ALCOA, TENN. -- Bend over and spread your vagina and asshole wide for naked body scanners, and gaterape is occuring daily in airports nationwide, including McGhee Tyson Airport.
Anonymous Transportation Security Administration officials admit there is no law requiring naked body scanners, and no law requiring TSA in airports. "But bribery and extortion go a long way in government contracting," said an unidentified TSA official. "Eighty percent of TSA airport screeners are not US citizens, which makes it easy to get them to gaterape US citizens."
TSA officials would not say when the new gamma death ray machines will be installed at McGhee Tyson, but sheeple waiting for their flights already had an opinion on the subject.
"I'm a prostitute by profession, so I love getting gateraped by pedophiles in public," said Marla Varela. "It really gets my pussy wet, especially when I see a little girl or boy being gateraped for kiddie porn in public. It reminds me of my job at Bohemian Grove!"
If an alarm goes off when passengers walk through the scanner, or if a passenger refuses a body scan, or if a smokin hot babe or baby is in line, the only alternative is a pat down by private security guard of the same-sex, or opposite sex.
"Gamma rays are good for you," said an unidentified TSA official. "The Apollo moon walks proved that. See how old the looner astronots are -- except for the dozens of dead ones."
"I'm a homosexual, so I love having my penis stroked and a finger in my ass in public. Before naked body scanners and gaterape searches, I could only suck dick and eat shit in airport restrooms," said Larry Craig Baker.
TSA said its private security guards will be using a new technique that is even more of a turn on for homosexuals, rapists, pedophiles and serial killers.
TSA rapist and pedophiles declined to demonstrate an on-camera pat down for security purposes, in case undercover vice cops were watching.
"I'm a dick-sucking faggot who overstayed my visa, so I'm applying for a job at TSA," said Jay LaBlonde, a traveler on the Sex Offender List who was headed to Miami to rape little children.
Greg Tippton said he's had a happy ending with a pat down.
"I was pulled over to the see-through little room and I got the pat down in different directions and angles on my penis and anus. Thank Satan for Viagra," Tippton said. He added he got an 3-hour erection during the pat down, but other non-homosexual passengers said it is too much.
"The former secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, represents RAPEscan, the company which is selling these scammers to his former department," said Congressman Jimmy Duncan (R-TN). "There is already plenty of security at the airport, but now we are going to spend up to $300 million to install 1,000 scammers. A nationwide revolt is developing over the body scammers at the airports, and it should. I'm sponsoring a bill to eliminate TSA. Fukkin A, vote for me!"
"I kind of disagree with the pat down because it is perverted, but I'll never call the Blount County Sheriff Office nor District Attoreny General to get a homosexual rapist arrested" said Michael Redd, a preacher employed by Homeland Security's Clergy Response Team in a government-run 501c3 church. "Those jews running the IRS will be all up in my ass on April Fools Day, if I interfere with their RAPEscanners from The Holy Land. Besides, that Michael Chertoff scares the Hell out of me."
Israeli citizen Michael "Son Of The Devil" Chertoff was employed by US Dept of Justice to get accused Muslim AllCIAduh illegal alien terrorist bombers out of jail, then was promoted to director of US Dept of Homeland Security in charge of wide-open borders. Only jews are allowed to be citizens of Israel, where Christianity is a felony punished by genocide.
Rabbi Fester Weiner, an Israeli stockholder in RAPEscan, said his portfolio hit the Money Shot with TSA's order for more RAPEscanners. "I love goy preachers who tell their herds 'It's the Lord's will' to submit to Big Brother's advances. Romans 13, hahahaha! The Protocols of Zion were right, er, just a myth," the rabbi said. "I'm on my way to Jew York to suck the dick of a little jew baby during circumcision bris. Thank _od and Mayor Bloomberg for religious freedom! Heil the Master Race!"
Homeland Security director Guido Pistole announced by the end of the year 450 new gamma-ray naked body scanners will be installed. Pistole replied, "You's taxslaves is gonna lern who's da boss around here, and yer gonna pay me an my friends $300,000 for every stinkin scanner, capish?"
Another 500 death ray scanners will follow in 2011, if the homosexual Israeli jews have their way with the gullible goyim.
WATE was paid by Israeli RAPEscan TM to play RAPEscan's PR Video News Release (VNR) "interviews" of only 3 sheeple (3 paid actors?), with 100% love of gaterape by pedophile jewish naked body scanners. WATE refused to interview The Dragonater. It's illegal "propaganda" under US Code for TV news corporations to be paid advertising contracts then pretend that's "news".
"No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not authorized before the date of the enactment of this Act by the Congress."
Dragonater Note: I discussed this on my radio show yesterday, with an elderly female caller who wants a massive police state to shut down transportation at Deals Gap. I told her she can go to McGhee Tyson airport and be a porn star or get her vagina petted and her boobies squeezed. Bloody tampons look like sticks of dynomite in TSA's X-ray naked body scanners...
The sheeple will get exactly what they want. Three days after my radio broadcast on WBCR 1470 am, TSA announced that McGhee Tyson will get the kosher Israeli pedophile RAPEscan TM naked body scanners, thanks to Al Qaeda Dictator Saddam Hussein Obama Bin Laden. Note that all dissenting comments are banned forever by WATETV.com PR propaganda service, including The Dragonater.
This is why The Dragonater always carries a declassified copy of Pentagon's OPERATION NORTHWOODS when flying by airline, along with an explanation by ABC News... OPERATION GLADIO is another useful carry-on.
(NEWSER) – Another day, another tale of the seeming absurdity of airport security. This one comes from a soldier coming home from Afghanistan on a military charter plane. The troops aboard the plane all went through security at Baghram Air Field, the soldier says in an email to RedState, passing through full-body scanners and having their bags inspected by bomb-sniffing dogs. Yet when the plane stopped in Indianapolis to let 100 National Guard members off, the TSA insisted on re-searching all the passengers. “It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons,” the soldier writes.
“All of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols,” though they weren’t loaded, and everyone had already been searched for ammo. Yet when the TSA found nail clippers on one of the soldiers, they insisted on confiscating them. “You can’t take those on the plane,” the TSA official said. “They can be used as a weapon.” When the solider replied that he was permitted to take an actual weapon on the plane, the agent replied, "Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets." Asked the soldier, "And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?" Apparently. He reboarded without them ... but with his weapon, along with 232 other gun-toting fliers.
A Knoxville man was killed in a single-vehicle crash along Gov. John Sevier Highway this afternoon, according to the Tennessee Highway Patrol.
James S. Hazenfield, 25, died when his 2006 Nissan Pathfinder veered off the eastbound lanes of Gov. John Sevier Highway, also known as state Highway 168, shortly before 3 p.m., jumped a small embankment, struck a guardrail and then, while still airborne, struck a tree as well, according to the THP incident report. The SUV continued down the embankment before it came to a final rest.
The victim was wearing a seat belt at the time, the report states. Blood tests for drugs and alcohol were requested as a matter of routine procedure.
More detail as they develop online and in Friday’s News Sentinel.
*The purpose of this word is to shock the conscience into consciousness. No disrespect intended. It's the opinion of the Dragonater that all 40,000 annual highway death photos be published, for the purpose of reducing the number of deaths. Same for faces of death from the 1-million murders by medical malpractice per year, plus the 10-million medical abortions per year in USA.
I respectfully request that you remove the statement, “I met a corpse today" from your blog on November 18, 2010. That corpse was my brother, Stewart, and he is terribly missed. I appreciate your interest in posting information on less than adequate safety measures on our roadways. In fact, had a more substantial guardrail been present, he may have been injured, at best, since he was wearing his seat belt. Also, had the grassy shoulder been maintained to be an even surface, his car may not have been launched in the first place. The police report states that he veered off the road, hit a dip or divot of some kind, became airborne, and then made contact with the guardrail. The guardrail tipped his vehicle’s windshield in direct line of the tree which is now obliterated. He was killed instantly and was so badly injured, that we were not allowed to see him. In short, I wish you the best in helping to make road travel safer for all, but hope that blogs regarding fatalities can be addressed with sensitivity.
