AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: hbelkins on August 12, 2012, 06:51:08 PM

Title: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: hbelkins on August 12, 2012, 06:51:08 PM
Does anyone remember if there were any 10th Amendment challenges to the national 55 mph speed limit? Or was it imposed the same way that the 0.08 BAC, drinking age of 21 and seat belt laws have been -- that states had to comply or they'd lose federal highway funding?

I can't imagine the federal government ever trying to legislatively impose a national speed limit again, lest it be sued by a multitude of states, groups and individuals on 10th Amendment grounds.

It's hard to believe no one challenged it back in the 1970s. If they did, I never heard about it.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Scott5114 on August 12, 2012, 07:10:21 PM
Yes, NMSL was enforced through the threat of losing highway funding. Some Googling turns up that Nevada posted a 70 MPH limit on three miles of I-80 in June 1986. The Nevada law that authorized this invalidated itself if FHWA withheld federal highway funding (I'm guessing the intent was to find out how serious the feds were about NMSL). So of course FHWA ended up withholding funds, the state law was invalid, and the 70 signs came down.

I'm not aware of any court challenges to NMSL. There was a case involving South Dakota and the drinking age, but in that case SD's argument was that the law should be invalid because the drinking age has nothing to do with highway funding so the two shouldn't be tied together. The Supreme Court basically said that per the Constitutional "power of the purse" Congress could do whatever it wanted with federal money and hand it out or withhold it according to whatever policy it felt was best.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Road Hog on August 12, 2012, 07:13:28 PM
In the case of NMSL, states didn't appear to fight it through legal channels, but instead opted for lax enforcement, or no enforcement at all in some places. For a while, I think Nevada was handing out $5 speeding tickets.

The commerce clause back then was considered iron-clad, so states probably felt they didn't have a leg to stand on. Besides that, most state legislatures (South Dakota being an exception) didn't have the political guts to fight against measures that were considered "for the good of the country." That has certainly changed in the last four years.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Zmapper on August 12, 2012, 07:19:35 PM
After the Obamacare ruling, can the federal government still tie federal funding to another, barely related program? I stumbled upon this blog post (http://keephoustonhouston.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/repeal-the-national-minimum-drinking-age-act-of-1984/) a while back, and he seems to be on to something. Of course, any serious discussion would require a lot more research than a blog post, but it may just be that the Obamacare ruling had a pretty nice inadvertent silver lining.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 12, 2012, 08:12:11 PM
Nevada v. Skinner, 884 F.2d 445 (9th Cir. 1989), involved Nevada's unsuccessful challenge to the NMSL on constitutional grounds.


(edited to fix a grammatical error)
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Alps on August 13, 2012, 11:19:55 PM
Threatening states if they don't enact laws is the same as enacting the laws yourself. It should be illegal under the 10th Amendment. That goes for NMSL, BAC, drinking age, seat belt, age of majority, drug laws, etc., etc.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Scott5114 on August 14, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 13, 2012, 11:19:55 PM
Threatening states if they don't enact laws is the same as enacting the laws yourself. It should be illegal under the 10th Amendment. That goes for NMSL, BAC, drinking age, seat belt, age of majority, drug laws, etc., etc.

Unfortunately that's not the Supreme Court's view of the situation. They see it as Congress having the Constitutional power to disburse funds as they wish, and states having the power to reject the funds if they don't agree with the stipulation attached to them.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: english si on August 14, 2012, 07:54:32 AM
The Obamacare ruling said something like "they can refuse your funds, and you can't then defund a different program out of spite. You can't throw your toys out of the pram and endanger old/poor people's lives by cutting Medicare and Medicaid just because the state refuses Obamacare funding"

It's not 10th amendment, but having funding for something cut as you lower the drinking age to 18, or legalise pot, or (back in the day) legalise driving more than 55mph (I'd imagine lots of states didn't enforce it much) would be something similar surely? Plus there is a 10th amendment case there for weed - there needed to be an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit alcohol, there wasn't one to prohibit drugs. Federal Government only has interstate commerce as a enumerated power, so provided it doesn't cross state lines, it should be fine.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2012, 08:06:33 AM
Quote from: english si on August 14, 2012, 07:54:32 AM
It's not 10th amendment, but having funding for something cut as you lower the drinking age to 18, or legalise pot, or (back in the day) legalise driving more than 55mph (I'd imagine lots of states didn't enforce it much).

Regarding enforcement of the 55 MPH limit, most (all?) states did not have the resources to enforce a law that was so widely ignored. 

In my state of Maryland, as well as nearby areas of Virginia, vestiges of the NMSL remain on many freeways with much higher design speeds.  Yes, 55 is ignored by all drivers.

[Off-topic rant]

Regarding marihuana/cannabis, I despise the stuff.  I hate the reek of it when smoked, and I don't care for the "culture" surrounding its use. 

I've never used it, tried it or wanted to (I am probably the only graduate of my high school that can say that).

Still, it ought to be legal - not "decriminalized," but legal and taxable.

Every level of government would save a huge amount of money by not enforcing unenforceable marihuana laws, and would collect a vast stream of revenue from legal sales of dope.

[/Off-topic rant]
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2012, 08:59:14 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 13, 2012, 11:19:55 PM
Threatening states if they don't enact laws is the same as enacting the laws yourself. It should be illegal under the 10th Amendment. That goes for NMSL, BAC, drinking age, seat belt, age of majority, drug laws, etc., etc.

Unfortunately that's not the Supreme Court's view of the situation. They see it as Congress having the Constitutional power to disburse funds as they wish, and states having the power to reject the funds if they don't agree with the stipulation attached to them.

I believe the case law goes one step further in terms of highway funding. In terms of the Spending Clause allowing Congress to enact this kind of law, the courts noted that no state has a constitutional right to receive federal highway funds, and therefore Congress was entitled to put conditions on states' receipt of those funds as long as, in doing so, Congress does not seek to accomplish an otherwise-unconstitutional goal. For example, to use a much more recent Supreme Court precedent, Congress couldn't pass a law saying that unless a state bans ALL guns the state will not receive federal highway funds, because in the Heller case a few years ago the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment establishes individual citizens' right to own guns such that the states cannot ban all guns.


Quote from: english si on August 14, 2012, 07:54:32 AM
The Obamacare ruling said something like "they can refuse your funds, and you can't then defund a different program out of spite. You can't throw your toys out of the pram and endanger old/poor people's lives by cutting Medicare and Medicaid just because the state refuses Obamacare funding"

It's not 10th amendment, but having funding for something cut as you lower the drinking age to 18, or legalise pot, or (back in the day) legalise driving more than 55mph (I'd imagine lots of states didn't enforce it much) would be something similar surely? Plus there is a 10th amendment case there for weed - there needed to be an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit alcohol, there wasn't one to prohibit drugs. Federal Government only has interstate commerce as a enumerated power, so provided it doesn't cross state lines, it should be fine.

The Supreme Court has taken the Interstate Commerce Clause a bit further in finding that a single-state action can unduly affect interstate commerce. Perhaps the best example is the Bibb case from 1959 where Illinois had a law, unique among all the states, requiring a specific type of truck mud flap. No other state required that type of mud flap and one state specifically banned that type. The Supreme Court ultimately found that Illinois's law must fall because it created an undue burden on interstate commerce due to the impossibility of complying with both states' laws unless truck drivers pulled off and changed their mud flaps every time. (Had it been a situation where 49 states allowed either type, and Illinois required the one, there would have been no problem because you could comply with both laws by using the Illinois flap. But that wasn't the situation.)

There was also the Heart of Atlanta Motel case where the Civil Rights Act of 1964 used the Interstate Commerce Clause to ban racial discrimination in public accommodations, including hotels. The Heart of Atlanta motel maintained its policy of not allowing blacks and the owner filed suit against the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act; among other rationales, he argued that a motel located in one state and not part of a chain is not engaged in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court found that the operation had enough of an "effect" on interstate commerce for Congress to be able to regulate it; the motel in question was located near I-75 and I-85 and the record showed that some 75% of its visitors came from other states.

Lately they've pulled back a bit on the Interstate Commerce Clause; the Obamacare opinion, for example, held that Obamacare couldn't be justified under that clause. It's still a pretty broad power, though.

(Alcohol cases are a special situation because the Twenty-First Amendment gives Congress and the states concurrent power and provides that alcoholic beverages cannot be imported into a state in violation of the laws thereof. Virginia has some asinine, archaic laws; for example, one law says you can't bring in more than a "gallon" of alcohol, whatever the heck that means–alcoholic beverages are not sold by the "gallon." The Supreme Court found a few years back that states can't discriminate against out-of-state wineries in terms of allowing shipping–for example, one state, I don't remember which, allowed in-state wineries to ship to in-state residents but wouldn't allow out-of-state wineries to do so and the Court said they can't discriminate against interstate commerce regardless of the Twenty-First Amendment. Of course, the downside of that means the state is free just to ban ALL wineries from shipping.)


Anyway, to circle back to highway funding, the point is that constitutional law is a lot more complex than it seems like it should be and probably the single most important principle to remember on highway funding is that no state has any right to receive federal highway funding.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: bugo on August 14, 2012, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 13, 2012, 11:19:55 PM
Threatening states if they don't enact laws is the same as enacting the laws yourself. It should be illegal under the 10th Amendment. That goes for NMSL, BAC, drinking age, seat belt, age of majority, drug laws, etc., etc.

Unfortunately that's not the Supreme Court's view of the situation. They see it as Congress having the Constitutional power to disburse funds as they wish, and states having the power to reject the funds if they don't agree with the stipulation attached to them.

The Supreme Court has been shitting on state's rights for centuries now.  Almost every ruling they make favors federal power and corporate monopolies.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: J N Winkler on August 14, 2012, 11:12:31 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2012, 08:06:33 AMRegarding marihuana/cannabis, I despise the stuff.  I hate the reek of it when smoked, and I don't care for the "culture" surrounding its use.

I've never used it, tried it or wanted to (I am probably the only graduate of my high school that can say that).

Still, it ought to be legal - not "decriminalized," but legal and taxable.

Every level of government would save a huge amount of money by not enforcing unenforceable marihuana laws, and would collect a vast stream of revenue from legal sales of dope.

It has also been said that if marijuana were legal, the price of the potent stuff would drop to a few cents per joint since the cost burden of crime (organized or otherwise) would be removed from the supply chain, and legal vendors would be able to take advantage of economies of scale that allow pass-through of a very low farm-gate price.

