crimes and read them aloud between eviction hearings."
ssss: That is fascinating.
JM: "Please, call me Judge Karen - or JK for short. Just like 'JK ROWLING', LOL. Do u get it?"
ssss: Okay
So anyway, I think it's pretty fair to say that it's insanely ridiculous to believe that this piece of "Caselaw" (LOL) would have any impact on a VTL case, aside from a few chuckles, far removed from some small-time kangaroo court out in Nowhereseville West, NY. "Judge Karen" is probably a lovely and kind woman and I don't mean to sully her name, but it's just ludicrous to present something like this as a valid piece of legislation that has any relevance to the actual NYS laws, and we all know what those state very clearly. This is also traffic court we're talking about here, it's not Roe v. Wade. I'm sure that there are probably hundreds of instances of judges finding violations issued for exceeding the maximum posted speed limit lacking merit and deciding in favor of the defendant. Does that make speeding legal? Obviously not.
Probably not even worth mentioning at this point, but if anyone decides to use Judge Karen Morris' opinion as Exhibit A in their big "hogging the left lane of the road" defense, be sure to exclude these parts when presenting it before the court:
Quote:
Originally Posted by People v. Ilievieski
One of the acknowledged causes of road rage is blocking of the passing lane.V & T Law § 1120(a) is relevant in this regard. That section reads as follows: “Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows: (1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction ․â€.
Had the Trooper charged Mr. Ilieveski with a violation of this section the charge might well have been upheld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by People v. Ilievieski
Under the circumstances, it appears he was charged with the incorrect section of the statute. As a result I find defendant not guilty.
Is this just some big inside joke to screw with everyone's heads? I hope that's the case. Why not take it one step further and make your own personal speed limits 54MPH or 53MPH. Math will show that there's negligible time difference, and it's obviously inherently safer because it is a lower velocity. Maybe even go all the way down to 49MPH... I'm sure it's only something like a ~5 minute difference in travel time if you're only covering a short distance.
SSSS: A+ for the hard work put into that SNL skit (I mean it in a nice way) of a post.
Now I'm confused. I had decided I would drive 55 in the passing lane as a rule. I don't want to end up in an upstate gulag with Ilievieski. He had a close call. I might not be so lucky. I'm going back to 80+ with my lights flashing, radio blasting, eating a ham sandwich and flippin' GPS the bird. Oooo, now I sound like LIMA.
Who needs road rage? Stay in this thread and get forum rage.
SSSS: A+ for the hard work put into that SNL skit (I mean it in a nice way) of a post.
Now I'm confused. I had decided I would drive 55 in the passing lane as a rule. I don't want to end up in an upstate gulag with Ilievieski. He had a close call. I might not be so lucky. I'm going back to 80+ with my lights flashing, radio blasting, eating a ham sandwich and flippin' GPS the bird. Oooo, now I sound like LIMA.
Who needs road rage? Stay in this thread and get forum rage.
mongoose, we know that you are really pulling our chain other wise you would have included texting or talking on your phone.
mongoose, we know that you are really pulling our chain other wise you would have included texting or talking on your phone.
Nuts, I would never text while eating a ham sandwich...that would be dangerous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
