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

[Ben Eberle]

Originally Posted by shanedman

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

I had a conversation with a retired DPS officer about that and you have to do a little more than not quite go the speed limit to be cited for that. His claim was that unless otherwise posted, the minumum speed was 15 under the speed limit and it only applies to "free flowing traffic" and conditions that are safe. You won't get cited for going 20 mph on a highway covered with snow and ice, blanketed with pea soup fog, or if the traffic congestion is so bad that the traffic is only going 20 mph, in fact, if you drive unsafely in order to go "the speed limit" when the traffic is crawling, you could get cited for unsafe speed.
Also, if you are in a vehicle that has a special speed limit or is incapable of going the minimum, such as an 18 wheeler climbing a grade, this does not apply.

A case where you could be cited is if you drive 30 mph down a two lane FM road and when a passing zone comes along, you accelerate to 80 mph to prevent the car behind you from going around you, and when the passing zone is over, you slow back down to 30.
Or a large group of bicyclists go down the highway using both lanes preventing a long line of cars behind them from passing al la the Critical Mass jerks in Austin and even their case was hard to make stick.

[shanedman]

Originally Posted by Ben Eberle

I had a conversation with a retired DPS officer about that and you have to do a little more than not quite go the speed limit to be cited for that. His claim was that unless otherwise posted, the minumum speed was 15 under the speed limit and it only applies to "free flowing traffic" and conditions that are safe. You won't get cited for going 20 mph on a highway covered with snow and ice, blanketed with pea soup fog, or if the traffic congestion is so bad that the traffic is only going 20 mph, in fact, if you drive unsafely in order to go "the speed limit" when the traffic is crawling, you could get cited for unsafe speed.
Also, if you are in a vehicle that has a special speed limit or is incapable of going the minimum, such as an 18 wheeler climbing a grade, this does not apply.

A case where you could be cited is if you drive 30 mph down a two lane FM road and when a passing zone comes along, you accelerate to 80 mph to prevent the car behind you from going around you, and when the passing zone is over, you slow back down to 30.
Or a large group of bicyclists go down the highway using both lanes preventing a long line of cars behind them from passing al la the Critical Mass jerks in Austin and even their case was hard to make stick.

I agree with the
"You won't get cited for going 20 mph on a highway covered with snow and ice, blanketed with pea soup fog, or if the traffic congestion is so bad that the traffic is only going 20 mph, in fact, if you drive unsafely in order to go "the speed limit" when the traffic is crawling, you could get cited for unsafe speed.
Also, if you are in a vehicle that has a special speed limit or is incapable of going the minimum, such as an 18 wheeler climbing a grade, this does not apply."statement....

BUT,
I disagree with the
"His claim was that unless otherwise posted, the minumum speed was 15 under the speed limit" comment.

No where does it state that there is a 15 under the posted limit rule. The citation of "impeding traffic" as i mentioned, and as it has been explained to me, also by LEO friends of mine, is that it is up to the DISCRETION of the officer. Yes i agree that any officer who wrote such a citation for the extreme/abnormal conditions above would be crazy and the ticket would most likely be tossed out of court.
But i was referring more to people who, on a normal highway/road, lets say for example a speed limit posted of 70mph, are going 50 when there is no weather, or other abnormal condition to justify it, can and should be cited for "impeding traffic". In some states(i just spent 10 years in Washington state,(and a few places in TX) they actually have signs that state "Slower traffic keep right". Otherwise you will be cited if an officer sees it.)
IE: being old and scared to do the posted speed limit is no reason for someone to do 50 on a posted 70 road. and this is just ONE example, i see it all the time. I also on the age subject, since i mentioned it, think that once you reach a certain age, it should be mandatory for you to get a yearly exam to make sure you are still CAPABLE of driving safely. And i would gladly submit to such a requirement myself.
(a good example is Hwy 79. Much of it is 2 lanes and 70mph, alot of it has no passing zones too. So if you are going 50, with no justification, why shouldnt you be cited? At that point i am not legally allowed to pass you, and if you have no justification for going so slow, you are impeding my progress to reach my destination.)
FYI: i also agree with banning cell phone use while driving, except in emergency situations. I think that distracted drivers are a huge portion of the problems on the roads now days. Putting makeup on... eating... cell phones... beating your kids in the back seat....I think ALL of those should be banned, and punished.