This said, however, I don't think we will ever see full-on marijuana legalization, even if it were not stigmatized as something lazy Mexican laborers smoked (as it was at the beginning of the marijuana ban in the early twentieth century), or as a so-called "gateway drug" (as it has been in more recent decades).  I think the reasons are primarily cultural.  Addiction is sort of like pornography in that while it is difficult to define precisely, the general public has a general idea of what it is and what it means for long-term mental and physical health, and wants no part of it.  People are also less willing to tolerate visual evidence of a marijuana high than they are willing to tolerate visual evidence of a nicotine or ethanol high, no matter how strenuously marijuana legalization advocates argue that marijuana has fewer long-term health disadvantages than alcohol or tobacco.  Marijuana usage is also harder to hide because it gets into apocrine sweat and stays there for a week after last ingestion.

And yes, I have experienced a marijuana high (though solely from second-hand smoke)--and I know exactly how judgmental people's attitudes are toward it even in supposedly tolerant countries like the Netherlands.  I am not opposed to legalization as such, but I think those who advocate it are completely delusional if they believe that the standard libertarian arguments in favor of it are persuasive to the general public.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: bugo on August 14, 2012, 12:13:09 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2012, 11:12:31 AM
This said, however, I don't think we will ever see full-on marijuana legalization,

I think it will be legal in 5-10 years.  The media is full of stories about cannabis legalization, and I've noticed that right before something big happens there are many stories in the media about it.  And Presidential candidate Gary Johnson said that he believes it will be legal in 4 years.  I hope he's right, because prohibition is an infringement of civil rights and it plain doesn't work.  Not to mention a colossal waste of prison space and police manpower.

Quote
even if it were not stigmatized as something lazy Mexican laborers smoked (as it was at the beginning of the marijuana ban in the early twentieth century), or as a so-called "gateway drug" (as it has been in more recent decades). 

The "gateway drug" theory is false.  If you want to be technical about it, caffeine is usually the first psychoactive drug most Americans use.  Therefore caffeine is THE "gateway drug."  I was a regular caffeine user as a very small child, before I was out of diapers, because my parents put Coke in my baby bottle.  Apparently I really liked Coke when I was a baby.  The second and third drugs that most kids use are nicotine and alcohol (two of the most damaging drugs out there.)  So if cannabis is a 4th level "gateway drug," then I guess cocaine and heroin are  5th level "gateway drugs" if you want to use their logic.

Quote
I think the reasons are primarily cultural.  Addiction is sort of like pornography in that while it is difficult to define precisely, the general public has a general idea of what it is and what it means for long-term mental and physical health, and wants no part of it.  People are also less willing to tolerate visual evidence of a marijuana high than they are willing to tolerate visual evidence of a nicotine or ethanol high, no matter how strenuously marijuana legalization advocates argue that marijuana has fewer long-term health disadvantages than alcohol or tobacco.  Marijuana usage is also harder to hide because it gets into apocrine sweat and stays there for a week after last ingestion.

Cannabis is not physically addictive, although it can be habit forming.  But anything can be.  The first thing I do when I get up in the morning is to get a Coke.  And caffeine IS physically addictive.  If I don't have my morning Coke then I'm useless.

Quote
And yes, I have experienced a marijuana high (though solely from second-hand smoke)--and I know exactly how judgmental people's attitudes are toward it even in supposedly tolerant countries like the Netherlands.  I am not opposed to legalization as such, but I think those who advocate it are completely delusional if they believe that the standard libertarian arguments in favor of it are persuasive to the general public.

Over 50% of the public now supports legalization.  If the Colorado bill passes, expect more states to fall.  The libertarian (small L) movement strongly advocates legalization, and that movement has taken off in a big way.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: J N Winkler on August 14, 2012, 12:25:45 PM
We will just have to see what happens in five to ten years.  I don't dispute that the marijuana legalization movement has had some success at the state level, but federal law still has supremacy and I am not seeing any signs of movement at the national level.  I agree that the gateway drug theory has no real scientific support, but I continue to be skeptical about marijuana legalization gaining traction at a national level because I think parents--even ones who themselves smoked pot when they were sowing their wild oats--don't want pot to be available to their kids.  It's kind of like sex:  parents who were barebacking at age 15 get into a cold sweat when they imagine their kids doing the same.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 14, 2012, 01:06:19 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 14, 2012, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 13, 2012, 11:19:55 PM
Threatening states if they don't enact laws is the same as enacting the laws yourself. It should be illegal under the 10th Amendment. That goes for NMSL, BAC, drinking age, seat belt, age of majority, drug laws, etc., etc.

Unfortunately that's not the Supreme Court's view of the situation. They see it as Congress having the Constitutional power to disburse funds as they wish, and states having the power to reject the funds if they don't agree with the stipulation attached to them.

The Supreme Court has been shitting on state's rights for centuries now.  Almost every ruling they make favors federal power and corporate monopolies.

Doesn't really matter. What the Supreme Court says is the law, like it or not. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: bugo on August 14, 2012, 01:35:25 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2012, 12:25:45 PM
We will just have to see what happens in five to ten years.  I don't dispute that the marijuana legalization movement has had some success at the state level, but federal law still has supremacy and I am not seeing any signs of movement at the national level.  I agree that the gateway drug theory has no real scientific support, but I continue to be skeptical about marijuana legalization gaining traction at a national level because I think parents--even ones who themselves smoked pot when they were sowing their wild oats--don't want pot to be available to their kids.  It's kind of like sex:  parents who were barebacking at age 15 get into a cold sweat when they imagine their kids doing the same.

It's easier for kids to get weed than it is for them to get alcohol.  Dealers don't care about your age when they sell their products. 
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: bugo on August 14, 2012, 01:36:05 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 14, 2012, 01:06:19 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 14, 2012, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 13, 2012, 11:19:55 PM
Threatening states if they don't enact laws is the same as enacting the laws yourself. It should be illegal under the 10th Amendment. That goes for NMSL, BAC, drinking age, seat belt, age of majority, drug laws, etc., etc.

Unfortunately that's not the Supreme Court's view of the situation. They see it as Congress having the Constitutional power to disburse funds as they wish, and states having the power to reject the funds if they don't agree with the stipulation attached to them.

The Supreme Court has been shitting on state's rights for centuries now.  Almost every ruling they make favors federal power and corporate monopolies.

Doesn't really matter. What the Supreme Court says is the law, like it or not. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

And they're still wrong. 
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2012, 01:39:09 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 14, 2012, 01:35:25 PM

It's easier for kids to get weed than it is for them to get alcohol.  Dealers don't care about your age when they sell their products.

when I was in college, I had no idea where to get weed, but I knew exactly who was over 21 who would buy me all the alcohol I wanted...
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2012, 02:01:56 PM
Getting back to the original discussion here (and I am guilty getting things off-track with the marihuana rant), the 55 MPH speed limits in place (still) in many states just breeds disrespect for the law. 

A speed limit that is nearly 100% ignored by the motoring public is worse (in my opinion) than no speed limit at all. 

If a freeway segment has a design speed of 70 MPH, then the posted speed really ought to be 70 MPH.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NE2 on August 14, 2012, 02:08:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2012, 02:01:56 PM
Getting back to the original discussion here (and I am guilty getting things off-track with the marihuana rant), the 55 MPH speed limits in place (still) in many states just breeds disrespect for the law. 

A speed limit that is nearly 100% ignored by the motoring public is worse (in my opinion) than no speed limit at all. 
Do you feel the same about 'don't walk' signals that are ignored by almost all pedestrians?
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 02:20:11 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 14, 2012, 02:08:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2012, 02:01:56 PM
Getting back to the original discussion here (and I am guilty getting things off-track with the marihuana rant), the 55 MPH speed limits in place (still) in many states just breeds disrespect for the law. 

A speed limit that is nearly 100% ignored by the motoring public is worse (in my opinion) than no speed limit at all. 
Do you feel the same about 'don't walk' signals that are ignored by almost all pedestrians?

I once got a lecture from a police officer for crossing the street on a flashing DON'T WALK (anarchy!).  I actually made it to other side of the street before the cross street's light turned red, but then I had to sit on the bench and wait for the bus.  The cop pulled into the parking lot behind me and chewed me out.  Oh well, I guess I had nothing better to do until the bus came.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2012, 02:38:06 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 14, 2012, 02:08:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2012, 02:01:56 PM
Getting back to the original discussion here (and I am guilty getting things off-track with the marihuana rant), the 55 MPH speed limits in place (still) in many states just breeds disrespect for the law. 

A speed limit that is nearly 100% ignored by the motoring public is worse (in my opinion) than no speed limit at all. 
Do you feel the same about 'don't walk' signals that are ignored by almost all pedestrians?

We're starting to get off-topic, but what I resent is when pedestrians ignore the "Don't Walk" signal AND expect drivers who have a green light to stop and yield to them. It's especially problematic if you're at a light that allows turns only on a green arrow and the pedestrians think they're entitled to walk during that green arrow cycle despite the "Don't Walk" signal. Of course you can't just mow them down, but if you don't get somewhat aggressive about forcing your way through that crosswalk you're never going to get around that corner legally.

(I'm thinking primarily of 18th & L NW in Washington DC, but it's not an issue unique to that corner.)
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Zmapper on August 14, 2012, 03:30:19 PM
I'm just thinking out loud here, but perhaps the Obama administration crackdown on marijuana could be removed for the most part with a one sentence law or state constitutional amendment:

"Cannabis grown in [state], sold in [state] to consumers legally residing in [state] with the intent of consumption in [state] is hereby not subject to federal intervention or regulation in [state] due to the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Generally I don't favor state cartels, but if that's what it takes to shut the DEA down, so be it!
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kkt on August 14, 2012, 04:23:16 PM
There's still a lot of fundamentalists opposed to marijuana legalization.  Congress would have to repeal the federal laws against it, and it only takes a few people -- committee chairs, etc. -- to block passing a law, even if most Congressmen want it.  I'd be surprised but pleased if the federal laws were repealed within five years.  I'd be a little less surprised if it were moved to Schedule 2, so a doctor could prescribe it.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 04:28:57 PM
I frankly don't care one way or the other on marijuana; I understand both sides of the argument.

I don't see how the NMSL went against the Constitution.  All sorts of federal laws exist in the interest of public safety (not that public safety was the reason for the NMSL), so what's the difference?
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2012, 05:34:09 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on August 14, 2012, 03:30:19 PM
I'm just thinking out loud here, but perhaps the Obama administration crackdown on marijuana could be removed for the most part with a one sentence law or state constitutional amendment:

"Cannabis grown in [state], sold in [state] to consumers legally residing in [state] with the intent of consumption in [state] is hereby not subject to federal intervention or regulation in [state] due to the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Generally I don't favor state cartels, but if that's what it takes to shut the DEA down, so be it!

