Whoa! Hold on here!
03-08-2004, 03:26 AM
#1
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Whoa! Hold on here!
Here is some news that may interest some of you. You all know the story of how I watched and waited while they came to take away my friends.......and then it was too late to save myself.......
The way it is now:
The signs you see on the highways and streets all across the country are authorized by a federal document called the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Their size and placement as well as the text used on them and their color, are all governed by this document. To qualify for use of these signs, and to qualify to receive federal highway construction and repair funds, states must meet certain standards. You should be happy that they must meet these standards because they are intended to insure safety on the roads where the standards apply. First, and most important among these standards is the requirement that an engineering and traffic study must be performed prior to setting speed limits, which are then displayed on one type of sign listed in the MUTCD. No engineering and traffic study: no signs. No engineering and traffic study : no radar may be used to enforce the speed limit on the subject road, and if it is used, that practice constitutes a “speed trap” which is illegal.
That seems clear, right? Now why would anyone want the powers that be to conduct an engineering and traffic study before the speed limits were set? Well, let’s examine what constitutes an engineering and traffic study:
First, the study must be conducted by “traffic engineer”. The police, the judges, the prosecutors, the traffic violations bureau clerks, even attorneys are NOT traffic engineers. Second, the study must be conducted scientifically without bias, including measuring the traffic as it is flowing on a particular segment of roadway during various times of day and over a period of days as a representative sample. “Flowing” means just that: it must be observed as “free flowing”, unimpeded by bends and curves, or by jurisdictional cautions visible to the drivers such as speed limit signs, or other warning signs that would interupt the normal flow of traffic, and this includes the sight of police officers, or of road workers or traffic guidance personnel. In other word, as drivers would feel comfortable driving without thinking about all of those other concerns or being observed. Yes the engineers are supposed to be invisible while gathering data. The studies must also include a representative sample of past accidents and their perceived causes on that particular section of roadway, obviously over a period of time to include differing weather conditions for different times of the year. There are other criteria for performing these studies, but the point is they are to be performed under the direction of traffic engineers using sound engineering and scientifically based priciples, not emotional or arbitrary methods. Finally, the engineers are to determine the freely flowing speed traveled by the 85th percentile of drivers over the subject roadway. The definition of freely flowing is critical because it is based on the above mentioned conditions and perceptions of drivers on that particular roadway over vaious periods of the day. These studies take considerable time to conduct properly and are to be done at least within the last 2 years to be the valid basis for the speed limit you see on the signs. Then, unless unusually limiting circumstances exist unique to this roadway, the limit is to be set 5% above the 85th percentile speed.
The intent is to let traffic flow as it feels comfortable and avoid congestion and frustration. As cars and roadway design improves and drivers become more mature and skilled, as well as educated about vehicle dynamics, speeds tend to increase. And as speeds increase, highway fatalities decrease. Don’t even think about it, because it has been proven time and again and documented in study after study all over the world. The autobahn is a case in point and also studies on the autostradas of Italy have also confirmed this fact.
Well.....that is just a crock, right?? We all know that is not the way it is. And besides, who are we as mere citizens to use our reasoning powers and intelligence to quesion anyone in authority?
But it is the law and the signs you see are not legal unless the above procedures are followed. And we should be glad it is the law, because unless the various jurisdictions follow the law they are powerless to enforce the speed limits that are set and claimed to be violated. Well, that is fine and dandy, but how are the cities supposed to enforce laws that are not routinely broken? And it follows that no citations = no revenue. Hey, that raises some eyebrows, especially since some cities are teetering on the brink of financial disaster. And what would happen to the insurance rates if the accident rate dropped? Uh oh!! Hold on here. Can’t have any of that, and besides, those studies or surveys or whatever those egghead scientists call them are costly to perform every two years. Right? Right. Next thing you know someone will want stricter licensing laws like they have in those furrin countries, right? Right. Can’t have any of that. Why the next thing you know someone might march into court and find out no studies were performed and the road where they were cited was a speed trap and get off because the police lacked jurisdiction. Whew! Definitely can’t have any of that. So.............