All of my comments above are considering one were to stay within the confines of the law.

Now let the flames commence.

[Ben Eberle]

That 15 under rule might have been an informal standard used by the cops.

On another topic.
What constitutes an affirmative defense for running a red light in Texas? Is it spelled out?
I was in the right lane at a red light and an emergency vehicle pulled up behind me with its sirens on. I checked to see if it was safe and then drove through the red thus unblocking the emergency vehicle. This obviously is an affirmative defense for running a red light but how about a signal that doesn't detect a motorcycle?

[shanedman]

I looked up the TX Transportation code:

Sec. 545.363. MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.(b) When the Texas Transportation Commission, the Texas Turnpike Authority, the commissioners court of a county, or the governing body of a municipality, within the jurisdiction of each, as applicable, as specified in Sections 545.353 to 545.357, determines from the results of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on a part of a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the commission, authority, county commissioners court, or governing body may determine and declare a minimum speed limit on the highway.(c) If appropriate signs are erected giving notice of a minimum speed limit adopted under this section, an operator may not drive a vehicle more slowly than that limit except as necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

[Dave.TX]

I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to not follow the rules or laws, to find loopholes, to justify their behavior, etc. Doesn't matter if it's traffic related or otherwise.

Yes, it will definitely kill you to be held under 85 mph if that's the posted speed. You must be able to go 90 or 110 mph. 55 mph posted, then I must be allowed to go 60 or 70 mph. My tires didn't pop, suspension didn't break, nothing flew out in front of me, didn't run anyone off the road so it must be OK.

The reason why the limit is what it is on the 85 portion of SH 130 is because of money. The access roads were reduced to 55 in a combined effort to get more folks to drive the toll. And the state got a bigger kickback by making it higher. It costs something like $20+ to get from IH 10 to IH 35 just north of Georgetown. And you get crappier gas mileage at higher speeds so add that to the cost of taking the toll. The state receives more tax revenue from more gas being sold. That's planning.

Of course if you're purposely riding on the edge of the road past the toll booths to avoid paying the toll then you're OK with dishonesty too.

[Ben Eberle]

Originally Posted by Dave.TX

The reason why the limit is what it is on the 85 portion of SH 130 is because of money. The access roads were reduced to 55 in a combined effort to get more folks to drive the toll. And the state got a bigger kickback by making it higher. It costs something like $20+ to get from IH 10 to IH 35 just north of Georgetown. And you get crappier gas mileage at higher speeds so add that to the cost of taking the toll. The state receives more tax revenue from more gas being sold. That's planning.

Of course if you're purposely riding on the edge of the road past the toll booths to avoid paying the toll then you're OK with dishonesty too.

It's not the lowering of the speed limit on the older route that gets to me so much as it is timing the lights so you have to stop and wait at each and every one of them, which also causes crappy gas mileage.

[MotoTex]

As for the "Slower traffic keep right" signs, they are being phased out and replaced with "Left lane for passing only."

My guess is this is a psychological gambit, as nobody would think of themselves as "slower" so are less likely to change lanes. The new signage paints it in a way that gets to the point without labeling the slow driver.

Now the issue is getting folks to stop texting long enough to read and understand the sign.

I am so looking forward to automated cars, like the google experiment, so the drivers who really don't want to make safe operation of their car a priority over more mundane activities will have the option to not be the driver at all.

[shanedman]

Originally Posted by Dave.TX

I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to not follow the rules or laws, to find loopholes, to justify their behavior, etc. Doesn't matter if it's traffic related or otherwise.