I am not especially enthused by the DEA, but I have much more dislike for the "businessmen" of Latin America (and recently, especially Mexico) who profit from mindless U.S. drug laws, so if we put the Mexican cartels out of business through legalization, that's fine with me.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: vdeane on August 14, 2012, 05:35:52 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on August 14, 2012, 03:30:19 PM
I'm just thinking out loud here, but perhaps the Obama administration crackdown on marijuana could be removed for the most part with a one sentence law or state constitutional amendment:

"Cannabis grown in [state], sold in [state] to consumers legally residing in [state] with the intent of consumption in [state] is hereby not subject to federal intervention or regulation in [state] due to the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Generally I don't favor state cartels, but if that's what it takes to shut the DEA down, so be it!

Unfortunately, everything is so interconnected today, and with travel between states so easy (what are you going to do, have a police officer follow people around until the consume the drug to make sure they don't leave?), intrastate commerce is an oxymoron today.  I believe South Carolina tried and failed to do a similar thing with incandescent light bulbs.

That said, now is the most likely time for the war on drugs to end, for the same reason that prohibition ended - taxes.  Although the history books like to make it look like we learned something from the 20s, or because people were less in favor of prohibition (they weren't), the truth is the only reason prohibition was repealed is because the feds were broke without the tax money from alcohol during the Depression.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kkt on August 14, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
No, it was obvious to pretty much everybody after a couple of years that prohibition was counterproductive.  It didn't reduce alcohol  abuse, which was the prohibitionists' goal, or the many social problems that the prohibitionists attributed to alcohol.  It gave the mobs their start, made lots of ordinary people into criminals, put a huge load on law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons.  The tax from alcohol was just a secondary reason for repeal.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2012, 06:33:46 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 14, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
No, it was obvious to pretty much everybody after a couple of years that prohibition was counterproductive.  It didn't reduce alcohol  abuse, which was the prohibitionists' goal, or the many social problems that the prohibitionists attributed to alcohol.  It gave the mobs their start, made lots of ordinary people into criminals, put a huge load on law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons.  The tax from alcohol was just a secondary reason for repeal.

meanwhile, the War on Drugs has been reliably causing unicorns to shit rainbows since 1973.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 06:47:35 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2012, 06:33:46 PM
meanwhile, the War on Drugs has been reliably causing unicorns to shit rainbows since 1973.

Will someone please post a picture of this?
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Alps on August 14, 2012, 08:50:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 06:47:35 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2012, 06:33:46 PM
meanwhile, the War on Drugs has been reliably causing unicorns to shit rainbows since 1973.

Will someone please post a picture of this?
Best I can do:

it by necessity is pink (http://www.chickensmoothie.com/oekaki/image/image.php?id=297637&size=large&format=auto&rev=1293999400) (this is not mine)
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 09:04:06 PM
Wow, a Google Images search for this is so much fun!
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NE2 on August 14, 2012, 09:42:32 PM
Daaaamn. Google ignores its autocomplete censoring for "unicorn shits rainbows".
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: hbelkins on August 14, 2012, 10:07:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2012, 08:59:14 AM
The Supreme Court has taken the Interstate Commerce Clause a bit further in finding that a single-state action can unduly affect interstate commerce. Perhaps the best example is the Bibb case from 1959 where Illinois had a law, unique among all the states, requiring a specific type of truck mud flap. No other state required that type of mud flap and one state specifically banned that type. The Supreme Court ultimately found that Illinois's law must fall because it created an undue burden on interstate commerce due to the impossibility of complying with both states' laws unless truck drivers pulled off and changed their mud flaps every time. (Had it been a situation where 49 states allowed either type, and Illinois required the one, there would have been no problem because you could comply with both laws by using the Illinois flap. But that wasn't the situation.)

How about window tint laws? I don't think there's a uniformity among the Several States on it. What's legal in some states may not be legal in others.

And I don't have the documentation from one of them in front of me, but AAA Triptiks have this ominous warning about vehicle insurance requirements in New York. What I always took from that was that even if your vehicle is legally insured in your home state, you can't drive it in NY unless your coverage meets their more stringent requirements.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2012, 10:24:19 PM
Yeah, Virginia has very restrictive tint rules. I believe they'd fall in the category where they'd be allowed because a driver can easily comply with every state's rules if he gets tiny that complies with the most restrictive law. I don't know how many challenges there have been to tint tickets.

I actually won a case for a client about 11 years ago involving a Commerce Clause violation, although the case was about bug spray labels.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: J N Winkler on August 14, 2012, 10:47:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 14, 2012, 10:07:11 PMHow about window tint laws? I don't think there's a uniformity among the Several States on it. What's legal in some states may not be legal in others.

I think the position is as follows:  OEM tint is not a barrier to travel or re-registration in any of the states, because no state has a window tint law that prohibits the darkest tint used by the OEM manufacturers.  On the other hand, very dark aftermarket tints are legal in some states but not in others.  It is safe to assume that dark aftermarket tint is a barrier to re-registration in a state where it is illegal.  However, I don't think a state can issue a legally valid citation for too-dark tint in respect of an out-of-state vehicle where the degree of tint is illegal in the state issuing the ticket but is legal in the state of registration.  The stereotypical example would be an Arizona car with aftermarket tint cited in Alaska for too-dark tint.

I am not sure such a ticket would hold up even if the degree of tint were illegal in both states, absent a compact allowing each state to enforce the other's vehicle equipment laws.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2012, 10:59:14 PM
I know Virginia does ticket out-of-staters whose tint is darker than Virginia allows; they claim that it's a safety law and being from out-of-state doesn't change that it's unsafe.

I don't know how many people from out-of-state have fought the tickets.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Scott5114 on August 15, 2012, 08:39:57 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2012, 10:59:14 PM
I don't know how many people from out-of-state have fought the tickets.

They're probably counting on it being too far away for most people to bother coming back to contest it.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 15, 2012, 10:01:09 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 15, 2012, 08:39:57 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2012, 10:59:14 PM
I don't know how many people from out-of-state have fought the tickets.

They're probably counting on it being too far away for most people to bother coming back to contest it.

In Virginia I think it's three-fold:

(1) As you say, most out-of-staters would just pay the ticket and not come back.

(2) In the Virginia court system there is generally no right to an automatic appeal in civil matters (and a tint ticket would almost certainly be classified as a "civil infraction" rather than a criminal offense). You have to petition the Virginia Supreme Court to hear your appeal. The odds of your average tint ticket being appealed are slim and the odds of the Virginia Supreme Court granting review are even slimmer.

(3) The slimmest odds of all are someone deciding to try to make a federal constitutional case out of it, simply because the cost of the ticket is so minuscule that it's economically impractical to make a federal case of it.


The way Virginia justifies the enforcement is that the statute regulating window tint (Va. Code 46.2-1052) provides that "No sun-shading or tinting films may be applied or affixed to [side or rear windows] of any motor vehicle operated on the highways of this Commonwealth" that reduce the light transmission to less than the specified percentages (50% front sides, 35% rear sides and rear; no aftermarket tint is allowed at all on the windshield without a medical waiver). The statute provides that if you "operate a motor vehicle on the highways of this Commonwealth" with darker tints than authorized, you get a ticket for an infraction but the ticket carries no points.

So the thing from the enforcement point of view is that it refers to operating any motor vehicle on Virginia's highways. That means any car regardless of where it's registered. In other words, it doesn't say you can't register the car in Virginia (in which case out-of-staters would be in the clear unless they moved here)–it says it's illegal to drive that car, period.

I tend to agree with the people who say it's a very dickish sort of enforcement, but on the other hand, I also wouldn't be surprised from a constitutional standpoint if the point the US Supreme Court made in the Bibb case were to prevail in the unlikely event someone tried to make a constitutional case of it–that is, the Commonwealth would argue, "Any motorist can comply with both this law and his home state's law by tinting in accordance with Virginia law if he expects to drive in Virginia." As I say, that's obnoxious and I don't like the idea of one state's legislature or courts trying to pass a law that forces other states' legislatures or courts to follow along even if they prefer a different law (e.g., Florida quite understandably allows darker tint for very good reasons). I could relate that argument to current events but I'm concerned it would derail the thread into politics, so I won't.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: vdeane on August 15, 2012, 01:38:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 14, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
No, it was obvious to pretty much everybody after a couple of years that prohibition was counterproductive.  It didn't reduce alcohol  abuse, which was the prohibitionists' goal, or the many social problems that the prohibitionists attributed to alcohol.  It gave the mobs their start, made lots of ordinary people into criminals, put a huge load on law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons.  The tax from alcohol was just a secondary reason for repeal.
Then explain whey it took ten more years after that to finally be repealed.

Most history learned in school is an exaggeration or an outright lie.  My favorite example are the American Revolution (nobody can claim the moral high ground here, though both sides try), Honest Abe (he was actually more dishonest than modern politicians, the norm in the day, due to the non-existence of mass media; politicians would say one thing to one town and the opposite to the next, and nobody could check), and the perceived civility to politics of the early 1800s (they were actually dirtier than ours; we complain about recounts in Florida, they had to deal with Hamilton rigging presidential elections).
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kkt on August 15, 2012, 04:09:00 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 15, 2012, 01:38:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 14, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
No, it was obvious to pretty much everybody after a couple of years that prohibition was counterproductive.  It didn't reduce alcohol  abuse, which was the prohibitionists' goal, or the many social problems that the prohibitionists attributed to alcohol.  It gave the mobs their start, made lots of ordinary people into criminals, put a huge load on law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons.  The tax from alcohol was just a secondary reason for repeal.
Then explain whey it took ten more years after that to finally be repealed.

It's deliberately difficult to amend the constitution, and even after most people favored repeal there were still some vocal true believers who wanted to keep it.  It took a while to realize how bad prohibition was, then get a campaign together to draft a repeal and vote out the supporters of prohibition from Congress.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2012, 04:23:48 PM
ten years is nothing.  marijuana has been banned for nearly a century now, even as most people range from indifferent to supportive of its legalization.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 15, 2012, 04:30:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 15, 2012, 04:09:00 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 15, 2012, 01:38:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 14, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
No, it was obvious to pretty much everybody after a couple of years that prohibition was counterproductive.  It didn't reduce alcohol  abuse, which was the prohibitionists' goal, or the many social problems that the prohibitionists attributed to alcohol.  It gave the mobs their start, made lots of ordinary people into criminals, put a huge load on law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons.  The tax from alcohol was just a secondary reason for repeal.
Then explain whey it took ten more years after that to finally be repealed.

