82miles, 85mph, FREE, 18days & Faster w/ Videos [merged]

[YoDoc]

Originally Posted by Ben Eberle

I'll take a road that has a 60 mph speed limit but no red lights or small towns to go through over a 70 mph highway with a town every 25 miles or so anyday.
High cruising speed is over-rated.
Intersections with long red lights and small towns with long 30 mph main streets with intersections are the real time killers.

The reason I got into the habit of leaving five minutes earlier for work is so I don't have to drive fast. My commute is about 35 miles and driving at go-to-jail speeds will not make up for leaving 5 minutes late.

Seriously, getting rid of Lakeway, Bee Caves, and Oak Hill would do more to shorten my commute time than increasing the speed limit of Highway 71, 290, and I-35 to 85 would.

My commute is nothing but surface roads and in town. Man, I hate living in the metroplex. I'd love my commute to have any kind of rural riding. Well, as long as it's not also two hours, that is.

[neoxaero]

Originally Posted by Ben Eberle

I find that if I simply ignore, not even look at my speedometer, slow traffic doesn't bother me that much.

Let's put this into perspective.
50 mph = 72 second mile
65 mph = 55.4 second mile
One mile behind someone going only 50 instead of 65 adds 16.6 seconds to my travel time. I sure wish the red lights I have to wait for were that short. In fact, if his going only 50 results in you having to wait only 5 seconds at the red light a mile ahead instead of 21.6 seconds, he costed you no additional time.

Consider the possibility that instead of this driver being a "moron", he simply has the gift of being able to see red lights from nearly a half mile away.

I understand your point, however, I can recall numerous times I've exited Mopac @ 2222 and as I get to the light, it turns red. Had I been driving the speed limit I would have made it green.

I'd prefer to go as quickly as possible on the highway in case I do get stuck at lights. At least I have the opportunity to get home/work as quickly as possible since there is the off-chance that I'll hit the light green

[shanedman]

Originally Posted by neoxaero

I understand your point, however, I can recall numerous times I've exited Mopac @ 2222 and as I get to the light, it turns red. Had I been driving the speed limit I would have made it green.
I'd prefer to go as quickly as possible on the highway in case I do get stuck at lights. At least I have the opportunity to get home/work as quickly as possible since there is the off-chance that I'll hit the light green

Totally agree.
+1

[Ben Eberle]

A few years ago, I did a comparison between the time it took me to get home from work driving like a complete ******* vs not being in any particular hurry.





Driving in a way that risks arrest only shaved about 4 minutes from the 57 minute trip. This is a high cost/low gain way to drive.
Notice also the stopped time of both trips. I spent nearly 5 extra minutes going zero mph behind red lights when I drove as fast as I thought I could get away with.

[neoxaero]

Oohh.. thats nifty.. is that a phone app of some sort?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Ben Eberle]

It's the trip computer screen of a Garmin Nuvi GPS unit.

Amazing how even though I covered almost the entire distance of the trip at 60-70 mph, the average speed was barely over 40 mph.
When people tell me they average 80 mph on the freeway, I say BS! and then challenge them to prove it with a trip computer.

There's a big difference between "going 80 mph" and actually being 80 miles away from here one hour from now.

[shanedman]

Originally Posted by Ben Eberle

A few years ago, I did a comparison between the time it took me to get home from work driving like a complete ******* vs not being in any particular hurry.





Driving in a way that risks arrest only shaved about 4 minutes from the 57 minute trip. This is a high cost/low gain way to drive.
Notice also the stopped time of both trips. I spent nearly 5 extra minutes going zero mph behind red lights when I drove as fast as I thought I could get away with.

But did you Duplicate EVERYTHING so that you could make sure your test was accurate?
IE: same route both trips, of course?
Same time of day?

[Ben Eberle]

Originally Posted by shanedman

But did you Duplicate EVERYTHING so that you could make sure your test was accurate?
IE: same route both trips, of course?
Same time of day?

