On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:32:28 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:40:48 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

There is no rule, unwritten or written that requires the officer to
ignore a speeder. To wit...the portion you conveniently snipped shows
how your claim is not across the board and is an exception, as it
pertains ONLY when traveling in areas with posted speeds LESS than 55,
whereas the the posted interstate (65 MPH) speeds, of which Pa. finally
raised from 55 not too long ago, are the speed LIMITS imposed by the
state of Pennsylvania.

There are still many limited access roads

which are posted at 55.


You're roving. There are also many local and city roads where the speed
is 35. Not relevant to the maximum speed limit imposed by the state.

In fact, the majority of places where they

allow 65 are those areas where the highway is
not in a "congested" (meaning densely

populated) area.



Regardless, you are citing the exception. Once again, you can cite no
rule requiring the officer to give a window of ANY speed in regards to
the states maximum imposed speed limit.

In most others, it's still 55.


On the interstates in Pa, the maximum speed is 65 MPH. See above.

Not on all of them. I live and travel them on a daily basis. You can
expect me to tell you how the fish are running inTampa Bay so don't
you try to tell me about the roads in my state. You know nothing about
it.



That's NOT what it says. Here is the interpretation for you,
Dave,,,,where the POSTED speed limit is 55 or LESS is the ONLY manner
where it applies.it is a specific exception. Once again, the maximum
posted speed limit on Pa interstates is 65. There is NO law or rule, or
even "unwritten" as you claim, that REQUIRES the officer to GIVE any
leeway at all.


Read it again. I realize that comprehension has always been your weak
spot, but try separating the paragraph into parts.

The first part:

"No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of
devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded
is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit."

Nowhere in that sentence is there a specific speed limit listed. That
means that this applies to 65 MPH roads and using RADAR. This statute
states that LEO must give a 5 MPH grace. How much more clear can it
be?

The next part is a FURTHER restriction:

"Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained
through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area
where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the
speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal
speed limit."

This part specifically refers to the conditions that (a) the road is
posted at less than 55, and (b) are using devices authorized in
paragraph 3 (normally VASCAR). In this case they have to give you a 10
MPH grace.



"This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use
of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone."

This is the only exception to the rule.


But nowhere does it state that any grace is given when the speed
measuring device is mechanical or electrical, as per paragraph (1). So
if they are using a paragraph (1) device then they CAN bust you for
doing 56 in a 55 zone.


Once again, you demonstrate, to people with normal comprehensive
ability, that you can't understand what you read. It's no wonder you
jump to the wrong conclusions over and over again in the scant 4 years
that you have been polluting this newsgroup. Your pattern of habitual
incomprehension is all the more apparent if one walks through Google
for a few minutes.


PKB.


This is my last word on the subject.


Only because you have been proven wrong and you can't admit it.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----