It's deliberately difficult to amend the constitution, and even after most people favored repeal there were still some vocal true believers who wanted to keep it.  It took a while to realize how bad prohibition was, then get a campaign together to draft a repeal and vote out the supporters of prohibition from Congress.

In that particular instance, Congress also provided that the proposed amendment was to be ratified by conventions in the states, rather than the state legislatures. Only time the convention method has ever been used. Congress wanted to avoid the "dry" legislatures that would have refused to ratify it.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: vdeane on August 15, 2012, 05:45:01 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 15, 2012, 04:09:00 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 15, 2012, 01:38:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 14, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
No, it was obvious to pretty much everybody after a couple of years that prohibition was counterproductive.  It didn't reduce alcohol  abuse, which was the prohibitionists' goal, or the many social problems that the prohibitionists attributed to alcohol.  It gave the mobs their start, made lots of ordinary people into criminals, put a huge load on law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons.  The tax from alcohol was just a secondary reason for repeal.
Then explain whey it took ten more years after that to finally be repealed.

It's deliberately difficult to amend the constitution, and even after most people favored repeal there were still some vocal true believers who wanted to keep it.  It took a while to realize how bad prohibition was, then get a campaign together to draft a repeal and vote out the supporters of prohibition from Congress.
I would find you the source, but I don't remember where I read it; it was within the past couple months, I do remember that.  I will repeat that textbook history is wrong 90% of the time.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 16, 2012, 01:27:09 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 15, 2012, 05:45:01 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 15, 2012, 04:09:00 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 15, 2012, 01:38:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 14, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
No, it was obvious to pretty much everybody after a couple of years that prohibition was counterproductive.  It didn't reduce alcohol  abuse, which was the prohibitionists' goal, or the many social problems that the prohibitionists attributed to alcohol.  It gave the mobs their start, made lots of ordinary people into criminals, put a huge load on law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons.  The tax from alcohol was just a secondary reason for repeal.
Then explain whey it took ten more years after that to finally be repealed.

It's deliberately difficult to amend the constitution, and even after most people favored repeal there were still some vocal true believers who wanted to keep it.  It took a while to realize how bad prohibition was, then get a campaign together to draft a repeal and vote out the supporters of prohibition from Congress.
I would find you the source, but I don't remember where I read it; it was within the past couple months, I do remember that.  I will repeat that textbook history is wrong 90% of the time.

71% of all statistics are wrong.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kkt on August 16, 2012, 03:57:47 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 15, 2012, 05:45:01 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 15, 2012, 04:09:00 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 15, 2012, 01:38:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 14, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
No, it was obvious to pretty much everybody after a couple of years that prohibition was counterproductive.  It didn't reduce alcohol  abuse, which was the prohibitionists' goal, or the many social problems that the prohibitionists attributed to alcohol.  It gave the mobs their start, made lots of ordinary people into criminals, put a huge load on law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons.  The tax from alcohol was just a secondary reason for repeal.
Then explain whey it took ten more years after that to finally be repealed.

It's deliberately difficult to amend the constitution, and even after most people favored repeal there were still some vocal true believers who wanted to keep it.  It took a while to realize how bad prohibition was, then get a campaign together to draft a repeal and vote out the supporters of prohibition from Congress.
I would find you the source, but I don't remember where I read it; it was within the past couple months, I do remember that.  I will repeat that textbook history is wrong 90% of the time.

Are you trying to say that if you took every fact in all history textbooks 90% of them are not true?  That's just ridiculous.  Of course there's some errors and some omissions, but you exaggerate wildly.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Zmapper on August 16, 2012, 04:02:36 PM
Textbooks can be very error prone, even those meant for a fourth-grade audience. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-30/us/virginia.textbook.errors_1_ponds-press-panelists-textbook?_s=PM:US
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
especially those meant for a fourth-grade audience.  history is all rah-rah-America-fuck-yeah; gotta indoctrinate those kiddos! 
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: J N Winkler on August 16, 2012, 04:40:34 PM
I am from Crete.  All Cretans lie.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 04:45:23 PM
so, since you're in the US, you're an ex-Crete.  JNW, you're so full of shit.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 16, 2012, 05:06:21 PM
90% wrong.  Wow, maybe the Nazis really did win the war.  And maybe electrons aren't really negatively charged.  And maybe verbs aren't really action words.  And maybe Baroque music really came after Romantic.  And maybe J Robert Oppenheimer didn't really invent the nuclear bomb.  And maybe organisms aren't really made up of cells.  And maybe "caballo" isn't really Spanish for "horse".  I mean, with a 10% accuracy rate, some of this stuff is just bound to be wrong!
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 05:28:02 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
especially those meant for a fourth-grade audience.  history is all rah-rah-America-fuck-yeah; gotta indoctrinate those kiddos! 
And apparently in the South rah-rah-we-weren't-racist-no-sir.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 06:06:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 16, 2012, 05:06:21 PM
90% wrong.  Wow, maybe the Nazis really did win the war.  And maybe electrons aren't really negatively charged.  And maybe verbs aren't really action words.  And maybe Baroque music really came after Romantic.  And maybe J Robert Oppenheimer didn't really invent the nuclear bomb.  And maybe organisms aren't really made up of cells.  And maybe "caballo" isn't really Spanish for "horse".  I mean, with a 10% accuracy rate, some of this stuff is just bound to be wrong!
And Christopher Columbus didn't discover the Western Hemisphere, it was Leif Erickson. All Columbus did was exploit the Caribbean natives and lie to his Spanish superiors.
I have an idea... If I-10 from Los Angeles to Jacksonville is the "Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway," then I-90 from Boston to Seattle could be the "Leif Erickson Transcontinental Highway!"
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
especially those meant for a fourth-grade audience.  history is all rah-rah-America-fuck-yeah; gotta indoctrinate those kiddos! 

That's probably the reason a lot of people don't like the United States.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 06:12:46 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 14, 2012, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 13, 2012, 11:19:55 PM
Threatening states if they don't enact laws is the same as enacting the laws yourself. It should be illegal under the 10th Amendment. That goes for NMSL, BAC, drinking age, seat belt, age of majority, drug laws, etc., etc.

Unfortunately that's not the Supreme Court's view of the situation. They see it as Congress having the Constitutional power to disburse funds as they wish, and states having the power to reject the funds if they don't agree with the stipulation attached to them.

The Supreme Court has been shitting on state's rights for centuries now.  Almost every ruling they make favors federal power and corporate monopolies.
I always knew some areas of the United States were being promoted and others being discriminated against.
Example- It seems people are trying to promote the North while discriminating against the South. Like many companies based in cities like New York and Boston and Philadelphia trying to move to cities like Atlanta. In my opinion, that's their way of trying to remind the South that Washington, D.C. is their master, not Richmond.  :pan:  :banghead:
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 06:19:49 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 06:12:46 PM
I always knew some areas of the United States were being promoted and others being discriminated against.
Example- It seems people are trying to promote the North while discriminating against the South. Like many companies based in cities like New York and Boston and Philadelphia trying to move to cities like Atlanta. In my opinion, that's their way of trying to remind the South that Washington, D.C. is their master, not Richmond.  :pan:  :banghead:

wait, what?  how is attempting to do more business in Atlanta discriminating against the south?
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 06:47:08 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 06:06:19 PM
And Christopher Columbus didn't discover the Western Hemisphere, it was Leif Erickson.
Actually it was the guys that crossed the Bering non-Strait long ago. Erickson and Columbus both rediscovered it, but only Columbus and his successors followed through on fucking the natives up. He certainly should get credit for starting the colonization of the Americas, but the problem is that this is presented as a good thing, and any unpleasantries are swept under the rug.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Alps on August 16, 2012, 08:35:52 PM
It's not that history books are 90% wrong in what they tell you. In fact, what they tell you is 90% true. It's that 90% of history is omitted from the textbooks, and a lot of it will inform you or change your understanding on historical events. Textbooks teach you the facts that go on finals and AP tests, and that's it.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: english si on August 16, 2012, 09:09:36 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 06:47:08 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 06:06:19 PM
And Christopher Columbus didn't discover the Western Hemisphere, it was Leif Erickson.
Actually it was the guys that crossed the Bering non-Strait long ago.
Was that before or after there were guys in Iberia, or Nigeria (or Hibernia, but I have a feeling that it was under ice at the time)?

Oh, you mean the Americas, rather than the Western hemisphere*...

And surely, if they went via the Straight to get to the Americas, they were in the Western Hemisphere before then, surely?

*Note that a most of the venues where the Olympics were held earlier this month are in the Western Hemisphere - just in some cases as the Olympic Park isn't that far off the meridian. The Equestrian in Greenwich Park straddled two hemispheres (though I didn't spot the line, which is pretty obvious in that park for obvious reasons), and the North Greenwich Arena and ExCeL are in the Eastern Hemisphere, but the Olympic Park, Central London venues and all the non-East London/Essex venues all have minus latitudes.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 10:10:13 PM
You remind me of the people saying the the milennium begins in 2001. Sure, it does, but who cares? It's just another day of another year. And the Greenwich Meridian is just another of a nearly infinite number of possible meridians. In the context of exploration, Western Hemisphere obviously refers to the Americas, and you're just being a pedantic arse.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Brandon on August 16, 2012, 10:16:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 10:10:13 PM
You remind me of the people saying the the milennium begins in 2001. Sure, it does, but who cares? It's just another day of another year. And the Greenwich Meridian is just another of a nearly infinite number of possible meridians. In the context of exploration, Western Hemisphere obviously refers to the Americas, and you're just being a pedantic arse.