Exact same route. Going home from work, same time of day. Normal traffic both times.

Failing to go quite the speed limit costs you seconds, red lights cost you minutes.....literally.

[WoodButcher]

here's a video from CNN about hogs on 130 near Lockhart.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#...hog-packs.kxan

Guess it came from KXAN

[neoxaero]

If I could shoot em from my truck I'd be eating the **** outta some hogs

[David Lee]

http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/local...nage-along-130

New signs going up!

Was thinking about starting a hog thread; but I'll just add this bit here.

Have any of you seen a traffic warning sign about hogs?

There is one on the way out of Kingsbury, going south on 2438.

For those of you in Lamesa, Kingsbury is east of San Antonio, between Seguin and Luling.

Anyway, I know the wild hog problem is widespread, but that's the only sign I've seen.

[neoxaero]

Hogs are pretty smart critters though. I bet once they figure out that bright lights = bad they will avoid the road like the plague unless they absolutely have to.

[Dave.TX]

If you put up signs about hog crossing then the hogs will think it's OK to cross there.

http://www.allproudamericans.com/Ple...-Crossing.html

There are so many variables to go into "safe" conditions or driving. Running on maypops is not ideal at 80-85mph. Daytime is much better than night for visibility in most cases. Not texting helps. Even some folks can't pull their head out of their cell phones while driving and carrying on a conversation and are oblivious to those around them. A majority of drivers on the toll doing 80 or 85 do it just fine and their vehicles are properly maintained to be able to sustain those speeds with relative safety.

Do I think folks are able to adjust to hazards in the road, your car or the car in front of you having a blowout, the idiot changing lanes into the space you currently occupy because the cell phone is taking 90% of their attention... too many "what ifs".

The people I have stopped on the 80mph section of SH 130 have all said the speed limit is 85mph. They've all been wrong. Most people think that doing 5-10 over the speed limit is acceptable. So there's a lot of folks doing 90-95mph out there regardless of what the limit is and passing numerous signs stating the limit is 80.

Texans believe it's their right to drive. You would flip if you knew how many vehicles on the road at any given time have unlicensed drivers (includes all illegal aliens and those citizens with suspended licenses), uninsured, unregistered, expired or not inspected vehicles, drunk, high or just plain schizophrenic (bi-polar) that will go off for no reason. Then there's those that are legally licensed and such that just have no regard whatsoever to others or the law. It's amazing there are so few incidences considering all of that.

I had to pull a deer off 130 last year after a minivan struck it. NB, just north of HWY 71 near the Harold Green exit. It isn't like this is uncommon. A vehicle struck a deer on 290 just east of Parmer Ln a few weeks ago in Manor. This is Texas. There's a lot of wild animals out there. Not to mention all the dogs and other pets that get hit on roadways but they're (thankfully) usually not on the toll. I go out on calls for loose livestock a lot, even on 130, for loose cows and horses. At 80-95 mph if you're eyes don't project beyond your front bumper you're likely going to hit it if it's in the lane. A lot of people don't look far enough ahead. Following too closely? You can't see through that truck in front of you so why are you 30 feet off their bumper?

Driving in Texas is hazardous to your health.

[Meriden]

Ran 130 wit JMZ from I10 to Elroy today. Lots of "Right Lane for Passing Only" signs, one or two "Wildlife Crossing" signs and few people were going the speed limit. In fact there were few people using the road, period. Sorry no video. Better not post a photo of the Garmin trip log...

[vc_slim]

Only planned one pass today but ended up doing two. The first was going south at 7:30 on my way to Mustang Island and it was pretty foggy. Ran about 70mph safely behind a pilot fish cager for most of the way. The fog lifted two miles before I10 so got to open it up for a brief stint. My return from the coast was suppose to be via 304 north of Gonzales but heavy rains forced a detour west on I10. I decided to do another pass given the much improved weather. Was a bit sketchy on the overpasses due to the high southeast winds but sill managed to average slightly better than 85mph back to the Hwy183 exit.