The way it is going to be:
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has been re-written to eliminate the requirement for any engineering and traffic studies to determine the safe 85th percentile of free flowing traffic on any roadway anywhere in America, land of the “free” (?) and home of the “brave”. Now the states and cities will be able to use whatever arbitrary speed limit sign and display whatever arbitrary speed on it they wish. No sound or safe engineering practice foundation whatsoever necessary. Just whatever they feel like setting. And no legal defense against it whatsoever. And never mind that it might produce more violations and more accidents. Cities need funds, period. And troopers need to eat, period. And better than donuts, that’s for sure. Enough of this legal mumbo jumbo and traffic court expenses and fair trial nonsense. Smokey says it is so and therefore it is so. After all, who knows more about traffic safety (or any other safety) than Smokey, right? Bettter believe that.
Ya buy that? Ya feel like laying down for that? Well they do in England, and speed cameras are everywhere and coming to a city or town near you soon. And the vendors of those speed cameras process the violations and take a share of the revenue generated. Great game, eh? Ya gonna sit still for that? Well it is almost here. Brace yourselves because it is the truth and is only as far away as the adoption by the various cities and states of the NEW Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Now on the hopeful chance that you still have some American blood left in your veins and wish to challenge that “revision” in the law meant to leave you defenseless against a tyrannical wave of suppression of your common sense, you may either email me, Ron_H at verdant1@pacbell.net, or chad@hwysafety.com and we will direct you to an effort to effectively challenge the legality and adviseability of adopting the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. If we wait it will be a much higher hill to climb.
A legal challenge to this newest scheme to rob you blindly is being formulated now and frankly we need your help. Or we need you to figure out a way to smuggle files into jails. Face it, you will be “caught” and “punished”. You will be rendered subservient. And traffic safety will have received a blow like we have never known. Just as personal safety has been jeopardized by rising crime rates by banning weapons, traffic safety will be further compromised by this ominous threat. Contact us now and we will tell you how to help. Do it for your children.
The way it is now:
The signs you see on the highways and streets all across the country are authorized by a federal document called the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Their size and placement as well as the text used on them and their color, are all governed by this document. To qualify for use of these signs, and to qualify to receive federal highway construction and repair funds, states must meet certain standards. You should be happy that they must meet these standards because they are intended to insure safety on the roads where the standards apply. First, and most important among these standards is the requirement that an engineering and traffic study must be performed prior to setting speed limits, which are then displayed on one type of sign listed in the MUTCD. No engineering and traffic study: no signs. No engineering and traffic study : no radar may be used to enforce the speed limit on the subject road, and if it is used, that practice constitutes a “speed trap” which is illegal.
That seems clear, right? Now why would anyone want the powers that be to conduct an engineering and traffic study before the speed limits were set? Well, let’s examine what constitutes an engineering and traffic study:
First, the study must be conducted by “traffic engineer”. The police, the judges, the prosecutors, the traffic violations bureau clerks, even attorneys are NOT traffic engineers. Second, the study must be conducted scientifically without bias, including measuring the traffic as it is flowing on a particular segment of roadway during various times of day and over a period of days as a representative sample. “Flowing” means just that: it must be observed as “free flowing”, unimpeded by bends and curves, or by jurisdictional cautions visible to the drivers such as speed limit signs, or other warning signs that would interupt the normal flow of traffic, and this includes the sight of police officers, or of road workers or traffic guidance personnel. In other word, as drivers would feel comfortable driving without thinking about all of those other concerns or being observed. Yes the engineers are supposed to be invisible while gathering data. The studies must also include a representative sample of past accidents and their perceived causes on that particular section of roadway, obviously over a period of time to include differing weather conditions for different times of the year. There are other criteria for performing these studies, but the point is they are to be performed under the direction of traffic engineers using sound engineering and scientifically based priciples, not emotional or arbitrary methods. Finally, the engineers are to determine the freely flowing speed traveled by the 85th percentile of drivers over the subject roadway. The definition of freely flowing is critical because it is based on the above mentioned conditions and perceptions of drivers on that particular roadway over vaious periods of the day. These studies take considerable time to conduct properly and are to be done at least within the last 2 years to be the valid basis for the speed limit you see on the signs. Then, unless unusually limiting circumstances exist unique to this roadway, the limit is to be set 5% above the 85th percentile speed.