Thank you for your time, Audra Hazenfield Huffstetler
I was forced to see your brother in a body bag on a gurney on the side of the highway. I wanted to know who this corpse was, so I googled. Your objection is duly noted, but in the interest of improving highway safety for those who don't know the victim, the "shocking" word shall remain. Thank you for your input. Sorry for your loss. Drive safe.
As for safer guardrails, I didn't find any designs that are high enough (triple rail) to prevent an SUV from climbing over them. It appears it's time for TDOT to design one.
Folks need to know that SUVs are very unstable compared to cars, and no vehicles have adequate "roll cage" protection. Look at the roll cage in any racecar to see what's required for safety, and even that requires wearing a helmet and neck-stabilization (Hans Device). Maybe its time to require all highway drivers to wear helmets, as currently required for all motorcyclists and bicyclists in Tennessee?
Boring road kills driver, public demands Police State target SUVs
Sorry no action photos by The Dragonater, I'd already had my fill of investigation for the day, and local PR, er, "news" corporations don't pay stringers for real news. Did you know that Blount County does NOT control the speed limit on the Dragon, Knoxville does?
It appears that the proximate cause of the fatal crash was the single-layer "guard" rail acting like a launching rail. Although this is a new state-of-the-art guardrail, it may still be defective according to traffic engineering standards. Does DOT's US DOT Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices require a double guardrail at the point of impact?
The car was invisible in a ravine on a straight highway. No obvious skid marks. Saw a large rescue op at 3 pm, THP, FD, Rural Metro, Floyds Wrecker. Zero sense of urgency. Passed again at 6 pm and they had the corpse in a body bag on a gurney, on the shoulder of the road. Zero sense of urgency.
Was the cause of death another slow response by Rural Metro Taxi Service, with trigger-puller cops refusing to provide first aid? Loss of concentration on a boring straight highway? Dodging a lane-crosser? Cell phone? Texting? Tire blowout? Deer attack? 4x4s can easily climb a single-row "guard" rail.
At least Rural Metro's stock went up today. Glad to hear the Euro owners are makin Euros on their trillion dollars. I guess charging $4,500 per mile really adds up.
The Dragonater is banned forever from posting these facts at Knoxville News Sentinel propaganda rag, whose owners Mr Scripps and Mr Howard perform snuff kiddie porn to Satan and run around naked holding Georgie Bush's penis at Bohemian Grove homosexual nudist compound.
Philadelphia, PA: In a unanimous decision last fall, a jury awarded a young man almost $32 million after he was permanently injured in a car accident. It may be one of the largest verdicts ever recorded for a motor vehicle accident case in the Superior Court of New Jersey but attorney John Dodig says considering the injuries suffered and the negligence involved, his client deserved every cent of it. “It is a lot of money, but the jury felt it was fair compensation and I couldn’t agree more,” he says.
Three years before, when Nicholas Anderson was just 18, he was driving down a county road when he was forced to swerve to avoid a head-on collision with a car that had wandered into his lane. A drop off in the pavement grabbed the car and smashed it into the end of metal safety guardrail.
That safety guardrail pierced the cabin of his vehicle and severed his leg. “He is only 22 now,” says Dodig. “He has had 34 surgeries and already has had medical bills close to $3 million. His right leg was severed at the scene of the accident and he will soon have one of his arms amputated.”
Nicholas Anderson will need another $15 million for medical services in the years to come. The remainder of the $32 million is for Anderson’s pain and suffering—the loss of life’s pleasures and the embarrassment and disfigurement that the he will endure for the rest of his life.
The jury found that the County of Camden, NJ had failed in its duty to repair the highway and a safety guardrail it knew was out-of-date and dangerous and should have been able to foresee the potential damage that could result.
Dodig argued first that the highway was hazardous. “There was a 6 inch drop off at the edge of the pavement – that is what caused my client’s car to go off the road in the first place,” says Dodig.
However, the biggest problem was the safety guardrail that Camden County knew could cause injuries in a crash. “That guardrail was dangerous because it was not up to code. In fact, it was 30 to 40 years out of code,” says Dodig. “It didn’t have any of the current safety features and it acted like a spear when it impacted with the driver’s compartment.”
During the trial Camden County admitted that it had a policy not to bring guardrails up to code unless they were specifically involved in an accident. “Then it would go after the driver who hit the guardrail and use their insurance money to bring the guardrail up to code,” says Dodig. “I don’t think the jury was impressed with that testimony.”
There are highways in poor states of repair and similar out-of-date safety guardrails on highways across the US. Since the Nicholas Anderson case, Dodig has heard from a number people about accidents with road guardrails. “Yes, there are a lot of cases out there,” says Dodig. “But since the verdict, New Jersey is doing a better job.”
Dodig has successfully obtained a number of eight figure verdicts for victims of motor vehicle accidents, medical negligence, product liability, consumer class actions and civil rights cases during his career.
John Dodig is a partner in the firm of Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernt Tanner, Weinstock & Dodig in Philadelphia. He received his Bachelor of Science from Fairleigh Dickinson University and his law degree from Nova University. He also received an LLM in Trial Advocacy from Temple University. In 2004, he was awarded the President’s Award by the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, in recognition of his work protecting the rights of innocent victims and maintaining their access to the court system.
TDOT Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2008 Edition - These rules shall govern the design and location of all signs, signals, markings and postings of traffic regulations on or along all streets and highways in the State of Tennessee, and no signs, signals, markings or postings of traffic regulations shall be located on any street or highway in the State of Tennessee regardless of type or class of the governmental agency having jurisdiction thereof except in conformity with the current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as adopted in these rules. The current edition of the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition, is hereby adopted in its entirety and incorporated herein by reference. It is the intent of the Tennessee Department of Transportation to amend these rules as necessary to adopt future revisions of the MUTCD as may hereafter be approved by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The provisions of the MUTCD set forth the basic principles that govern the design and usage of the most commonly used highway signs. Detailed specifications for the layout of these signs are provided in the latest edition of the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Standard Highway Signs, which is incorporated by reference in the MUTCD. The Tennessee Department of Transportation authorizes the design and usage of the signs in the Tennessee Supplement to Standard Highway Signs. Signs on any street or highway open to public travel in the State of Tennessee shall be fabricated, installed and used in accordance with the specifications of the current edition of Standard Highway Signs and/or, for signs erected on state highways, the Tennessee Supplement to Standard Highway Signs.
South Dakota Road Design Manual - This manual consolidates road design policies, standards, and procedures in a convenient reference for designers and plan recipients. Designers and other users will follow the policies, standards, and procedures described in this manual. Huge guardrail section in Chapter 10 Roadside Safety: BARRIER TYPES: A barrier or guardrail is a device which provides a physical limitation to shield roadside obstacles or nontraverseable terrain features. It is intended to contain or redirect an errant vehicle. Steel beam guardrail should not be installed on a slope steeper than a 10:1. The MGS system is a W beam system where the splices are located between posts and the wood blockouts are deeper (horizontally, normal to the rail). The height would be at the same height as thrie beam guardrail. This system has more height tolerance than traditional W Beam. Double W-guardrail Figure 1a Attachment
Guardrail Transitions - US DOT Federal Highway Administration. Nationwide, most bridge guardrail transitions consist of a semi-rigid W-beam connecting to a rigid bridge rail. Some of these guardrail transitions have been recently crash tested in accordance with the guidelines in "National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 230." The initial test results were unsatisfactory, marginal or inconclusive. Common elements of the failed systems included the following: (1) A vertical concrete face or the toe of a concrete safety shape barrier which came in contact with the vehicle wheel resulted in snagging. (2) Inadequate guardrail stiffening (such as standard guardrail posts at 3 foot, 1½-inch spacing) resulted in substantial deflection of guardrail and subsequent snagging or poor redirection of the vehicle. Almost all existing W-beam guardrail systems that connect directly to a bridge rail without adequate blockouts or a rubrail near the bridge connection should be considered unsatisfactory because they can result in vehicle snagging, which in turn can contribute to a catastrophic accident. Not only are these hazardous transitions between the guardrail and bridge rail common, but many State standards still detail the transition without adequate blockouts, rubrail, or other features.