But, the millennium did start in 2001 as there is no year 0, and English Si is exactly right regarding the Western Hemisphere.  Don't be so obtuse, NE2.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 10:39:49 PM
^^^ SMH
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: bugo on August 16, 2012, 11:03:41 PM
We didn't learn anything in history about a lot of subjects.  For example, all that we were told about the Soviet Union was "they're bad, mkay."  I've been recently educating myself on the Eastern Bloc along with many other topics, and I've learned a lot of things that they didn't teach us in school.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 11:17:24 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 06:47:08 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 06:06:19 PM
And Christopher Columbus didn't discover the Western Hemisphere, it was Leif Erickson.
Actually it was the guys that crossed the Bering non-Strait long ago. Erickson and Columbus both rediscovered it, but only Columbus and his successors followed through on fucking the natives up. He certainly should get credit for starting the colonization of the Americas, but the problem is that this is presented as a good thing, and any unpleasantries are swept under the rug.
D**n, I forgot about the Asian and Russian descendents crossing the Bering non-Strait.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 11:22:35 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 06:19:49 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 06:12:46 PM
I always knew some areas of the United States were being promoted and others being discriminated against.
Example- It seems people are trying to promote the North while discriminating against the South. Like many companies based in cities like New York and Boston and Philadelphia trying to move to cities like Atlanta. In my opinion, that's their way of trying to remind the South that Washington, D.C. is their master, not Richmond.  :pan:  :banghead:

wait, what?  how is attempting to do more business in Atlanta discriminating against the south?
Because traditonally, Southerners would feel like seeing big downtowns and skyscrapers are being monsters on their traditions and lifestyles. Traditionally, the South has been agriculture and small-town charm. And you'll still hear "D**n Yankees" around the South when people talk of people from the North. Then again, Atlanta was never like every other city in the South- it was somehow destined to be a big city.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: english si on August 17, 2012, 06:27:23 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 10:10:13 PM
You remind me of the people saying the the milennium begins in 2001. Sure, it does, but who cares? It's just another day of another year. And the Greenwich Meridian is just another of a nearly infinite number of possible meridians. In the context of exploration, Western Hemisphere obviously refers to the Americas, and you're just being a pedantic arse.
I'm sorry I thought that this had become the pedantic arse thread - criticizing school textbooks and 'common knowledge' lies.

Why use "Western Hemisphere" if you mean "the Americas"? It's shorter to write, more accurate, more precise.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2012, 08:46:01 AM
Quote from: english si on August 17, 2012, 06:27:23 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 10:10:13 PM
You remind me of the people saying the the milennium begins in 2001. Sure, it does, but who cares? It's just another day of another year. And the Greenwich Meridian is just another of a nearly infinite number of possible meridians. In the context of exploration, Western Hemisphere obviously refers to the Americas, and you're just being a pedantic arse.
I'm sorry I thought that this had become the pedantic arse thread - criticizing school textbooks and 'common knowledge' lies.

Why use "Western Hemisphere" if you mean "the Americas"? It's shorter to write, more accurate, more precise.

And by the definition of "Western Hemisphere" you mean everything west of the Greenwich Meridian, then most of the U.K. and all of Ireland are in that half of the globe, in spite of their membership in the EU.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 09:16:24 AM
Methinks it's coming time for the mods to split this thread. Problem is that the nature of the topic (legal challenges to the NMSL) inherently lends itself to wandering off-topic given the nature of a discussion of constitutional law (itself a broad topic, but one related to the original subject), but some of the sniping about pedantry seems to belong somewhere else, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 17, 2012, 11:59:30 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 09:16:24 AM
Methinks it's coming time for the mods to split this thread. Problem is that the nature of the topic (legal challenges to the NMSL) inherently lends itself to wandering off-topic given the nature of a discussion of constitutional law (itself a broad topic, but one related to the original subject), but some of the sniping about pedantry seems to belong somewhere else, doesn't it?

this isn't pedantic yet... no one's mentioned the France/Brazil land border crossing  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2012, 12:01:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 09:16:24 AM
Methinks it's coming time for the mods to split this thread. Problem is that the nature of the topic (legal challenges to the NMSL) inherently lends itself to wandering off-topic given the nature of a discussion of constitutional law (itself a broad topic, but one related to the original subject), but some of the sniping about pedantry seems to belong somewhere else, doesn't it?
The 55 mph limit is 90% wrong, Columbus gets credit for the the 55 mph limit even though Erickson discovered it first, the 55 mph limit crossed the France/Brazil land border completely ignoring the whole metric system issue, and the 55 mph limit began in Year 0 or 1, not including the days that were removed or added to the calender in various years in the 14th or 15th or 16th centery.

There...back on topic.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: vdeane on August 17, 2012, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
especially those meant for a fourth-grade audience.  history is all rah-rah-America-fuck-yeah; gotta indoctrinate those kiddos! 

This.  Sadly, most people only learn this version of history.

Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 06:47:08 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 06:06:19 PM
And Christopher Columbus didn't discover the Western Hemisphere, it was Leif Erickson.
Actually it was the guys that crossed the Bering non-Strait long ago. Erickson and Columbus both rediscovered it, but only Columbus and his successors followed through on fucking the natives up. He certainly should get credit for starting the colonization of the Americas, but the problem is that this is presented as a good thing, and any unpleasantries are swept under the rug.
OK, this one annoys me enough that I'll pick it out of a flood of posts to respond.  Columbus did discover America.  He just wasn't the first human to do so (that, of course, is the Native Americans, from wherever they came from under your preferred theory).  But being first matters only in patents and the Guinness Book of World Records.  The Columbus discovery of America arguably had a greater impact on world history by far than all the others.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2012, 12:01:39 PM
There...back on topic.
Is it just me, or have we had a lot of new people get their panties in a bunch whenever we go off topic lately?
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 17, 2012, 01:52:26 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 16, 2012, 11:03:41 PM
We didn't learn anything in history about a lot of subjects.  For example, all that we were told about the Soviet Union was "they're bad, mkay."  I've been recently educating myself on the Eastern Bloc along with many other topics, and I've learned a lot of things that they didn't teach us in school.

Interesting.  I knew a Polish guy who learned history under communist rule.  He talked about having to re-learn history after the curtain came down.  So here you are, un-learning what you've been taught about those on the east side of the curtain; and here he is, un-learning what he's been taught about those on the west side of the curtain.  Go figure.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NYYPhil777 on August 17, 2012, 04:56:18 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 17, 2012, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
especially those meant for a fourth-grade audience.  history is all rah-rah-America-fuck-yeah; gotta indoctrinate those kiddos! 

This.  Sadly, most people only learn this version of history.

Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 06:47:08 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 06:06:19 PM
And Christopher Columbus didn't discover the Western Hemisphere, it was Leif Erickson.
Actually it was the guys that crossed the Bering non-Strait long ago. Erickson and Columbus both rediscovered it, but only Columbus and his successors followed through on fucking the natives up. He certainly should get credit for starting the colonization of the Americas, but the problem is that this is presented as a good thing, and any unpleasantries are swept under the rug.
OK, this one annoys me enough that I'll pick it out of a flood of posts to respond.  Columbus did discover America.  He just wasn't the first human to do so (that, of course, is the Native Americans, from wherever they came from under your preferred theory).  But being first matters only in patents and the Guinness Book of World Records.  The Columbus discovery of America arguably had a greater impact on world history by far than all the others.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2012, 12:01:39 PM
There...back on topic.
Is it just me, or have we had a lot of new people get their panties in a bunch whenever we go off topic lately?

Deanej, you're absolutely right about most people only knowing the "America-f*ck-yeah" version of United States history being a sad thing. In my honest opinion, it's a disgrace that would have the founding fathers spinning in their graves.
Yes- Columbus did discover America- for Spain. Just like Erickson did for the Nordics. The word America is named for Amerigo Vespucci.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2012, 10:57:36 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 17, 2012, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
especially those meant for a fourth-grade audience.  history is all rah-rah-America-fuck-yeah; gotta indoctrinate those kiddos! 

This.  Sadly, most people only learn this version of history.

Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 06:47:08 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 16, 2012, 06:06:19 PM
And Christopher Columbus didn't discover the Western Hemisphere, it was Leif Erickson.
Actually it was the guys that crossed the Bering non-Strait long ago. Erickson and Columbus both rediscovered it, but only Columbus and his successors followed through on fucking the natives up. He certainly should get credit for starting the colonization of the Americas, but the problem is that this is presented as a good thing, and any unpleasantries are swept under the rug.
OK, this one annoys me enough that I'll pick it out of a flood of posts to respond.  Columbus did discover America.  He just wasn't the first human to do so (that, of course, is the Native Americans, from wherever they came from under your preferred theory).  But being first matters only in patents and the Guinness Book of World Records.  The Columbus discovery of America arguably had a greater impact on world history by far than all the others.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2012, 12:01:39 PM
There...back on topic.
Is it just me, or have we had a lot of new people get their panties in a bunch whenever we go off topic lately?
If you're talking about me...I'm hardly new.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: vdeane on August 18, 2012, 10:33:54 AM
Well, low post count, then.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Alps on August 19, 2012, 08:25:13 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 18, 2012, 10:33:54 AM
Well, low post count, then.
Jeff was in MTR for years. You were still learning how to write cursive...
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 20, 2012, 01:15:26 PM
Mostly, ADD.  Too many hobbies and interests. Today it's roads.  Tomorrow it's Vegas.  Wednesday it'll be Christmas lights!!!
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: bugo on August 20, 2012, 06:22:49 PM
Damn the politician who sponsors a bill bringing back the 55 MPH speed limit.  Hillary Clinton has voiced support of bringing it back, and for that reason I'll never vote for her.  (I wouldn't vote for her anyway, but this is the straw that broke the camel's back.)
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Scott5114 on August 20, 2012, 09:43:51 PM
Hillary Clinton is also Secretary of State and has nothing to do with speed limits anymore.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Brandon on August 21, 2012, 07:02:39 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 20, 2012, 09:43:51 PM
Hillary Clinton is also Secretary of State and has nothing to do with speed limits anymore.

Thank goodness for that.  No politician should have anything to do with setting speed limits.  That should be the domain of a professional engineer, and only a professional engineer.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 07:42:54 AM
Quote from: Brandon on August 21, 2012, 07:02:39 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 20, 2012, 09:43:51 PM
Hillary Clinton is also Secretary of State and has nothing to do with speed limits anymore.

Thank goodness for that.  No politician should have anything to do with setting speed limits.  That should be the domain of a professional engineer, and only a professional engineer.

If there's going to be a maximum speed limit (and I don't think that the U.S. should have freeways with no speed limit, autobahn-style), then that limit needs to be set by statute, and that means involving politicians.

Should most states have a much higher maximum speed limit for engineers to work with?  Yes, of course.  but there still needs to be an upper limit (at least for now).
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: vdeane on August 21, 2012, 11:23:41 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 07:42:54 AM
but there still needs to be an upper limit (at least for now).
False.  If an engineering study says a road is safe up to speed X, the speed limit should be X.  End of story.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 11:30:59 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 21, 2012, 11:23:41 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 07:42:54 AM
but there still needs to be an upper limit (at least for now).
False.  If an engineering study says a road is safe up to speed X, the speed limit should be X.  End of story.