The intent is to let traffic flow as it feels comfortable and avoid congestion and frustration. As cars and roadway design improves and drivers become more mature and skilled, as well as educated about vehicle dynamics, speeds tend to increase. And as speeds increase, highway fatalities decrease. Don’t even think about it, because it has been proven time and again and documented in study after study all over the world. The autobahn is a case in point and also studies on the autostradas of Italy have also confirmed this fact.
Well.....that is just a crock, right?? We all know that is not the way it is. And besides, who are we as mere citizens to use our reasoning powers and intelligence to quesion anyone in authority?
But it is the law and the signs you see are not legal unless the above procedures are followed. And we should be glad it is the law, because unless the various jurisdictions follow the law they are powerless to enforce the speed limits that are set and claimed to be violated. Well, that is fine and dandy, but how are the cities supposed to enforce laws that are not routinely broken? And it follows that no citations = no revenue. Hey, that raises some eyebrows, especially since some cities are teetering on the brink of financial disaster. And what would happen to the insurance rates if the accident rate dropped? Uh oh!! Hold on here. Can’t have any of that, and besides, those studies or surveys or whatever those egghead scientists call them are costly to perform every two years. Right? Right. Next thing you know someone will want stricter licensing laws like they have in those furrin countries, right? Right. Can’t have any of that. Why the next thing you know someone might march into court and find out no studies were performed and the road where they were cited was a speed trap and get off because the police lacked jurisdiction. Whew! Definitely can’t have any of that. So.............
The way it is going to be:
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has been re-written to eliminate the requirement for any engineering and traffic studies to determine the safe 85th percentile of free flowing traffic on any roadway anywhere in America, land of the “free” (?) and home of the “brave”. Now the states and cities will be able to use whatever arbitrary speed limit sign and display whatever arbitrary speed on it they wish. No sound or safe engineering practice foundation whatsoever necessary. Just whatever they feel like setting. And no legal defense against it whatsoever. And never mind that it might produce more violations and more accidents. Cities need funds, period. And troopers need to eat, period. And better than donuts, that’s for sure. Enough of this legal mumbo jumbo and traffic court expenses and fair trial nonsense. Smokey says it is so and therefore it is so. After all, who knows more about traffic safety (or any other safety) than Smokey, right? Bettter believe that.
Ya buy that? Ya feel like laying down for that? Well they do in England, and speed cameras are everywhere and coming to a city or town near you soon. And the vendors of those speed cameras process the violations and take a share of the revenue generated. Great game, eh? Ya gonna sit still for that? Well it is almost here. Brace yourselves because it is the truth and is only as far away as the adoption by the various cities and states of the NEW Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Now on the hopeful chance that you still have some American blood left in your veins and wish to challenge that “revision” in the law meant to leave you defenseless against a tyrannical wave of suppression of your common sense, you may either email me, Ron_H at verdant1@pacbell.net, or chad@hwysafety.com and we will direct you to an effort to effectively challenge the legality and adviseability of adopting the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. If we wait it will be a much higher hill to climb.
A legal challenge to this newest scheme to rob you blindly is being formulated now and frankly we need your help. Or we need you to figure out a way to smuggle files into jails. Face it, you will be “caught” and “punished”. You will be rendered subservient. And traffic safety will have received a blow like we have never known. Just as personal safety has been jeopardized by rising crime rates by banning weapons, traffic safety will be further compromised by this ominous threat. Contact us now and we will tell you how to help. Do it for your children.
Last edited by Ron_H; 03-08-2004 at 04:12 AM.
03-08-2004, 03:59 AM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In self-imposed exile.
Posts: 14,072
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Most traffic courts are beyond appeal anyway. If you wanted to challenge this, you'd have to have some very deep pockets for the legal fees alone, and I'm sure the people that devised this know it! More loss of civil rights for the "average citizen". *Sigh*
Oh wait, they get around that one by telling us that driving (necessary to function in contemporary society in most cases) is a PRIVILEGE, not a right - how foolish of me.
Oh wait, they get around that one by telling us that driving (necessary to function in contemporary society in most cases) is a PRIVILEGE, not a right - how foolish of me.
03-08-2004, 04:11 AM
#5
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
With all due respect, I am involved in 2 appeals at this time: one in California where the law is clearly in my favor, and another in Oregon where the federal law is also clearly against the state and I have a letter confirming the lack of studies for anything but the I-5 freeway anywhere in the state from the head traffic engineer. They are setting speed limits illegally and attempting to enforce them illegally. And now they are trying to rid themselves of the necessity of performing the studies and anything else scientifically based to justify their arbitrary actions. I have spent $1500 in Oregon so far, and about $300 so far in California.