Day on Torts -- The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices defines the standards used by road managers and contractors nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets and highways. The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F. The MUTCD has been adopted as the law in Tennessee; violation of the MUTCD is negligence per se. If you have a case that involves an injury or death at a road construction site you will want to consult this manual to determine if the contractors involved followed the minimum standards established by this manual. The manual also applies to governmental entities and others placing road signs. Tennessee's supplement to the MUTCD, "Rules for Guide Signs on Freeways, Expressways and Conventional Highways", was adopted July, 2005. The Tennessee supplement is found in Chapter 1680-03-02 of the state rules and regulations. Be sure to check this site to find the addition rules applying to contractors working in Tennessee. I have been using the MUTCD in my practice for almost 20 years, and it is my perception that the standards have been weakened over the years to make it more difficult to use the standards against contractors and governmental entities in litigation. However, the MUTCD still sets the minimum standard, and therefore any research in this field needs to start with this document.
Dragonater Note: Cops and ex-cops are fully aware that cops are loonies. Notice how this ex-cop/lawyer positions himself -- not to talk himself out of a ticket -- but to prevent first-degree murder and coverup of the crime by Police State death squad... Don't wanna end up triple-tapped in the head, like Loudon County deputy Jim Miller. Traffic cops make great hitmen, like Al Capone's St. Valentines Day Massacre.
Notice how the ex-cop accuses the psycho cop of traffic crimes subject to arrest, just like The Dragonater files criminal charges against every cop who dares make a traffic stop arrest of The Dragonater...
Under TN Code, cops have no immunity from arrest for all traffic crimes unless they have both emergency lights and siren turned on.
(a) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call, or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the conditions herein stated.
(c) (1) The exemptions granted under subsection (b) to a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle shall only apply when such vehicle is making use of audible and visual signals.
In September of this year, Ed Stone, who is on the Board of Directors of Georgia Carry, had a telling encounter with a Fayetteville Georgia police officer. The encounter began when Mr. Stone, a former cop himself and an attorney, made what he called the “universal gesture for slowing down” to Officer Terry Fortner as Fortner passed him going at a high rate of speed (71 in a 45 according to the dashcam) without his lights or sirens activated. Apparently, Fortner didn’t take kindly to a mere mundane suggesting that he slow down. He pulled Mr. Stone over and threatened him with arrest. This is Mr. Stone’s description of the encounter.
I saw a police car approaching at 20-25 over, and I quickly checked the speedometer to make sure I was not unintentionally speeding. Nope. Speed was right at the limit. He must not have been after me.
The police car is about to pass me, and I make the universal gesture for slowing down, by pushing my hand down twice, and mouthing “slow down” when the officer looks at me.
He slams on his brakes, slows down too much, then speeds up beside me while rolling down his window. He does not look pleased.
“Slow down,” I repeat audibly.
I think he replied, “Are you serious?” before pulling in behind me and activating his lights.
So I stop and have my license in hand, and he comes up to my window, oddly untactical by placing his entire body right in the middle of the window. I ask why he pulled me over, and he listed some things.
I will not try to pretend this is verbatim or in exact chronological order, but the audio on the video should have an accurate record. He claimed I was disrupting traffic, obstructing an officer, and committing disorderly conduct, and that I was going to be arrested. I handed over my license. He asked if I still lived in Senoia, and I confirmed that I did. He asked something else, and I told him I would not be answering any questions without a lawyer present.
I do not remember exactly when, but I told him that I believed he had pulled me over with no reasonable suspicion of a crime, and I asked for my license back and for him to release me.
He also informed me that he was “on an alarm call.”
I told him that I hoped his audio and video was on, and he assured me that it was.
He went back to his car while I waited several minutes, careful to keep my left hand out the window and my right on the seat back and otherwise not move so that he would not later claim any furtive movements.
When he returned, he handed me my license and a business card with City Ordinance 62-11 Police Interfering with written on the back. He started on a rant, but since I had my license back, I asked if he was continuing to detain me.
“Yes!” He pulled the door open and ordered me out of the car.
There was not time to roll up the window, retrieve my keys, and lock it. So much for that plan. I did not have my gun on my belt, because I was coming from church. Officer Fortner saw my 10mm on the floorboard and hesitated for less than a second before ignoring it.
I walked behind my bumper to make sure that I was on video in case this joker attacked me. I folded my hands in front of me to make sure that I did not have any movements that he could claim were hostile or threatening. I faced his windshield.
“Have you ever been to jail?”
No answer.
He repeated the question, and I neither moved nor answered.
At some point he started telling me that he had been trying to let me go. I told him that I asked him if I was still being detained, and his answer was “yes.”
“You interrupted me!”
“Am I free to go?”
“Yes.”
“Thank you,” I said, as I immediately turned on my heel and headed for my truck door.
The dashcam video backs up Mr. Stone’s description of what occurred.
Officer Fortner clearly demonstrates the power trip that many officers seem to exhibit. His own words are telling. He ask Mr. Stone “what causes you to believe that you have the right to flag a police officer and tell me to slow down.” Officer Fortner seems to believe that he should be able to be as reckless as he wants, and you the slave should just shut up and mind your own business. He mind as well have said, “See this shiny piece of metal on my chest, it means I can do whatever the hell I want to do. How dare you suggest otherwise. You are just a lowly citizen.”
Officer Fortner goes on to tell Mr. Stone that he was en route to an alarm call. If it was true that he was responding to an alarm call, an apparent emergency that required him to go almost 30 mph over the speed limit, why did he feel that he had the time to stop Mr. Stone for over 8 minutes in order to chastise him for a simple gesture?
Mr. Stone should be commended for how well he handled the officer’s power trip. He did exceptionally well and did just about everything right. He did file a complaint and Officer Fortner’s superior found that his “conduct was unbecoming” and that “his actions will be corrected through Department disciplinary measures.” I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t make me feel any better. “Department disciplinary measures” are unlikely to change the mindset that made this officer feel he could detain an individual for the horrible crime of expecting an officer to follow the laws that he himself expects others to follow.
Dragonater Note: DUI homicide is routinely prosecuted as first degree murder, with prosecutors seeking life in prison in Tennessee, and the death penalty in NC. Unless you're an illegal alien, First Lady Laura Bush, or VP Joe Biden, then you get immunity.
The legal limit for blood-alcohol is 0.00% for everyone else, according to THP and all judges.
"Strictly speaking, a driver can register a BAC of 0.00% and still be convicted of a DUI. The level of BAC does not clear a driver when it is below the 'presumed level of intoxication.'" —Tennessee Driver Handbook and Driver License Study Guide, 1990 to 2010
By ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press Elliot Spagat, Associated Press – Sun Nov 142010
SAN DIEGO – A man was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence after he slammed his car head-on into a group of motorcycle riders celebrating their club's 10th anniversary, killing four motorcyclists and his companion, authorities said Sunday.
The driver, Carlos Ramirez Bobadilla, was among six people injured in Saturday's crash on a remote desert highway, said California Highway Patrol Officer DeeAnn Goudie. Ramirez, 36, was recovering from hand fractures at a San Diego hospital.
The arrest was made when officers smelled alcohol on his breath about five hours after the crash, Goudie said. Results of a blood test were pending.