Yes, it will definitely kill you to be held under 85 mph if that's the posted speed. You must be able to go 90 or 110 mph. 55 mph posted, then I must be allowed to go 60 or 70 mph. My tires didn't pop, suspension didn't break, nothing flew out in front of me, didn't run anyone off the road so it must be OK.

Not sure if you took some offense from my post, but that wasnt intended.
But yes i agree with this part of your comment...

"You must be able to go 90 or 110 mph. 55 mph posted, then I must be allowed to go 60 or 70 mph. My tires didn't pop, suspension didn't break, nothing flew out in front of me, didn't run anyone off the road so it must be OK."


As per the law.

[shanedman]

Originally Posted by MotoTex

I am so looking forward to automated cars, like the google experiment, so the drivers who really don't want to make safe operation of their car a priority over more mundane activities will have the option to not be the driver at all.

Can we say "Terminator" or "i-robot"? haha

[MotoTex]

Originally Posted by shanedman

Can we say "Terminator" or "i-robot"? haha

Well, I meant for, you know, everyone else.

AS responsible drivers we can still drive our bikes and cars, and the texters can focus on what is more important to them. Avoiding personal responsibility for their actions as roadway users.

If road safety were more important than revenue we would have tiered licensing by now. This would go a long way toward getting the herd to take their skills more seriously. Higher tier licenses would enjoy reduced insurance costs, access to faster lanes, night privileges, fog privileges, etc. based upon their knowledge, aptitude and demonstration of skill.

I think this could even be done independently without any government mandate, other than having highway engineers designating the terms for license level access to roads and lanes.

Third-party training and testing facilities could provide the basis for the insurance companies to use as a yardstick for establishing the discounted premiums. Drivers would pay the testing facilities for training and qualification with the hope of the cost eventually being a wash with reduced insurance costs, access to designated high-speed lanes restricted to higher tier operation, etc.

Personal responsibility would then be in the forefront of the driving experience. You want to drive faster? Drive at night? Drive without supervision? Well, then you must qualify and agree to be measured against a higher standard, by choice.

This would be much more promising than simply putting 85 mph signs on a tollway and turning everyone loose.

Aw, nevermind . . .

[David Lee]

Been on 130 between I-10 and Austin quite a bit the last couple of weeks. Some bike, mostly cage.
Use the GPS for speed (85) and I don't recall anyone passing me.
Last night I had my first wild pork sighting.
At 85 there's not much you can do about it. Lucky for me the Very Large Critter was in the breakdown lane, headin' for the bar ditch.
I slowed down to 75 for the rest of the trip.

[David Lee]

http://seguingazette.com/news/articl...9bb2963f4.html


"The system doesn’t monitor the entire highway, but it’s close. The cameras are high resolution and zoom thousands of yards up the roadway, if need be."

[wbrisett]

Originally Posted by David Lee

Been on 130 between I-10 and Austin quite a bit the last couple of weeks. Some bike, mostly cage.
Use the GPS for speed (85) and I don't recall anyone passing me.

My wife and I took our bikes on it and we were doing 85 and we were passed by a couple of cagers, but you know some people are always going to want to go faster. The road itself is boring, and honestly I don't know maybe it was the time of day, but the stretch of I-10 through Seguin was stop and go and nearly backed up to the exit ramp of 130.

I still don't see how they expect 130 with the current pricing scheme to get 18 wheelers off I-35, or how they will entice standard drivers to pay the prices they are asking even at 85 MPH. I really would like to know if they are making any real money with the toll roads around Austin. I know that several of the businesses along 290 complained about the new section going to Manor, but were basically told tough luck (My wife works at Applied Materials and their CEO apparently complained directly since it affects them attracting employees). They were told folks cold use the "free" side roads (however, living out in that direction, we've already been informed the speed of the side roads will be decreased ... follow the money).

Wayne