But this case is not as expensive as you would think at this stage because it is a challenge to an administrative decision, not a traffic test case.
But this case is not as expensive as you would think at this stage because it is a challenge to an administrative decision, not a traffic test case.
03-08-2004, 05:00 AM
#6
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In self-imposed exile.
Posts: 14,072
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Well, with any luck I hope the fees don't keep adding up. . . I applaud your resolve in standing up to this kind of nonsense.
Perhaps this is my cynical side showing through, but I fear that even if you win, you'll lose. . . they'll just find another way to sidestep the law and keep the millions rolling in as another variation on the cat & mouse game that we all play when we drive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating reckless driving, but let's face it, we ALL violate the speed limit occasionally. It's unavoidable, and the states (and local municipalities) exploit this for their own gain. With state and local income streams as threatened as they are, you can bet they won't just let a major source of revenue disappear without one hell of a fight!
Perhaps this is my cynical side showing through, but I fear that even if you win, you'll lose. . . they'll just find another way to sidestep the law and keep the millions rolling in as another variation on the cat & mouse game that we all play when we drive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating reckless driving, but let's face it, we ALL violate the speed limit occasionally. It's unavoidable, and the states (and local municipalities) exploit this for their own gain. With state and local income streams as threatened as they are, you can bet they won't just let a major source of revenue disappear without one hell of a fight!
Trending Topics
03-08-2004, 09:56 AM
#8
Race Director
I saw this playground, a privately owned playground, a church playground I think. Well, it had, like, a yard of chain on the lock! A playground! Well, this in itself is pretty odd. But then you see that the fence around the playground is maybe three and a half feet high. Real smart. "Hey, how are we going to keep kids of our ten feet high steel-on-concrete monkey bars?" "No problem. We'll put a little fence around it." "Right! And if the kids try to climb it, we'll chain up the lock!" Let's hope idiots that own playgrounds still go to heaven.
03-08-2004, 10:37 AM
#9
Drifting
Do you have any sources? Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting you, it's just I really would like to help keep the law the way it is (and essentially force the administration to do it as stated in what you said), and I know if I try to take this to anyone else, the first thing they'll ask for is sources.
03-08-2004, 03:09 PM
#11
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Sources
Scootin:
The three manual in question are the 1988 MUTCD, the Millenium (2000) MUTCD still in effect and the 2003 MUTCD which is published but not yet widely adopted. The wording has been changed in the 2003 edition to dilute the requirement for engineering studies by making statutory limits(set by political/legislative means) almost universal rather than retain the millenium edition requirment that engineering studies are required every 2 years to continue to justify the limit.
Also of concern is the millenium edition's elimination of the requirement to perform engineering studies prior to installation of stop signs.
It seems in every edition wording is modified to make it convenient and expedient for administrations to eliminate rational and scientific requirements for imposing restrictions. This is becoming a threat to us all. It should not be ignored and it is covert and intentional.
The three manual in question are the 1988 MUTCD, the Millenium (2000) MUTCD still in effect and the 2003 MUTCD which is published but not yet widely adopted. The wording has been changed in the 2003 edition to dilute the requirement for engineering studies by making statutory limits(set by political/legislative means) almost universal rather than retain the millenium edition requirment that engineering studies are required every 2 years to continue to justify the limit.
Also of concern is the millenium edition's elimination of the requirement to perform engineering studies prior to installation of stop signs.
It seems in every edition wording is modified to make it convenient and expedient for administrations to eliminate rational and scientific requirements for imposing restrictions. This is becoming a threat to us all. It should not be ignored and it is covert and intentional.
03-09-2004, 02:20 AM
#13
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Justin:
To be honest with you, I have no idea who Ellsworth Kelly is. That is my company logo; it stands for Verdant Ventures.
To be honest with you, I have no idea who Ellsworth Kelly is. That is my company logo; it stands for Verdant Ventures.
03-09-2004, 12:35 PM
#14
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for alerting me to this process and manual. I think it needs more review than our fellow Renlisters are giving. I will take another look When I get home tonight.