It is unclear if the driver's alleged alcohol consumption contributed to the collision, Goudie said, but he was arrested on a misdemeanor and is not being held responsible for the deaths based on evidence collected so far. Authorities were looking for the driver of a gold Honda Civic who forced Ramirez off the road when trying to pass the motorcyclists on the undivided two-lane highway east of San Diego.
Ramirez, of Mexicali, Mexico, swerved his white Dodge Avenger to the right shoulder to avoid the Honda and then overcompensated by swinging left into oncoming traffic, Goudie said. Ramirez's speedometer was found stuck at 60 mph, 5 mph below the speed limit.
"It would have been nice if he had just gone off to the right," she said. "He would have been stuck in the soft sand."
None of the motorcyclists got the license plate of the Honda driver — described as a man wearing a baseball cap. No one pursued him, choosing to stay behind to attend to their friends.
"I was the first person on scene that had a uniform on," Goudie said. "I was being dragged in every direction by frantic people saying, 'Help this person, help that person.'"
The CHP withheld names of the five who died, pending notification of next of kin. They included a husband and wife who were on a motorcycle that was first to be struck.
A man who was driving a motorcycle behind the couple was struck next and died, Goudie said.
Ramirez turned and hit a third motorcycle, killing a woman who was riding on the back and injuring her husband, Wilson Trayer, 39, of Lakeside, Goudie said.
Trayer's motorcycle sliced 18 inches into the front passenger door of the Dodge that Ramirez was driving, killing Ramirez's companion, a 31-year-old Mexicali woman who owned the car, Goudie said.
Carl Smith, president of the Lakeside-based Saddletramps Motorcycle Club, said three riders were seriously injured but expected to survive. Two others had less serious injuries.
William Barnes, 57, of San Diego suffered a punctured lung and broken hip and ankle and his wife, Melanie, 46, broke her pelvis and had a brain hemorrhage, Smith said. Trayer broke his pelvis, ribs, back and jaw, according to his daughter, Sierra.
"It's going to be a long recovery for the three of them," Smith said.
One of the injured — John Philip Lombardo, 55, of Lakeside, whose leg was hit by an ejected motorcyclist — was released from the hospital, Goudie said.
Another rider had her spleen removed, Smith said. Goudie identified her as Kelly Halley, 42, of Santee.
Smith was leading the motorcycles and watched in his rearview mirror as Ramirez turned his sedan into oncoming traffic and struck the middle of the pack. There were 21 riders on about a dozen motorcycles.
"The car was out of control when I went by him. He narrowly missed me and my vice president," said Smith.
Smith doesn't blame Ramirez, despite the allegation that he was driving under the influence. He considers Ramirez a victim because his companion died.
"It looked like he overreacted, but the guy in the Honda Civic was at fault," said Smith, who estimated the Civic was going 95 mph when it passed the motorcycles.
The group met Saturday morning at Smith's Alpine home and had breakfast at the Golden Acorn Casino off Interstate 8 in Boulevard. They planned to spend the night at the Quechan Casino Resort in Winterhaven, near the Arizona state line.
"They were just going on a nice, leisurely ride in the desert because the weather's gorgeous now," Goudie said.
The accident occurred about 1 p.m. Saturday on state Route 98 near the hamlet of Ocotillo, about 80 miles east of San Diego. The curvy road, which hugs the Mexican border, links Mexicali to Interstate 8 and is used by motorists from Southern Californians and Mexico's Baja California state.
Smith said club members are close friends — many in daily contact — who go on long monthly rides and do an annual charity drive for the Boys and Girls Clubs of East (San Diego) County. They plan a blood drive to help the injured riders.
Associated Press writer Christopher Weber in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
THE DRAGONATER WINS IN TRAFFIC COURT AT DEALS GAP, RAISES SPEED LIMIT TO 65 MPH ON THE DRAGON - NOLLE PROSEQUI BY BLOUNT COUNTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. NO TESTIMONY, HEARING NOR TRIAL WHATSOEVER. 60 MPH SPEEDING TICKET DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, COSTS PAID BY THE STATE, IN BLOUNT COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT WITH JUDGE BREWER. THP TROOPER RANDALL HUCKEBY ADMITTED ON VIDEOTAPE DURING TRAFFIC STOP THAT ALL SPEEDING TICKETS NORTHBOUND ON US129 AT MILE MARKER 0.5 ARE FEDERAL JURISDICTION, NOT STATE JURISDICTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). HUCKEBY WAS ALSO CAUGHT ON VIDEO SPEEDING AT 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON, WITHOUT THE MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS AND SIREN REQUIRED FOR IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). TDOT ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT THE MANDATORY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SURVEY SPEED AUDIT WAS NEVER PERFORMED, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, THUS THE POSTED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON THE DRAGON REVERTS TO THE DEFAULT 65 MPH IN TN CODE. THE DRAGONATER ALSO MADE VIDEO OF TROOPER HUCKEBY SPEEDING UP TO 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON IN A 30 MPH ZONE, WITHOUT MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS NOR SIREN, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, AND PERJURY IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE, WHICH SHOWED HIS $100,000+ SALARY. 2007 TDOT SAFETY AUDIT REPORT CONFESSED THAT THP'S JOB IS TO BAN ALL COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ON THE DRAGON, SO THP TICKETS INCREASED 11,400% IN BLOUNT COUNTY. THP'S STALKER RADAR OPERATOR MANUAL CONFESSED THAT RADAR CANNOT MEASURE THE SPEED OF VEHICLES WITHIN 18 MPH OF ACTUAL SPEED. WATCH THIS SPACE FOR FULL EVIDENCE FILE. UPDATE 7 MARCH 2011
There's only 1 way to raise the 30 mph speed limit on US129 at Deals Gap, back to the original 55 mph. This method works very fast, is free, no begging or groveling required. You just tell the govt what to do, and the govt bows down before you.
This method to raise speed limits is endorsed by the Tennessee Supreme Court, the US Dept of Transportation and TDOT:
The Secret Solution They at ETR don't want you to know about? Fight your God-damned $250 speeding ticket -- the RIGHT way.
The only valid speed limit is one based on the 85th-Percentile Speed, which is the average speed of traffic. Speeding is 600% safer than driving a speed limit set too low, according to USDOT and Ralph Nader.
With THP increasing biker tickets 11,400% on the Dragon, there's plenty of criminal defendants to fight in court. Too bad they're all sheep -- or angry tourists who "can't afford" a 2nd vacation to play in traffic court.
"The MAINTAIN TOP SAFE SPEED sign may be used on highways where conditions are such that it is prudent to evacuate or traverse an area as quickly as possible." �USDOT, FHA, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 2I. Emergency Management Signing, 2003 Ed
The Dragonater is webmaster for AmericanAutobahn.com, a book by Mark Rask, as seen on History Channel at a LEGAL 212 mph on a public highway, at night, in the rain, in commuter traffic, with a better safety record than 55 mph on US Interstates.
Brian McVicar The Muskegon Chronicle November 30, 2010
GRAND HAVEN, MICH. — Grand Haven Public Safety Director Dennis Edwards says he was placed on administrative leave last week because he ordered officers not to write speeding tickets on streets where he said doing so would violate state law.
In an e-mail to The Chronicle, Edwards said he and City Manager Pat McGinnis clashed over Edwards’ request that officers not enforce the speed limit on portions of 35 streets, including Robbins Road and Beechtree Street, until the city conduct speed studies as “required by a 2006 law.”
Edwards said McGinnis put him on leave immediately after Edwards issued the no-ticket order. “Directly afterwards, he ordered Captain (Rick) Yonker to tell the officers to resume writing tickets,” Edwards said.
Edwards, who has served as public safety director since 2004, was placed on administrative leave Nov. 24. City officials have declined to say why Edwards was placed on leave, whether he will be allowed to return to work, or whether he’s still being paid.