I vigorously disagree.

If we are going to have maximum speed limits that are enforceable by police (and the court system), those limits must be established by statute.

Once the maximum limit or limits are established (by the politicians in state legislatures, at least in the United States), then engineering studies can be used to set limits up to (but not over) those statutory maximum limits (and, for that matter, minimum limits too).
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 11:40:39 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 11:30:59 AM
If we are going to have maximum speed limits that are enforceable by police (and the court system), those limits must be established by statute.

Can you explain this?  Why couldn't speed limits which are set by the design characteristics of the highways be enforceable by police?  Go faster than the limit, get pulled over.  Only the number has changed.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: NE2 on August 21, 2012, 11:50:23 AM
You need to at least define in law what criteria the engineering study should use.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 12:11:33 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 21, 2012, 11:50:23 AM
You need to at least define in law what criteria the engineering study should use.

I prefer this sort of thing to a blanket law. Give the DOT the procedure to use in establishing the speed limit and then let them adjust up or down accordingly.

I don't particularly like the question "what should the speed limit be" because I don't like the concept of "the speed limit." It presumes that there's a magic number that's the same everywhere (whether nationwide under the NMSL or within a given state the way most states operate today) and that is the maximum that should be allowed. I don't like that approach because I think we've already seen, with the failure of the NMSL, ample evidence of why "one-size-fits-all" doesn't work. Moreover, as many states have increased their limits over the years I think we've seen them conceding that their arguments about the sanctity of statutorily-enacted speed limits as "safety" measures are bollocks–I mean, Virginia stuck with the general 65 rural/55 urban principle from the NMSL for many years (with some minor tweaking to allow some 60-mph zones and some other adjustments), but now we have 70-mph zones on many of the same Interstates that just a few years ago the Commonwealth INSISTED could not be safely driven at speeds above 65. Obviously, both cannot be true–either the 70-mph speed limit is unsafe or the 65-mph limit had nothing to do with safety.

I think Virginia and New York are fine examples of states with a serious urban/rural divide where a large percentage of the population lives in the urban areas and has no clue how very different the road conditions (traffic, number of exits, etc.) are in the farther rural areas. Most people can accept that the speed limit in far western Texas can and should be higher than the speed limit on the Beltway around DC. Why, then, can't people accept the equally logical (in my opinion) premise that the speed limit on a US Highway in a rural part of a state can and often should be higher than the speed limit on an Interstate Highway in an urban part of the same state? Yet state legislators often assume that the Interstate has to have a higher speed limit because, well, it's an INTERSTATE! Also, what's wrong with allowing particular roads to have higher speed limits than are in place throughout most of the state if those roads are particularly well-designed, or don't get a lot of traffic, or whatever? Earlier this year Virginia finally posted 70 mph on a non-Interstate for the first time I can ever recall–a segment of US-29 near Lynchburg that's Interstate-quality (perhaps better, actually). Suppose 75 mph were reasonable on that road. Why not allow it? What's so magical about 70?

Thus, I would prefer the approach of "how should speed limits be determined," rather than "what should the speed limit be."

The other argument I've never bought is the idea that higher speed limits are always inherently dangerous. Car design evolves over time and faster speeds DO often become safer on roads that are well-designed for higher speeds. Consider that in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when pre-NMSL speed limits generally reached their highest levels, most cars in the USA were not particularly aerodynamic, had lousy brakes compared to modern cars, didn't handle terribly well, and had very skinny tires that often weren't even radials. A lot of cars had only lap belts and an awful lot of people didn't wear seat belts at all.

My first car was a 1977 Ford Granada and driving that thing at 80 mph was downright scary, whereas in either of my current cars (a 1988 RX-7 and a 2004 Acura TL) 80 mph is nothing.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: J N Winkler on August 21, 2012, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 11:40:39 AMCan you explain this?  Why couldn't speed limits which are set by the design characteristics of the highways be enforceable by police?  Go faster than the limit, get pulled over.  Only the number has changed.

The difficulty with this is that in most countries a given alignment corresponds to different design speeds according to the edition of the geometric design reference that is used.  Moreover, in the US we have the additional problem that the same alignment can correspond to different design speeds in the same edition of the Green Book, depending on the choice of maximum superelevation.

One approach that could be made to work would be to have a law that fixes the speed limit as the highest value (rounded down to the nearest 5-MPH increment) such that the segment of road on which the limit applies has no curve where the side friction demand at the speed limit plus a fixed increment (say 20 MPH) exceeds a certain prescribed value at that speed.  But even this approach still affords ample latitude for manipulation by varying segment length to include or exclude difficult curves.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: PHLBOS on August 21, 2012, 12:34:28 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 21, 2012, 07:02:39 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 20, 2012, 09:43:51 PM
Hillary Clinton is also Secretary of State and has nothing to do with speed limits anymore.

Thank goodness for that.  No politician should have anything to do with setting speed limits.  That should be the domain of a professional engineer, and only a professional engineer.
She might be eyeing a run in 2016.   :-o
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 12:47:58 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 12:11:33 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 21, 2012, 11:50:23 AM
You need to at least define in law what criteria the engineering study should use.

I prefer this sort of thing to a blanket law. Give the DOT the procedure to use in establishing the speed limit and then let them adjust up or down accordingly.

No problem with that.  But I still assert that the state legislatures need to establish a statutory maximum (which might reasonably be as high as 80 or 85 MPH). 

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 12:11:33 PM
I don't particularly like the question "what should the speed limit be" because I don't like the concept of "the speed limit." It presumes that there's a magic number that's the same everywhere (whether nationwide under the NMSL or within a given state the way most states operate today) and that is the maximum that should be allowed. I don't like that approach because I think we've already seen, with the failure of the NMSL, ample evidence of why "one-size-fits-all" doesn't work. Moreover, as many states have increased their limits over the years I think we've seen them conceding that their arguments about the sanctity of statutorily-enacted speed limits as "safety" measures are bollocks–I mean, Virginia stuck with the general 65 rural/55 urban principle from the NMSL for many years (with some minor tweaking to allow some 60-mph zones and some other adjustments), but now we have 70-mph zones on many of the same Interstates that just a few years ago the Commonwealth INSISTED could not be safely driven at speeds above 65. Obviously, both cannot be true–either the 70-mph speed limit is unsafe or the 65-mph limit had nothing to do with safety.

Virginia has plenty of roads that ought to have a posted speed limit of 75 or even 80 MPH.  An  excellent candidate for 80 is most of I-295 (at least the  segment between I-95 south of Petersburg and the I-95/I-295 interchange in Henrico County).

Most of I-66 between I-81 and U.S. 29 at Gainesville in Prince William County could be posted 75 (perhaps not the older, curvy section that's multiplexed with U.S. 17 near Marshall).

The Dulles Greenway should probably have a posted limit of 70.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 12:11:33 PM
I think Virginia and New York are fine examples of states with a serious urban/rural divide where a large percentage of the population lives in the urban areas and has no clue how very different the road conditions (traffic, number of exits, etc.) are in the farther rural areas. Most people can accept that the speed limit in far western Texas can and should be higher than the speed limit on the Beltway around DC. Why, then, can't people accept the equally logical (in my opinion) premise that the speed limit on a US Highway in a rural part of a state can and often should be higher than the speed limit on an Interstate Highway in an urban part of the same state? Yet state legislators often assume that the Interstate has to have a higher speed limit because, well, it's an INTERSTATE! Also, what's wrong with allowing particular roads to have higher speed limits than are in place throughout most of the state if those roads are particularly well-designed, or don't get a lot of traffic, or whatever? Earlier this year Virginia finally posted 70 mph on a non-Interstate for the first time I can ever recall–a segment of US-29 near Lynchburg that's Interstate-quality (perhaps better, actually). Suppose 75 mph were reasonable on that road. Why not allow it? What's so magical about 70?

Not just Virginia.  Even Maryland and Delaware, with modest-sized freeway networks, have differences when it comes to highways and the speed limits that should be posted there.  The Delaware 1 toll road (a/k/a the Relief Route) could probably be posted at 70 or 75. 

Long sections of I-70 in Maryland could be 75 or even 80 MPH.

There is nothing magic about 70 MPH.  Or 65 MPH.  Or 55 MPH.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 12:11:33 PM
Thus, I would prefer the approach of "how should speed limits be determined," rather than "what should the speed limit be."

Many prefer the 85th  percentile speed, which I think is reasonable, as long as design speed are considered.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 12:11:33 PM
The other argument I've never bought is the idea that higher speed limits are always inherently dangerous. Car design evolves over time and faster speeds DO often become safer on roads that are well-designed for higher speeds. Consider that in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when pre-NMSL speed limits generally reached their highest levels, most cars in the USA were not particularly aerodynamic, had lousy brakes compared to modern cars, didn't handle terribly well, and had very skinny tires that often weren't even radials. A lot of cars had only lap belts and an awful lot of people didn't wear seat belts at all.

Strongly agreed.  The inherently dangerous spin also comes from anti-highway groups and activists.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 12:11:33 PM
My first car was a 1977 Ford Granada and driving that thing at 80 mph was downright scary, whereas in either of my current cars (a 1988 RX-7 and a 2004 Acura TL) 80 mph is nothing.

We have three vehicles - a 2001 Ford F250 pickup, a 2007 Honda Pilot and a 2010 Honda Accord.  All are perfectly safe at 80 MPH on a freeway designed for that kind of speed.  All have radial tires and disc brakes on all four wheels.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 12:55:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 12:47:58 PM

No problem with that.  But I still assert that the state legislatures need to establish a statutory maximum (which might reasonably be as high as 80 or 85 MPH). 


I disagree vehemently, because I do not believe the legislature should be in the engineering business.

then again, I also think a lot of rural roads should have no speed limit whatsoever.  this is especially sensible in states like Nevada.  they got along fine with no maximum speed limit until 1973; they enforced only reckless driving. 
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 01:52:36 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 12:55:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 12:47:58 PM

No problem with that.  But I still assert that the state legislatures need to establish a statutory maximum (which might reasonably be as high as 80 or 85 MPH). 


I disagree vehemently, because I do not believe the legislature should be in the engineering business.

then again, I also think a lot of rural roads should have no speed limit whatsoever.  this is especially sensible in states like Nevada.  they got along fine with no maximum speed limit until 1973; they enforced only reckless driving. 

