Monday May 25, 2015
Jump to content
I was doing a little research for some reason or other and ran across the nuttiest thing I have ever seen in Arizona law.
These are direct quotes from Arizona law:
Arizona 28-701 (A) A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing.
Arizona 28-701 (B) Except as provided in subsections C and D of this section or except if a special hazard requires a lesser speed, any speed in excess of the following speeds is prima facie evidence that the speed is too great and therefore unreasonable:
Fifteen miles per hour approaching a school crossing.
Twenty-five miles per hour in a business or residential district.
Sixty-five miles per hour in other locations.
Arizona 28-701 (C) The speed limits prescribed in this section may be altered as authorized in sections 28-702 and 28-703.
(My note: These two sections allow the director to set higher or lower speed limits on some highways, and allows towns to set speed limits within their limits.)
Arizona 28-701 (D) The maximum speed provided in this section is reduced to the speed that is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, including the following conditions:
Approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad crossing.
Approaching and going around a curve.
Approaching a hillcrest.
Traveling on a narrow or winding roadway.
A special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.
Arizona 28-701 (E) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that is less than the speed that is reasonable and prudent under existing conditions.
Putting those together, at what speed may you drive on a sunny day on a straight road with no special restrictions or hazards?
Confused? Read 28-702 (E) and Arizona 28-701 (B) (3) again.
I wonder? Do they read these things after they write them? :-)
They are covering their self so they can give tickets just for the hell of it and use your quotes as a reason.
The Mesa police were real good at it when my kids were in HS there. My daughter had a red Mustang and she was stopped several times in less than a month. They didn't give her tickets but one cop told her she would do something wrong and he would get her. She finally did, she ran thru a house in the rain and demolished her car.
Before that she had loaned her car to her brother and he was stopped about 11:00 PM and given a ticket for speed not reasonable and prudent, and he was driving 20 MPH. I went to court with him showing pictures of the speed limit sign 25 MPH where he was stopped. Had a copy of the Mesa Tribune with the weather saying clear and full moon. The judge threw it out. It was the same cop and he thought my daughter was in the car. I should have reported him for harrasement, but back then I didn't make waves.
In case anyone didn't have time to wade through all that stuff, I'll extract the two important parts:
Arizona 28-701 (A) A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent....
c. Sixty-five miles per hour in other locations.
Arizona 28-701 (E) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that is less than the speed that is reasonable and prudent....
These ARS's remind me of some things we were taught regarding our law enforcement roles as "sworn peace officers", yes firefighters in California are covered under that description. The imperative is "shall not" which leaves no room for judgment or discretion. If they had used "may not" then it would have been open to legal debate based on the facts. We have many. many laws written that way. The intent/purpose/necessity for the law is clear, but they really over reach when they actually write those laws.
It's so screwy, isn't it? We can only drive at one speed on a good road: 65 mph.
I suppose they could ticket someone when he started up his car and was accelerating up to 65. I don't take this seriously, of course. I just think it's funny.
But there ARE some things that aren't funny about our driving laws.
Did you know that under Az. law , horses still have the right-of-way on state roads.
I tested this out when I was a teenager....the police officer wanted to give me a ticket....he couldn't. But the chief of police , who was a friend of my dad , gave him a call...I didn't do it again.
I could see it that happening. :-)
Arizona is an open range state. Cattle also have the right of way. If you hit one you pay for it but don't get to keep the meat. If you have property where there are cattle and don't want them on your property it is up to you to build a fence to keep them out.
Pine is an open-range town.
I know that because when Lolly and I used to go walking we made a loop up the hill, around through some streets, and back — about a mile altogether. One one of these streets a %$#@! bull would be loose once in a while. Knowing bulls as I do (I used to deal with them all the time in the dairy country around New London), I always made sure we (a) gave it a wide berth, and (b) had something we could get behind if needed. If that wasn't true, we just turned around and finished the second half of the walk going in the reverse direction.
You know what they say. "Discretion is the better part of having brains." :-)
Pat is correct,
But did you know....It is against Az. law for a restaurant to refuse you a glass of water. Doesn't matter if you have ordered or not....You have the right to a glass of water. It is the same for fast food restaurants. But you can be charged for the cup.
Some years back you had to ask for water if you were in a restaurant to eat in the valley.
A water saving idea. But walk outside and see fountains, lakes and sprinklers going. DUH
I knew that, Rex. It's something that was told to me when I first moved here. I suppose it was told to me as an example of different Arizona was.
What I would do if someone tried to charge me for a cup would be to give it back and say, "Gee! Thanks for the water. You can keep the cup, though; I don't need it. I've got plenty at home."
Want to be they wouldn't call a cop for fear of the bad publicity?
Right, Pat. It's so odd that you mention that. Lolly used to say that was THE worst bean counting idea she ever heard. And she gave the same reason you did.
Posting comments requires a free account