Edwards, who said in the e-mail that he is out of the country on vacation, indicated he plans on consulting with his attorney next week when he returns to Michigan.
He said speed limits on some city streets don’t comply with Public Act 85, a 2006 law that adjusted the way the limits are determined in Michigan. Asking officers to ticket motorists on those streets puts the city at risk of legal trouble, Edwards said.
“A police officer cannot be ordered to violate a law or take any action which is unethical, immoral or illegal,” he said. “To do so leaves the department, its officers and this city at risk from lawsuit and violations of civil rights.”
The Chronicle was unable to reach McGinnis for comment.
Edwards said he and McGinnis disagreed over the speeding issue, and at one point, McGinnis ordered him not to pursue it further.
“I have tried to deal with the issue privately with Pat but after he failed to take any action after first ordering me to not look any further at the issue, I find myself defending my action,” he said. “Pat, being the master of spin, is now trying to ruin my reputation and it is necessary for me to clear up the innuendo that I have done something wrong.”
Michigan State Police Lt. Gary Megge said although the 2006 law says cities are responsible for making sure speed limits comply with the law, disagreements abound.
“There are several cities that have made an effort to correct the speed limit,” he said. “There are also some communities that simply say, ‘I’m not changing anything.’”
Public Act 85 established two criteria for determining speed limits: a speed study or counting the number of access points, such as driveways or street intersections, within a half-mile, Megge said.
Under one formula, if there are more than 60 access points within a half-mile, the speed limit would be 25 mph, he said. A half-mile stretch of road with access points numbering between 45 and 59 would have a 35-mph speed limit.
Under the other option, the speed limit would be set at or below what a study shows 85 percent of drivers travel, he said.
Cities “are obligated to follow the law, do it correctly, which in turn will maximize traffic safety,” Megge said.
Speeding is SIX TIMES SAFER than driving a posted speed limit, says the U.S. Govt and Ralph Nader:
Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign - Standard: After an engineering study has been made inaccordance with established traffic engineering practices, the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency. When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within 10 km/h or 5 mph of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.
Determining the 85th Percentile Speed - The maximum speed limits posted as the result of a study should be based primarily on the 85th percentile speed, when adequate speed samples can be secured. The 85th percentile speed is a value that is used by many states and cities for establishing regulatory speed zones. Use of the 85th percentile speed concept is based on the theory that the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, do not want to have a crash, desire to reach their destination in the shortest possible time. A speed at or below which 85 percent of people drive at any given location under good weather and visibility conditions may be considered as the maximum safe speed for that location. Speed checks are of prime importance, because they represent the consensus of drivers as to the safe speed at a given location, and provide the basic data on which the regulatory speed zone is based. Operation of Speed Check Stations: Normal speed checks should be made on average week days at off-peak hours, be made under favorable weather conditions, include only “free floating” vehicles, include a minimum of 125 cars in each direction at each station, be discontinued after two hours if radar is used, or after four hours if a traffic counter that classifies vehicles by type is used — even if 125 cars have not been timed. The vehicles checked should be only those in which drivers are choosing their own speed (“free floating”). When a line of vehicles moving closely behind each other passes the speed check station, only the speed of the first vehicle should be checked, since the other drivers may not be choosing their own speed. Cars involved in passing or turning maneuvers should not be checked, because they are probably driving at an abnormal rate of speed. Trucks and busses should be recorded separately and should not be included as part of the 125-car total. Speed check stations must be strategically located to show all the important changes in prevailing speeds. Use TxDOT Form 1882, “Radar Motor Vehicle Speed Field Tally Sheet,” to record tally marks beside the observed speed for each vehicle.
Dianna Ruth Brown vs. City of Oak Ridge - TN Court of Appeals at Knoxville 2005. Diana Ruth Brown (“the defendant”) was stopped by a City of Oak Ridge police officer and cited for speeding. Following an adverse decision in municipal court, the defendant appealed to the trial court. The trial court ruled that the defendant could not pursue, in the trial court, her assertion and defense that the posted speed limit of 45 mph was not legally established. Subsequently, that court found her guilty of speeding and imposed its judgment. The defendant appeals. Both sides raise issues. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Illiterate fascists and communists on city council in Oak Ridge TN forced to raise speed limits to comply with TDOT's 85th Percentile Speed - In December 2010, City Council enacted a change in the city speed limit ordinance for this road segment. After opposing the change in the first round of two votes on the proposal, I supported it in November and December, after discovering that I’d been working under a misconception. A bit contrary to what the November 17th Oak Ridger reported, my misconception (which appears to have been shared by other Council members and many citizens) was to think that City Council has any discretion in choosing a speed limit on the west Turnpike. We were all wrong. That road is a state highway. Under Tennessee law, the speed limit for a state highway is set by the state. he staff report says that the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides guidance on setting speed limits “and states that speed zones shall be established in accordance with traffic engineering practices and shall include analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles.” Staff notes that the measured 85th percentile speeds were about 13 mph above the posted speed in the 40 mph zone and 3 and 9 mph above the posted speed in the 50 mph zone.
Oak Ridge TN forced to raise speed limits to comply with TDOT's 85th Percentile Speed - The Traffic Safety Advisory Board held a long and thoughtful discussion of the west Turnpike speed limits, deciding to recommend sticking with the TDOT limits, but continue to monitor the situation. In the 40-mph section, the 85th percentile speed is about 13 mph above the speed limit, suggesting that a higher limit would be right for the road. However, it seems to be agreed that the redesigned road in that section is safer than it used to be and that the road’s physical alignment is consistent with a 60-mph road (which helps explain why so many people are driving so far over the limit).
Solomon curve - In 1964, Solomon researched the relationship between average speed and collision rates of automobiles and plotted the results.[2] While others have attempted to quantify the relationship between average speed and collision rates, Solomon's work was both "the earliest and best known".[3] Solomon conducted a comprehensive study of more than 10,000 accident-involved drivers and their vehicles and how other roadway, driver, and vehicle characteristics affect the probability of being involved in a crash.[4] He found that the probability of being involved in a crash per vehicle-mile as a function of on-road vehicle speeds follows a U-shaped curve with speed values around the median speed having the lowest probability of being in a crash.[5] Although typically called the Solomon curve, the U-shaped curve has also been referred to as the Crash Risk Curve.[6]
Synthesis of Speed Zoning Practice - Speed zoning is the establishment of reasonable and safe speed limits based on an engineering study. Speed zoning incorrectly used on streets and highways can lead to driver non-compliance with speed limits. This study reviewed the principles and practices used to set speed limits. It is based mainly on a survey of traffic officials conducted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering. All States and 44 city and county agencies responded to this survey.
Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management - This document provides a review of safety research related to speed and speed management. This review builds upon a similar synthesis prepared in 1982. This synthesis highlights the relationships among vehicle speed and safety; factors influencing speeds; and the effects on speed and crashes of speed limits, speed enforcement, traffic calming and other engineering measures intended to manage speed. In a landmark study of speed and crashes involving 10,000 drivers on 600 miles (970 kilometers) of rural highways, Solomon (1964) found a relationship between vehicle speed and crash incidence that is illustrated by a U–shaped curve. Crash rates were lowest for travel speeds near the mean speed of traffic, and increased with greater deviations above and below the mean. Crash–involvement rates decreased with increasing speeds up to 65 mi/h (105 km/h), then increased at higher speeds. Further, Solomon reported that the results of his study showed that "low speed drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents than relatively high speed drivers." Cirillo (1968) in a similar analysis of 2,000 vehicles involved in daytime crashes on interstate freeways confirmed Solomon's results, extending the U–shaped curve to interstate freeways.