Interstingly enough, anecdotal stories have led me to believe most people drove at around 70 mph or so.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 01:58:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 01:52:36 PM
Interstingly enough, anecdotal stories have led me to believe most people drove at around 70 mph or so.

that's what I've heard too.  the speed limit nowadays is 70 on many rural two-laners in Nevada, and speed of traffic appears to be about 73-75. 

I generally do about 79, and have not been bothered by the police.  I'd like to do about 87 or so but I figure that is pushing it.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 11:40:39 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 11:30:59 AM
If we are going to have maximum speed limits that are enforceable by police (and the court system), those limits must be established by statute.

Can you explain this?  Why couldn't speed limits which are set by the design characteristics of the highways be enforceable by police?  Go faster than the limit, get pulled over.  Only the number has changed.

Government (in the form of police officers) enforces the law, and in some cases regulations - not engineering studies.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 04:07:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 03:57:28 PM

Government (in the form of police officers) enforces the law, and in some cases regulations - not engineering studies.

many laws are the result of scientific/engineering studies.

just as one example - why are there agricultural inspection stations entering California?  because it has been proven scientifically that certain introduced pests will damage crops. 
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kkt on August 21, 2012, 04:42:40 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 01:58:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 01:52:36 PM
Interstingly enough, anecdotal stories have led me to believe most people drove at around 70 mph or so.

that's what I've heard too.  the speed limit nowadays is 70 on many rural two-laners in Nevada, and speed of traffic appears to be about 73-75. 

I generally do about 79, and have not been bothered by the police.  I'd like to do about 87 or so but I figure that is pushing it.

However, if you don't post a speed limit at all, people drive in from the next state because they think it's a great place to try out their new Ferrari at 150.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 04:45:41 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 21, 2012, 04:42:40 PM

However, if you don't post a speed limit at all, people drive in from the next state because they think it's a great place to try out their new Ferrari at 150.

and if they're doing so recklessly, then pull them over for reckless driving.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 04:48:11 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 11:40:39 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 11:30:59 AM
If we are going to have maximum speed limits that are enforceable by police (and the court system), those limits must be established by statute.

Can you explain this?  Why couldn't speed limits which are set by the design characteristics of the highways be enforceable by police?  Go faster than the limit, get pulled over.  Only the number has changed.

Government (in the form of police officers) enforces the law, and in some cases regulations - not engineering studies.

OK, I guess I (and at least one other user) misinterpreted your phrase "established by statute" to mean "arbitrarily set by statute".  A particular highway's speed limit being determined by its design characteristics does not preclude its speed limit being established by statute.  What many of us on here disagree with is a politically determined high-end cap above which no speed limit may be posted.  OTOH, most of us (I assume) would be fine with statute-established speed limits which are (a) determined by the design characteristics of the road, the study for which would be overseen and/or carried out by a government agency, and (b) not capped at an arbitrary number.

I would also be in favor of speed limits being advisory in nature, rather than a hard line the crossing of which is punishable by fine.  No harm, no foul.  If an accident is determined to be a speed-related accident (i.e., the driver was exceeding the advised speed for that road), then that should be a factor in the insurance claim and whatnot.  If a person is driving recklessly fast, then issue a ticket for reckless driving (perhaps something like 30 mph over the advised limit could be unarguable in court, or something).
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 04:48:11 PMIf a person is driving recklessly fast, then issue a ticket for reckless driving (perhaps something like 30 mph over the advised limit could be unarguable in court, or something).

I don't like anything being "unarguable in court".  if I'm doing 100 in a posted 70 and not harming anyone (because I'm out in the absolute middle of nowhere, for example) then I should be able to present my case to a judge.

as for being statutory, I'd be okay with roads being given particular classifications, and each classification having a given speed limit (for example: "rural two-lane road with visibility standards as established by Engineering Study XYZ shall have speed limit 90mph"), so long as it is the highway department which goes through and sets the classifications. 

I believe currently Nevada has the highway department set the zones where, rurally, the speed limit drops from 70 to 55 due to terrain.  I can't imagine Senator Numbnuts riding out in his motorcade and taking notes about when the curves were getting just a wee bit too sharp for his tastes.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 05:16:36 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 04:48:11 PMIf a person is driving recklessly fast, then issue a ticket for reckless driving (perhaps something like 30 mph over the advised limit could be unarguable in court, or something).

I don't like anything being "unarguable in court".  if I'm doing 100 in a posted 70 and not harming anyone (because I'm out in the absolute middle of nowhere, for example) then I should be able to present my case to a judge.

as for being statutory, I'd be okay with roads being given particular classifications, and each classification having a given speed limit (for example: "rural two-lane road with visibility standards as established by Engineering Study XYZ shall have speed limit 90mph"), so long as it is the highway department which goes through and sets the classifications. 

I believe currently Nevada has the highway department set the zones where, rurally, the speed limit drops from 70 to 55 due to terrain.  I can't imagine Senator Numbnuts riding out in his motorcade and taking notes about when the curves were getting just a wee bit too sharp for his tastes.

Jake, that's why I tried to say "most people" as much as possible.  I'd be fine without numerical speed limits (at least, I think so....I keep waffling back and forth), I know you would prefer their abolition, but I think most people prefer there be some sort of numerical cap.

A Uzi submachine gun harms nobody until it's actually used to shoot someone, yet most people are OK with not being allowed to go out and buy one.  Similarly, a car going 150 mph harms nobody until it actually hits another person, yet most people are OK with not being allowed to drive that fast.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 05:26:36 PM
eh, most people suck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 05:47:24 PM
Oh, that Man, keeping you down!  :angry:  :-(
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 05:47:55 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 04:48:11 PMIf a person is driving recklessly fast, then issue a ticket for reckless driving (perhaps something like 30 mph over the advised limit could be unarguable in court, or something).

I don't like anything being "unarguable in court".  if I'm doing 100 in a posted 70 and not harming anyone (because I'm out in the absolute middle of nowhere, for example) then I should be able to present my case to a judge.

Though  I don't think you can do that in most states.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
as for being statutory, I'd be okay with roads being given particular classifications, and each classification having a given speed limit (for example: "rural two-lane road with visibility standards as established by Engineering Study XYZ shall have speed limit 90mph"), so long as it is the highway department which goes through and sets the classifications.

That is what I had in mind.  Not situations like New Jersey, where they have a Turnpike that was designed in the late 1940's with the intent that vehicles could use it safely at 80 MPH, yet the New Jersey legislature refuses to set a speed limit higher than 65 MPH.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
I believe currently Nevada has the highway department set the zones where, rurally, the speed limit drops from 70 to 55 due to terrain.  I can't imagine Senator Numbnuts riding out in his motorcade and taking notes about when the curves were getting just a wee bit too sharp for his tastes.

70 MPH on a rural two lane arterial in Nevada and parts of other large states (the true desert parts of California, for example) makes all the sense in the world. 

However, I cannot think of any two lane minor arterials in my home state of Maryland that should have a posted limit that high.  There might be one or two, but I cannot think any right now.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 06:01:49 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2012, 05:47:55 PM

Though  I don't think you can do that in most states.

(to clarify - I am assuming that you meant by "do that": "challenge a moving violation in court")

I am quite certain that you can, because that is protected by the "due process" clause of the 5th/14th amendment (I can't remember exactly where that hair is split).
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 06:23:51 PM
I think what he meant is that you can't seriously argue that your ticket should be dismissed on the ground that although you were going 30 mph over the posted speed limit, since you weren't endangering anyone your speeding ticket should be dismissed. Some states have "prima facie" speed limits that allow you to present that sort of argument, but most do not, and even in those states that have prima facie limits it's a very high burden of proof if you are to prevail on this kind of argument.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 06:31:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 06:23:51 PM
I think what he meant is that you can't seriously argue that your ticket should be dismissed on the ground that although you were going 30 mph over the posted speed limit, since you weren't endangering anyone your speeding ticket should be dismissed. Some states have "prima facie" speed limits that allow you to present that sort of argument, but most do not, and even in those states that have prima facie limits it's a very high burden of proof if you are to prevail on this kind of argument.

in that case, if we are discussing hypothetically reforming speed limit law, then we need to return to this original quote from kphoger:

QuoteIf a person is driving recklessly fast, then issue a ticket for reckless driving (perhaps something like 30 mph over the advised limit could be unarguable in court, or something).

I do not believe that 30mph is a blanket reckless-driving charge, especially not if it is 30 over an advised limit.

Germany's advised limit is 130 km/h and going faster than that is only held against you in the case of an accident.  if you can do 200-250-etc km/h safely, no one will be stopping you.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2012, 08:54:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 06:23:51 PM
I think what he meant is that you can't seriously argue that your ticket should be dismissed on the ground that although you were going 30 mph over the posted speed limit, since you weren't endangering anyone your speeding ticket should be dismissed. Some states have "prima facie" speed limits that allow you to present that sort of argument, but most do not, and even in those states that have prima facie limits it's a very high burden of proof if you are to prevail on this kind of argument.

Hoo, I  believe Maryland courts will not accept the argument of "I was speeding but I was not endangering anyone" - I have seen it tried (not especially recently) in District Court (roughly the same as the General District Court system in the Commonwealth), and the judges won't go along. 

Because the normal rules of evidence and courtroom procedure in Maryland's District Court system is "relaxed" and "somewhat informal," most of the judges will listen to such an argument (at least for a while), but I  don't think it's ever a winner. If the posted speed limit is established, and the State (in the form of a police officer) can provide credible evidence that a driver was exceeding that limit, then the ruling will be guilty.

Bottom line - state legislatures need to increase the statewide maximum speed limits for rural areas and on freeways (and note that I have no problem with lower and strictly enforced speed limits on streets in urbanized areas).  Nobody should rely on the court system to do it, except in instances where the speed limit can be shown to be clearly unreasonable (and I don't think a freeway speed limit of 50 or 55 MPH, even if it is ignored by most drivers, meets such a standard).
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2012, 09:04:41 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2012, 06:31:39 PM
I do not believe that 30mph is a blanket reckless-driving charge, especially not if it is 30 over an advised limit.

Germany's advised limit is 130 km/h and going faster than that is only held against you in the case of an accident.  if you can do 200-250-etc km/h safely, no one will be stopping you.

Steel, I have not driven in Germany (though I have visited there). 

But I have driven in Finland, which used to post 130 k/h on its rural motorways (now only 120 k/h :-( ), and felt that 130 was an appropriate posted limit, even on motorways like highway E18 with a reasonably high percentage of commercial vehicles (including a lot of Russian trucks).