[MotoTex]

The "speed limit" signs in Texas are described in the statutes as "Prima Facie Reasonable and Prudent Speed Limit Signs."

The law regarding speed in Texas is that a driver will maintain a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions. There is nothing in the statutes about exceeding the posted speeds, nor are there any punitive conditions associated with the signs or the speeds shown on them.

Basically, everyone is supposed to maintain a reasonable and prudent speed based on their own skill level, conditions, etc.

When a citation is issued, the posted speed referenced is prima facie evidence that the speed you were traveling wasn't reasonable and prudent.

When there is no injured party, people who appeal the case to a court of record and enter an affidavit into evidence for the case stating they were driving a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions have provided hard evidence that trumps prima facie evidence. This places the burden of proof back on the prosecutor. Without any hard evidence (an injured party) to counter the affidavit the case is usually dismissed.

Those who pay the fine in an administrative venue (J.P., Municipal, etc.) are essentially agreeing that they injured themselves by speeding. The case document is claiming an injury against "the peace and dignity of the state." The state is a "body politic" of which the driver is a member.

Just because the posted speed says 85 is no guarantee that any particular driver can safely travel at that speed. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each driver to determine for themselves what is reasonable and prudent at any given moment.

And, as they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

[shanedman]

Originally Posted by MotoTex

The "speed limit" signs in Texas are described in the statutes as "Prima Facie Reasonable and Prudent Speed Limit Signs."

The law regarding speed in Texas is that a driver will maintain a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions. There is nothing in the statutes about exceeding the posted speeds, nor are there any punitive conditions associated with the signs or the speeds shown on them.

Basically, everyone is supposed to maintain a reasonable and prudent speed based on their own skill level, conditions, etc.

When a citation is issued, the posted speed referenced is prima facie evidence that the speed you were traveling wasn't reasonable and prudent.

When there is no injured party, people who appeal the case to a court of record and enter an affidavit into evidence for the case stating they were driving a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions have provided hard evidence that trumps prima facie evidence. This places the burden of proof back on the prosecutor. Without any hard evidence (an injured party) to counter the affidavit the case is usually dismissed.

Those who pay the fine in an administrative venue (J.P., Municipal, etc.) are essentially agreeing that they injured themselves by speeding. The case document is claiming an injury against "the peace and dignity of the state." The state is a "body politic" of which the driver is a member.

Just because the posted speed says 85 is no guarantee that any particular driver can safely travel at that speed. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each driver to determine for themselves what is reasonable and prudent at any given moment.

And, as they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

I have been educated! lol
will look it up to verify for my own curiousity
If it is as you say, then this could prove very useful if needed in the future.

[Ben Eberle]

Originally Posted by MotoTex

The "speed limit" signs in Texas are described in the statutes as "Prima Facie Reasonable and Prudent Speed Limit Signs."

The law regarding speed in Texas is that a driver will maintain a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions. There is nothing in the statutes about exceeding the posted speeds, nor are there any punitive conditions associated with the signs or the speeds shown on them.

Basically, everyone is supposed to maintain a reasonable and prudent speed based on their own skill level, conditions, etc.

When a citation is issued, the posted speed referenced is prima facie evidence that the speed you were traveling wasn't reasonable and prudent.

When there is no injured party, people who appeal the case to a court of record and enter an affidavit into evidence for the case stating they were driving a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions have provided hard evidence that trumps prima facie evidence. This places the burden of proof back on the prosecutor. Without any hard evidence (an injured party) to counter the affidavit the case is usually dismissed.

Those who pay the fine in an administrative venue (J.P., Municipal, etc.) are essentially agreeing that they injured themselves by speeding. The case document is claiming an injury against "the peace and dignity of the state." The state is a "body politic" of which the driver is a member.

Just because the posted speed says 85 is no guarantee that any particular driver can safely travel at that speed. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each driver to determine for themselves what is reasonable and prudent at any given moment.