Implementing field work in teaching Transportation Engineering cours - The Transportation engineering course is an upper division technical elective for the civil engineering concentration at the University of Tennessee at Martin. Classically, the Transportation Engineering course has been taught in the classroom through a format consisting only of lectures, homework, and exams. Transportation engineering course material includes many traffic studies that require field work to comprehend. A need for having a hands-on experience in this class was found necessary. This paper describes the vital value of field work to the students by implementing hands on transportation field projects. Two main projects were adopted: (1) spot speed study and (2) traffic signal design and assessment. Collecting the data had to be done without any influence on the actual speeds and drivers’ behavior. This is accomplished by choosing a location behind a tree or building or inside the car.
Is Bosque Farms, NM a Speed Trap? A Spot Speed Study Report - Two hundred speed measurements of free-flowing northbound traffic were taken near Sopa’s restaurant in November, 2009, in accordance with accepted Spot Speed Study criteria. These data were analyzed using a spreadsheet. The average speed is 48 mph, 3 mph above the posted speed limit. Where speed limits are normally based on the 85th Percentile (here, 52 mph), average speed occurs here at the 24th Percentile. Based on this data and its analysis, the current posted speed limit cannot be described as safety based, i.e., it is not set for the purpose of maximizing traffic safety, the claimed intent of such speed limits. Assuming that the data is reasonably representative of the free-flow speeds, the current posted speed limit - particularly with the excessively high level of speed enforcement - can be described as DETRIMENTAL to traffic safety. The Author does not personally consider this Study to be a comprehensive Traffic Safety Audit, i.e., not sufficient for speed limits changes, but DOES consider it to be sufficient to conclusively show the existing speed limit to be either valid or artificial. The New Mexico DOT, however, DOES say that it’s enough for setting speed limits, in its March, 2008, “Signing and Striping Manual”, page 67.
Frustrated Driver Files Federal Lawsuit Against US129 Speed Trap - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that a retired dentist has filed a federal lawsuit against the small Georgia town of Arcade, alleging that the Athens area municipality used “overzealous and improper tactics in creating a speed trap” along U.S. Highway 129. According to the AJC, Arcade with four police officers generated $192,000 or 28% of its $675,000 annual budget from fines and forfeitures in 2009. In 2008, the percentage was 40%. Local business owners complain that Arcade’s zealous traffic enforcement prompts drivers to steer clear of the town, thereby hurting private business. If successful this private lawsuit could be turned into a class action and Arcade could face punitive damages.
Federal lawsuit targets 'overzealous' speed trap on US129 - ARCADE, Ga. — Ten police officers used to roam the busy stretch of highway that slices through this tiny northeast Georgia town, writing traffic tickets that helped pay for a spacious city complex but also infuriated local businesses and repulsed drivers. "Someone had to finally take a stand for all those who have been targeted by the city of Arcade police," said Joe Moses, a retired dentist who filed the complaint in December. It contends officers used "overzealous and improper tactics in creating a speed trap" along U.S. Highway 129. "It's made people scared to death to go through Arcade," said Darlene Craven, the owner of Darlene's Family Hair Care and Tanning Salon, which sits along Arcade's main road. City attorney Jody Campbell declined to comment on the pending lawsuit, and the city has yet to respond to the complaint in court. The city's mayor did not return several messages seeking comment. Moses was driving home from visiting his daughter in Athens on a foggy December 2008 night when he noticed a police car trailing him, he said in the complaint. He pulled to the side of the road after driving a few hundred yards to let the squad car drive by him, only to watch the officer pull behind him, he said. First, he said he was cited for driving too slowly. And when he objected, Moses said the officer tagged him with another citation: Failing to have working tag lights. Moses claims both citations were erroneous. And he said that he asked two police officers in a nearby town to check his tag lights 30 minutes later, and both confirmed in writing that his lights complied with state requirements. Even with a downsized police force, Arcade still earns a hefty chunk of its revenue from traffic fines. Some $192,000 of the city's $675,000 total revenues in 2009 came from fines and forfeitures. In 2008, the city reaped more than $380,000 in revenues from fines and forfeitures, about 40 percent of the total revenue collected that year, according to the audit. Connie Whitey, who has lived in town since 1991, said she hopes the lawsuit doesn't stoke new fears about her town. She said during the police force's heyday, revenue at her liquor store Bulldog Package dropped 40 percent as drivers steered clear of Arcade. "What did we need 10 police officers for? They ruined the name of Arcade, and it's taken us years to rebuild," she said. "Arcade definitely was a speed trap. It still can be, but it's not as bad as before."
"For decades, speed was the subject of the most widespread slogans drummed into the public. 'Speed kills' and 'slow down and live' are familiar ones peddled by the National Safety Council.... The findings showed a more complex picture of the role of speed than had ever been assumed before. Accident involvement rates are at a minimum at speeds between fifty and seventy five miles per hour.... Although obviously the severity of accidents is greater at higher speeds, the study revealed that considering accident frequency rates and severity, the number of injuries per vehicle miles traveled is at its minimum. Enforcement of the law brings no pressure on the car makers to increase the safety of their vehicles." –Ralph Nader, from his book, Unsafe at any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile (2nd Ed), quoting David Soloman's report for the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA), "Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle"
"One hundred forty years ago, the Royal Society in England warned against the railroads, claiming that at speeds over 30 miles per hour, the air supply to the passenger compartment would be cut off and people would die from asphyxiation. And the college of physicians in Munich, for its part, warned that at 30 mph, travelers would suffer headaches, vertigo and possible lose their sight because of a blurring effect. Over 30 mph great catastrophies were predicted, because everyone knew that even a twig would shatter the wheels." -Jules Burgman, ABC News, NASA Langley Research Center, The Impact of Science on Society, NASA SP-482, NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1985
40802. (a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.
(b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is ( ) one that is functionally classified as “local” on the “California Road System Maps,” that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. When a street or road does not appear on the “California Road System Maps,” it may be defined as a “local street or road” if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.
(2) For purposes of this section "school zone" means that area approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. "School zone" also includes the area approaching or passing any school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children if that highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign.
(c) (1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable:
(A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of subparagraph (D).
(ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
(D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility.
(2) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(B) (i) A particular section of a highway or state highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within one of the following time periods, prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects:
(I) Except as specified in subclause (II), seven years.
(II) If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, 10 years.
(ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.
Amended Sec. 3, Ch. 521, Stats. 2000. Effective January 1, 2001. Amended Sec. 49, Ch. 491, Stats. 2010. Effective January 1, 2011. The 2010 amendment added the italicized material, and at the point(s) indicated, deleted the following: “is defined by the latest functional usage and federal-aid system maps submitted to the federal Highway Administration, except that when these maps have not been submitted, or when the street or road is not shown on the maps, a “local street or road” means a street or road that”
This chapter includes a description of how to conduct an engineering and traffic investigation as the basis for establishing a regulatory speed zone along a roadway. This investigation is commonly called a “speed zone study.”
Sound and generally accepted engineering practices are an integral part of such speed zone studies and are discussed in Section 4 of this chapter.
Scope of Study The speed zone study should cover the entire length of a potential zone, even though an analysis of the data may later indicate that the actual limits of the area that requires zoning are less than the limits of the potential zone.
A speed zone study consists of the following principle areas:
determining the 85th percentile speed
crash study
developing of strip maps
speed zone design
rechecks of speed zones.
This chapter contains sections describing each of these areas.
The maximum speed limits posted as the result of a study should be based primarily on the 85th percentile speed, when adequate speed samples can be secured. The 85th percentile speed is a value that is used by many states and cities for establishing regulatory speed zones.
Theory
Use of the 85th percentile speed concept is based on the theory that:
the large majority of drivers:
are reasonable and prudent
do not want to have a crash
desire to reach their destination in the shortest possible time
a speed at or below which 85 percent of people drive at any given location under good weather and visibility conditions may be considered as the maximum safe speed for that location.