Keep in mind that getting obtaining driving privileges in most EU nations (including the UK, Sweden, Finland and Germany) is a much more expensive and involved process than it is in most U.S. states.  For one thing, I believe all of the nations above require a prospective driver to prove that he or she can safely operate a motor vehicle on a motorway (if one is reasonably close to the area where the  test is being taken - northern Finland and northern Sweden don't have (or need) motorways).
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 22, 2012, 09:49:23 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2012, 08:54:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2012, 06:23:51 PM
I think what he meant is that you can't seriously argue that your ticket should be dismissed on the ground that although you were going 30 mph over the posted speed limit, since you weren't endangering anyone your speeding ticket should be dismissed. Some states have "prima facie" speed limits that allow you to present that sort of argument, but most do not, and even in those states that have prima facie limits it's a very high burden of proof if you are to prevail on this kind of argument.

Hoo, I  believe Maryland courts will not accept the argument of "I was speeding but I was not endangering anyone" - I have seen it tried (not especially recently) in District Court (roughly the same as the General District Court system in the Commonwealth), and the judges won't go along. 

....

That's basically what I said, or at least what I meant my comment to say. In law school the professors often called it the "laugh test"–if you can't make the argument with a straight face, don't bother making it. I suppose there are some zealots or philosophical types who might be able to make the "I wasn't endangering anyone" argument in total sincerity, but I find it hard to imagine most judges, at least most judges in the crowded Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, taking it seriously. In other words, what I was saying is that trying to argue in court, "Well, Your Honor, I was going 30 mph over the posted speed limit, but since I wasn't endangering anybody you should dismiss my ticket" is not an argument that's going to get very far.

Let me hasten to point out that I'm referring solely to pure speeding tickets. Except where a statute dictates that a particular speed constitutes reckless driving (Virginia, for example) I think it's perfectly legitimate to defend against a reckless driving charge by arguing that there was nobody else on the road and you weren't endangering anyone.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: J N Winkler on August 22, 2012, 09:50:50 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2012, 09:04:41 AMKeep in mind that getting obtaining driving privileges in most EU nations (including the UK, Sweden, Finland and Germany) is a much more expensive and involved process than it is in most U.S. states.  For one thing, I believe all of the nations above require a prospective driver to prove that he or she can safely operate a motor vehicle on a motorway (if one is reasonably close to the area where the  test is being taken - northern Finland and northern Sweden don't have [or need] motorways).

Actually, no, that is not quite true.  Motorway driving is learn-by-doing, at least in the UK, since learner drivers are not allowed on the motorways even with an accompanying licensed adult driver.  I think much the same is true in the other European countries since learner drivers are pretty universally prohibited from motorways in countries that have them.  Unlike the situation in most US states, where new drivers can use Interstates on an instructional permit, a new driver in most EU countries won't be able to start accumulating motorway driving experience until he or she passes his or her road test.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 22, 2012, 10:18:36 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 22, 2012, 09:50:50 AM
most US states, where new drivers can use Interstates on an instructional permit

Indeed, it was a required part of my driver's ed training.  In fact, we drove from Atwood down to Colby just to get on I-70 and then turn around at the Levant exit.  My first taste of "real" city traffic was on the freeway in Denver during rush hour, and I was on a learner's permit at the time.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2012, 10:18:58 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 22, 2012, 09:50:50 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2012, 09:04:41 AMKeep in mind that getting obtaining driving privileges in most EU nations (including the UK, Sweden, Finland and Germany) is a much more expensive and involved process than it is in most U.S. states.  For one thing, I believe all of the nations above require a prospective driver to prove that he or she can safely operate a motor vehicle on a motorway (if one is reasonably close to the area where the  test is being taken - northern Finland and northern Sweden don't have [or need] motorways).

Actually, no, that is not quite true.  Motorway driving is learn-by-doing, at least in the UK, since learner drivers are not allowed on the motorways even with an accompanying licensed adult driver.  I think much the same is true in the other European countries since learner drivers are pretty universally prohibited from motorways in countries that have them.  Unlike the situation in most US states, where new drivers can use Interstates on an instructional permit, a new driver in most EU countries won't be able to start accumulating motorway driving experience until he or she passes his or her road test.

I respectfully disagree - I have seen (or heard) first-hand descriptions of the driving test (I also have a friend in Sweden who owns a driving school), and I know that in the Nordic nations, they want drivers to demonstrate that they know how to safely enter a motorway drive on it, and exit from it (even though there are parts of Sweden where there are no motorways or other controlled-access highways, such as the island province of Gotland).

This is from the Swedish Transport Administration's Web site (translated by Google and cleaned-up by me) about the driving test for a "class B" license (for four-wheeled cars and light trucks):

QuoteDuring the test, you may be asked to drive on a motorway, "Super-2" highway or similar road, where the maximum speed can be up to 120 k/h.

QuoteThe examiner assesses your interactions with other road users, the distance to the vehicle in front of you, your foresight and how to place the car in the lane. The driving examiner also assesses your search routines, your attention, how to utilize the acceleration and deceleration lanes and how to adjust your speed to other traffic.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 22, 2012, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 22, 2012, 10:18:36 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 22, 2012, 09:50:50 AM
most US states, where new drivers can use Interstates on an instructional permit

Indeed, it was a required part of my driver's ed training.  In fact, we drove from Atwood down to Colby just to get on I-70 and then turn around at the Levant exit.  My first taste of "real" city traffic was on the freeway in Denver during rush hour, and I was on a learner's permit at the time.

In my case it wasn't required, although the behind-the-wheel instructor did have me take the Beltway for one exit one time. I drove on the Interstate quite a bit on my learner's permit, as well as on the New Jersey Turnpike–in the latter case we were en route to Brooklyn and my dad told me to pull off at the last service area prior to the Goethals Bridge so he could take over the driving. My father had me driving out on the Beltway and I-395 within my first week with the learner's permit.

The thing I had to learn by doing was parallel parking, which is not part of the driving test in Virginia and was not part of the behind-the-wheel course. Taught myself pretty darn quickly when I was off at college and now some 20+ years later I wish it WERE part of the driving test here because so many people don't know how to do it and leave way too much space between cars (probably out of fear of not being able to leave).

The thing I read somewhere that I found interesting was that apparently in some European countries if you take the road test on an automatic-shift car you get a restricted license that only allows you to drive an automatic? Is there any truth to that? I asked my father to teach me on his 5-speed right from the beginning and every car I've ever owned has been a manual-shift, but I made a point of taking the road test in my mom's automatic-shift Volvo sedan because I figured it was one less area on which I could make a mistake. Supposedly it's illegal in Virginia to shift into neutral as you coast up to a stop sign or red light–legally you must stop and only then shift to neutral–and I didn't want to take the risk of failing on that basis because right from the beginning my father had me doing that. (The road test went through a trailer park with a 15-mph speed limit and I popped the automatic shift down into first gear so I wouldn't speed.)
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2012, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2012, 10:27:23 AM
Supposedly it's illegal in Virginia to shift into neutral as you coast up to a stop sign or red light–legally you must stop and only then shift to neutral

what the Hell do they care?

when I had a stick-shift car, I always took it out of gear when slowing down - even if it was, say, to come into a town with a speed limit of 35 when I was previously in a rural area doing 65.  Once I got to the correct speed, I'd pop it back into the right gear.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 22, 2012, 10:49:39 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2012, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2012, 10:27:23 AM
Supposedly it's illegal in Virginia to shift into neutral as you coast up to a stop sign or red light–legally you must stop and only then shift to neutral

what the Hell do they care?

when I had a stick-shift car, I always took it out of gear when slowing down - even if it was, say, to come into a town with a speed limit of 35 when I was previously in a rural area doing 65.  Once I got to the correct speed, I'd pop it back into the right gear.

That's my reaction, why do they care, but there is a statute that prohibits "coasting in neutral" and I'd heard from other friends that the road test proctor (or whatever you call the DMV person who rides along) flunked them for shifting into neutral before being fully stopped because taken literally that violated the statute in question and the rules say that if you violate the law, you automatically fail the road test.

So, regardless of whether or not that was true, I saw no reason to tempt fate. Why make it easier for them to fail you, right? Who cares about what you do out on the actual road in regular driving–you have to play their game when you're taking the test.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kphoger on August 22, 2012, 10:49:59 AM
I believe it's a typical law that the car must be in gear while you drive it.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2012, 11:10:43 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 22, 2012, 10:49:59 AM
I believe it's a typical law that the car must be in gear while you drive it.

that's absurd.  what do legislators care about the technical specifications of how cars are driven?

as with setting speed limits, lawyers are stepping in where engineers are doing just fine.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2012, 11:35:29 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 22, 2012, 10:49:59 AM
I believe it's a typical law that the car must be in gear while you drive it.

Yep.

Maryland's Transportation Article has this, which is a variation on this theme (I suspect it's ancient, too [with emphasis added]):

QuoteTRANSPORTATION 
TITLE 21.  VEHICLE LAWS -- RULES OF THE ROAD 
SUBTITLE 11.  MISCELLANEOUS RULES

Md. TRANSPORTATION Code Ann. § 21-1108  (2012)

§ 21-1108. Coasting prohibited

(a) Vehicles generally. -- If a motor vehicle is traveling on a downgrade, the driver of the motor vehicle may not coast with the gears or transmission in neutral.

(b) Truck or bus. -- If a truck or bus is traveling on a downgrade, the driver of the truck or bus may not coast with the clutch disengaged.

HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 66 1/2, § 11-1108; 1977, ch. 14, § 2.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2012, 11:39:29 AM
hoo boy, good to know I'm such a rebel.  I'm damn sure I've coasted on uphill, downhill, and level ground, in every state of the lower 48.

(never made it to Alaska or Hawaii in a stick-shift car.)
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: kkt on August 22, 2012, 12:19:08 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2012, 11:10:43 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 22, 2012, 10:49:59 AM
I believe it's a typical law that the car must be in gear while you drive it.

that's absurd.  what do legislators care about the technical specifications of how cars are driven?

as with setting speed limits, lawyers are stepping in where engineers are doing just fine.

If you're on a long downgrade and keep your speed down only with the brake, it's possible to boil your brake fluid and have no brakes left, making your vehicle a danger to yourself and others.  It's rare, but it happens.  Keeping your speed down by shifting into a low gear eliminates that risk.
Title: Re: Challenges to NMSL?
Post by: Alps on August 27, 2012, 07:47:18 PM
Wiper talk split off to a new topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7560.0). Not quite sure if it's off-topic or not, because windshield wiping does affect our ability to roadgeek. ;)