And, as they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

I take it that you can also be cited for speeding if you are going below posted speed limits under certain conditions, bad weather, unusually dense traffic that's going under the speed limit due to traffic density, etc., though you almost have to have an injured party to get such a ticket.
The problem with "reasonable and prudent" is that it is sort of a nebulous standard that is not uniformly interpreted by different municipalities. A speed limit, on the other hand, is easily definable and exeeding this speed is easily provable in court.
I understand that speeding is handled as a civil and not a criminal offense because civil cases have a "preponderence of evidence" standard of proof instead of a criminal case's "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

[shanedman]

you can also be cited for "impeding traffic" for those people who dont know where the gas pedal is.

[MotoTex]

Originally Posted by Ben Eberle

I take it that you can also be cited for speeding if you are going below posted speed limits under certain conditions, bad weather, unusually dense traffic that's going under the speed limit due to traffic density, etc., though you almost have to have an injured party to get such a ticket.
The problem with "reasonable and prudent" is that it is sort of a nebulous standard that is not uniformly interpreted by different municipalities. A speed limit, on the other hand, is easily definable and exeeding this speed is easily provable in court.
I understand that speeding is handled as a civil and not a criminal offense because civil cases have a "preponderence of evidence" standard of proof instead of a criminal case's "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

You can be cited for anything, really.

When you say, "The problem with "reasonable and prudent" is that it is sort of a nebulous standard that is not uniformly interpreted by different municipalities,"

This statement overlooks the fact that these different municipalities are "enforcing" rules against folks upon whom they actually have no legal leg to stand on.

Granted, people who drive fast through residential areas, school zones, etc. should be made aware how they should give more thought to the consequences and encouraged to make better driving decisions. I feel that the use of speed limit signs are a double-edged sword in accomplishing this. They usually offer an appropriate guideline for speed based upon observation of the traffic pattern, and the money extraction aspect of ticketing is a good deterrent. It just seems ever so slightly criminal in nature to blatantly deceive people when the process is painted as if based in law.

As for "preponderance of evidence," well, that part is accurate enough. When prima facie evidence is accepted as fact and actual evidence is never considered, then the preponderance of evidence convicts. Whether this is beyond a reasonable doubt is questionable, as you can argue and present evidence to your heart's content in an "administrative venue" like a J.P. or Municipal court and they have no obligation to consider it. In the end their decision stands.

The term "Kangaroo Court" seems appropriate.

If you are displeased with the outcome there you may appeal to a court of record for a "trial de novo" (new trial) where everything that happened in the admin court is forgotten, and things like arraignment, evidence and other factors will carry weight.

Every aspect of law in Texas is founded on the concept of "common law" where it is presumed that an injured party is seeking relief. Administrative venues are more like third-party arbitration as a way to resolve things before taking the matter to trial.

Only, these administrative justices usually favor the collection of money over things like ethics, morals, facts, etc. and have little working knowledge of the statutes themselves and are often confused by logical presentation of facts. Many seem to prefer to pass the matter on to the county attorney and court than to make a decision that does not favor money collection.

Where you indicate how "exceeding the speed is easily proven in court" it misses the key point of how there isn't any actual statute or law on the books being violated. If there is no injured party seeking relief from damages there is no matter to be decided by the court. They dress it up to look legit, making the State out to be the injured party when the "State" actually has no standing as a "person" in a court.

In many cases speed limit signs give some people the impression that it is safe to drive at these speeds. As if they are in an amusement park where the ride has been made safe for them. So, they drive the indicated speed without consideration for the conditions, or any reasonable assessment of their ability to manage things should the conditions change for the worse.

For these people the existing ticketing system probably works best. It is like the amusement park attendant taking them to time-out for breaking the rules and putting themselves or others in danger.

It seems unreasonable to me that those who are conscientious and practice good skills are punished along-side those who think the rest of the world is there to serve them and keep them safe without them having to think about it.