Statistical Rationale
The results of numerous and extensive “before-and-after” studies substantiates the general propriety and value of the 85th percentile criterion.
Statistical techniques show that a normal probability distribution will occur when a random sample of traffic is measured. From the resulting frequency distribution curves, one finds that a certain percentage of drivers drive too fast for the existing conditions and a certain percentage of drivers travel at an unreasonably slow speed compared to the trend of traffic.
Most cumulative speed distribution curves “break” at approximately 15 percent and 85 percent of the total number of observations (see Figure 3-1). Consequently, the motorists observed in the lower 15 percent are considered to be traveling unreasonably slow and those observed above the 85th percentile value are assumed to be exceeding a safe and reasonable speed. Because of the steep slope of the distribution curve below the 85th percentile value, it can readily be seen that posting a speed below the critical value would penalize a large percentage of reasonable drivers.
Figure 3-1. Cumulative speed distribution curve
The example illustrated in Figure 3-1 shows that a speed posted for 7 miles per hour below the 85th percentile speed would unfairly penalize 25 percent of the drivers who would otherwise be considered to be driving at a reasonable and prudent speed. Therefore, for purposes of speed zoning, the maximum posted speed should be as near as possible to the 85th percentile value, and whenever minimum speed zones are used, the minimum posted speed should be within 5 miles per hour of the 15th percentile value. (See Chapter 2, Section 2, for additional information on Minimum Speed Limits. )
Experience proves these findings valid and shows that the 85th percentile speed is the one characteristic of traffic speeds that most closely conforms to a speed limit which is considered safe and reasonable.
Speed Checks for Existing Highways
Speed checks are of prime importance, because they:
represent the consensus of drivers as to the safe speed at a given location
provide the basic data on which the regulatory speed zone is based.
Speed Checks for New or Reconstructed Highways
Speed checks on new or reconstructed highway sections should not be performed until it is apparent that the traffic speeds have stabilized.
As an interim measure, the statewide maximum speed or the design speed of the roadway may be posted on these sections while using warning signs with advisory speed signs to alert drivers to any hazards. In any case, trial-run data should be collected and considered by a traffic engineer before interim speed zones are posted. If the interim speed is lower than the statewide maximum speed, then the interim speed must be established by city ordinance or Transportation Commission minute order. Once the traffic speeds have stabilized, normal speed zone studies should be completed and evaluated by a traffic engineer before the final speeds are posted.
Speed checks should be made as quickly as possible, but it is not necessary to check the speed of every car. In many cases, traffic will be much too heavy for the observer to check all cars.
Operation of Speed Check Stations
Normal speed checks should:
be made on average week days at off-peak hours
be made under favorable weather conditions
include only “free floating” vehicles (see following paragraph)
include a minimum of 125 cars in each direction at each station
be discontinued after two hours if radar is used, or after four hours if a traffic counter that classifies vehicles by type is used — even if 125 cars have not been timed.
The vehicles checked should be only those in which drivers are choosing their own speed (“free floating”). When a line of vehicles moving closely behind each other passes the speed check station, only the speed of the first vehicle should be checked, since the other drivers may not be choosing their own speed. Cars involved in passing or turning maneuvers should not be checked, because they are probably driving at an abnormal rate of speed.
Trucks and busses should be recorded separately and should not be included as part of the 125-car total.
Location of Speed Check Stations
A complete picture of speeds in an area can only be obtained through the proper location of speed check stations. Ideally, speed checks at an infinite number of locations would be desirable; however, since this is not practical, speed check stations must be strategically located to show all the important changes in prevailing speeds.
In urban areas and on approaches to cities, speed check stations:
should generally be located at intervals of 0.25 mile or less if necessary to insure an accurate picture of the speed pattern
should be located midway between signals or 0.2 miles from any signal, whichever is less, to ensure an accurate representation of speed patterns
should take into account the locality and the uniformity of physical and traffic conditions
may be determined by trial runs through the area if volumes are too low or if a recheck of speeds is all that is needed
should be checked midway between interchanges on the main lanes of expressways and freeways.
In rural areas, speed check stations:
may be at intervals greater than 0.25 mile, as long as the general speed pattern is followed
may only be necessary at each end and the middle point if the characteristics of the roadway are consistent throughout the entire section
may be determined by trial runs through the area if the characteristics of the roadway are consistent throughout the entire section and a speed check in that section indicates that 125 vehicles cannot be checked within the two hours if radar is used, or after four hours if a traffic counter that classifies vehicles by type is used.
Measuring Speeds
Radar speed meters which operate on the radar principle are normally used for making speed checks. These devices operate from the power of an automobile battery and give direct readings of vehicle speeds in miles per hour which are accurate to within 2 miles per hour.
New technologies may be used in determining vehicular speeds for use in calculating 85th percentile speed if the measured speeds are accurate to within 2 miles per hour and the gap between vehicles is 3 seconds or greater. Examples of new technologies are counter-classifiers with the capability of classifying vehicles, determining vehicular speeds, and differentiating the gap between vehicles. These devices may include video imaging, tube counters, magnetic counters, inductive counters, etc.
Recording Measured Speeds
Use TxDOT Form 1882, “Radar Motor Vehicle Speed Field Tally Sheet,” to record tally marks beside the observed speed for each vehicle. The form is available via hyperlink (click on the form number above) or from the Traffic Operations Division.
Figure 3-2, Example of completed Radar Motor Vehicle Speed Field Tally Sheet, shows an example.
Calculating 85th Percentile Speed
Use the following procedure to calculate the 85th percentile speed:
Add the tally marks as shown in the “Cumulative Total” column in Figure 3-2, Example of completed Radar Motor Vehicle Speed Field Tally Sheet. Note that the marks are added from the bottom up.
For each “Cumulative Total” column, calculate 85 percent of the total number of vehicles checked. EXAMPLE: Figure 3-2 shows that 125 cars were counted in the northbound direction. So 85 percent would be 106 (125 0.85 = 106). Thus, the 106th car (counting up from the bottom) represents the 85th percentile speed.
Determine the speed at which the car representing the 85th percentile was traveling. Again from the northbound example in Figure 3-2, the 106th car was traveling at 48 miles per hour. Thus, 48 miles per hour is the 85th percentile speed.
On the back of the Radar Motor Vehicle Speed Field Tally Sheet there is an “85th Percentile Calculation Table,” which may be used to readily determine the 85th percentile car if the total number is between 80 and 239.
In no case shall the 85th percentile speed be interpolated between two speeds in the M.P.H. column.
After the locations of the speed check stations have been decided upon and the speed checks have been made, the 85th percentile speeds should be calculated immediately in the field. By doing so, it is possible to get an idea of what the speed curve will look like and to determine if more speed check stations are needed.
Recording the Information
Record the speed check data on the strip map as described in Section 3 of this Chapter. The blocks shown on the strip map contain the 85th percentile speed, the speed of the fastest car checked, and the number of cars checked (reading from top to bottom in order). Show a block for each speed check location for each direction of travel measured.
Figure 3-2. Example of completed Radar Motor Vehicle Speed Field Tally Sheet
Incomplete Data
When the data appear incomplete because of a large change in the 85th percentile speed between speed check stations or an unusually high or low 85th percentile speed at a particular point, additional speed checks should be made at new locations or repeat checks should be made at certain locations previously checked to clarify the speed picture.
Speed Zone Approval
Speed zones on the state highway system, including turnpikes under TxDOT’s authority, may be set by Transportation Commission minute order or by the city, depending on the circumstance (as shown in the following table).
If the speed zone is outside a city, then it is established by Transportation Commission minute order.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anderson County No. A3LA0578
James B. Scott, Jr., Judge
No. E2004-01574-COA-R3-CV - FILED AUGUST 19, 2005
Diana Ruth Brown (“the defendant”) was stopped by a City of Oak Ridge police officer and cited for speeding. Following an adverse decision in municipal court, the defendant appealed to the trial court. The trial court ruled that the defendant could not pursue, in the trial court, her assertion and defense that the posted speed limit of 45 mph was not legally established. Subsequently, that court found her guilty of speeding and imposed its judgment. The defendant appeals. Both sides raise issues. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court
Vacated; Case Remanded
CHARLES D.SUSANO, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P.FRANKS,P.J., and SHARON G. LEE, J., joined.
Charles Terry Webber, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Diana Ruth Brown. Kenneth R. Krushenski, City Attorney, and Tammy M. Dunn, Senior Staff Attorney, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for the appellee, City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
OPINION
I.
On July 11, 2003, the defendant was driving on South Illinois Avenue near Bethel Valley Road in Oak Ridge when she was stopped by a city police officer. He cited her for speeding, i.e., going 67 mph in a 45 mph zone. It is undisputed that South Illinois Avenue is a state highway, namely State Route 62.
On September 8, 2003, the defendant was convicted of speeding in the Oak Ridge Municipal Court and fined $30 and costs. She appealed her conviction to the trial court. In the trial court, the defendant asserted that the posted speed limit on State Route 62 had not been established in compliance with applicable law. The trial court refused to permit the defendant to pursue her argument, opining that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain such a defense:
[M]y ruling was that this belongs in Chancery Court in Davidson County. I don’t set the policy as it relates to those things. And I really don’t think it’s an issue that addresses itself to the venue. State matters, just like some of the other matters that we deal with, it’s usually the Chancery Court on policy dealing with setting speed limits and whether or not there has been a violation of the discretion as it relates to that. So the issue I have within my control has to do with the speeding. The other things have to do with whether or not this policy of the State of Tennessee was one that should have been exercised as it was.
Following a bench trial, the court found the defendant guilty of speeding and imposed a fine of $15 and costs. From this judgment, the defendant appeals.
II.
While the parties argue a number of legal issues, we believe the dispositive issue in this case is whether the defense asserted by the defendant – that the posted speed limit was not legally established – is a defense that can be asserted in a case involving a charge of driving at a speed in excess of a posted speed limit. This is a question of law; hence, our de novo review is undertaken1 with no presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s judgment. Ganzevoort v. Russell, 949 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Tenn. 1997).
III.
It is axiomatic that a defendant has a right to attempt to prove a properly-asserted, legallyrecognized defense to an action asserted against the defendant. Thus, we must decide if the defense asserted by the defendant is a bar to the speeding violation with which she was charged.
Footnote 1. The speeding citation in this case specifically charges that the defendant committed the “offense” of “speeding 67 mph in 45 mph zone.” The City’s brief does not expressly argue that, regardless of whether the posted 45 mph speed limit was validly established or not, the defendant’s speed, i.e., 67 mph, nevertheless still exceeded the maximum speed permitted on a state highway of the type of South Illinois Avenue; and that she can, as a consequence of this fact, still be found guilty of “speeding.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-152(a) & (c) (2004). Cf. Commonwealth v. Kondor, 438 Pa. Super. 147, 651 A.2d 1135 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994). Since the parties disagree sharply as to whether South Illinois Avenue is a “controlled-access highway,” see Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-152(c), and since the City does not make the argument alluded to above, we decline to address the issue of whether the defendant can be found guilty of “speeding” in the absence of a validly-established 45 mph speed zone. However, we would again note that the defendant was specifically charged with driving at a speed in excess of that permitted by a “45 mph zone.”
If there is a posted speed limit, and no question is raised as to whether that posted speed limit was properly established, there is a presumption of regularity and validity; in such cases, proof of the posted speed limit gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of validity. Thomas v. Harper, 385 S.W.2d 130, 138 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964). However, we have recognized that the posting of a speed limit must be pursuant to “statutory authority”:
Where there is evidence of a posted speed limit and no question is made as to its regularity or validity there is a presumption that the posted speed is in compliance with the law. However, if the posted speed sign was placed without statutory authority, the failure of a motorist to heed its restrictions could be negligence but he should not be penalized with the consequences of the rule of negligence per se of violating a statute, since a statutorily established speed limit prevails over speed signs erected without statutory authority.
Johnson v. Calfee, No. 118, 1988 WL 36472, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed April 21, 1988) (internal citations omitted).
Johnson involved a complaint seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Id. The defendant’s principal defense was that the plaintiff was driving recklessly and speeding. Id. The speed limit on the road where the accident occurred was critical to the jury’s determination. Id., at *2. A police officer testified that although the speed limit on the road was 55 mph unless “otherwise posted,” there was a sign approximately one mile from the accident site indicating that the speed limit was 45 mph. Id., at *1. However, the county court clerk testified that there was no legislative enactment authorizing the reduction in the speed limit along the relevant stretch of road. Id. He opined that the speed limit was actually 55 mph. Id. Despite a request from the plaintiff that the trial court instruct the jury that the speed limit was 55 mph, the court left the decision of whether it was 55 mph or 45 mph to the jury without furnishing the jury any guiding principles by which to make that decision. Id. Since a speed sign enacted without authority cannot be the basis for finding a party guilty of negligence per se, we held that the trial court had not properly charged the jury as to the law pertaining to the establishment of a speed limit. Id., at *1-2.
See alsoDeskins v. Williams, No. 03A01-9701-CV-00023, 1997 WL 559444, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed September 9, 1997).
We are not aware of a Tennessee appellate court decision in which a defendant cited for speeding has employed the defense that a posted speed limit was not validly established. However, other states have addressed the use of such a defense in speeding cases. A Virginia appellate court reversed the judgment of a trial court which had precluded a defendant charged with speeding from presenting evidence that a posted speed limit had not been lawfully established. Bahen v. City of Hampton, No. 0436-03-1, 2004WL 2381375, at *2 (Va. Ct. App., filed October 26, 2004). The trial court had excluded the proffered testimony of a city traffic engineer who planned to testify that no traffic engineering investigation of the relevant street had been conducted as required by law. Id., at *1. In holding that the trial court erred in excluding this testimony, the Virginia court stated as follows:
[A city traffic engineer’s] proffered testimony tended to prove, although not conclusively establish, that no traffic or engineering study had been performed as required by Code § 46.2-1300 in order to establish a thirty-mile-per-hour speed limit on West County Street.
Thus, the evidence was relevant and admissible, and the trial court erred by ruling that appellant could not challenge the speed limit and by refusing to admit or consider [the traffic engineer’s] evidence in order to rebut the presumption [that the speed limit had been legally decreased].
Id., at *2. See also State v. Morse, 153 Vt. 651, 572 A.2d 1342 (Vt. 1990) (where city clerk was unable to produce an engineering survey supporting the relevant speed limit, the defendant’s conviction for speeding was reversed); Commonwealth v. Kondor, 438 Pa. Super. 147, 651 A.2d 1135 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (defendant charged with speeding could prevail if the Commonwealth could furnish no justification for posting a 35 mph speed limit because the department of transportation could not set speed limits arbitrarily).
We find these cases to be persuasive. In the instant case, the defendant attempted to pursue her defense that the speed limit was not properly established according to applicable law. We conclude that the defense asserted by the defendant is an appropriate defense to the speeding charge and that the trial court erred when it concluded that this issue could not be raised in that court. We pretermit all other issues raised by the parties.
We express no opinion as to whether the defendant can establish, to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, that the posted speed limit on State Route 62 was not properly established. As far as the City’s burden of proof is concerned, it can rely upon the presumption of validity referred to in Thomas. It will be the defendant’s obligation to rebut the presumption by proving that the posted speed limit was not properly established. If she fails to satisfy this obligation, the presumption prevails and proof of the posted speed limit establishes the speed limit.
IV.
The judgment of the trial court is hereby vacated, and this case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Costs on appeal are taxed to the City of Oak Ridge.
