Rule of Law Radio Archive Search Engine

An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances

An operator may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under

What do you think would be reasonable and prudent, without spending $30,000, for someone like McCammon, what to do in a situation like this

at a speed other than was reasonable and prudent in the existing conditions okay

uh element of proving that the speed was something other than was reasonable and prudent

outside of what is reasonable and prudent for such a law, what is that?

at a rate of speed that was greater than the reasonable and prudent speed,

the circumstances that are then existing in a reasonable and prudent manner, then you

than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.

then obviously you were traveling at a speed that was reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.

So first there has to be some proof that you were enacting reasonable and prudent,

than reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing,

than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing, which basically holds the municipal

that I was willfully failing to be reasonable and prudent as well as not taking due care

And that is that you operated your motor vehicle in a speed other than was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.

Those are the only ways that the officer can reasonably argue that you were traveling at a speed other than was reasonable and prudent.

at a speed that is other than reasonable and prudent

reasonable and prudent because you were safely

the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.

Subsection A, an operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent

especially for the state to prove, is the requirement of reasonable and prudent. Not

over the speed limit just simply isn't reasonable and prudent. That's his opinion. That does not

that's absolutely bogus. Reasonable and prudent is the standard, not 25 over. Okay. But you've never

at a speed other than was reasonable and prudent.

In that section, we have the issue of it stating there very clearly that the speed reasonable and prudent

can only be proven to be false or true if it was other than reasonable and prudent.

Uh, a speed other than reasonable and prudent under the circumstances that existing

Other than was reasonable and prudent

Never proved the reasonable and prudent

They never prove reasonable and prudent

On a highway at a speed that is other than reasonable and prudent under the conditions or circumstances then existing

That reasonable and prudent

In order to prove the element of reasonable and prudent

Or speed ordinances or the speeding statutes or the reasonable and prudent speeds on the highways there in Missouri

prima facie evidence speed limits applied here and that my speed was not reasonable and prudent

but they say that the speed being greater than reasonable and proper instead of reasonable and prudent as Eddie was explaining

and I was wondering if that makes a difference in the language when he says reasonable and proper rather than reasonable and prudent.

Well, as far as whether or not there's a distinguishing difference between reasonable and proper and reasonable and prudent,

Okay, but again, there are two sections in Texas law. One deals with the reasonable and prudent under circumstances then existing

Okay, and that it's prima facie and speed is unlawful is not the same as reasonable and prudent.

Okay, the section that discusses reasonable and prudent discusses that that occurs only when the person is acting in a manner

There's no factual evidence that supports it not being reasonable and prudent. It's just someone's opinion of reasonable and prudent.

You want to find a more specific definition of what constitutes reasonable and prudent so that somewhere the court will explain that.

If you use that same language, reasonable and prudent, they say reasonable and proper.

Okay. What I'm looking at is a photographic presumption of a reasonable and prudent violation. From what I can see from this paperwork so far, it's kind of a mixed message because, of course, they invite you to tear off the piece to ask for a...

This is a photograph ticket and complaint for a violation of speed greater than reasonable and prudent and it just gets mailed out. Along with that, they give you several pieces that you can either tear off and pay it or you can request a trial slash hearing.

Okay. I heard you saying to the last person to... And I want to know if this would still apply the same when it comes to a reasonable and prudent. If you would be arguing the transportation... I'm sorry, not transportation, but arguing the fact that the state is presuming that I'm engaged in the commercial activity,

The question was, why did I avoid going to the reasonable and prudent issue about the speeding ticket?

Therefore, reasonable and prudent are irrelevant.

Correct. That is exactly the reason why they have to say under circumstances other than reasonable and prudent.

and that portion is simply not reasonable and prudent.

An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.

B. An operator, one, may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions,

a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.

their interpretation of what's reasonable and prudent and the circumstances

So like in every other state, I'm assuming Michigan's law is reasonable and prudent.

to prove is reasonable and prudent okay so here's what the prosecutor does officer is it your

professional opinion or is it your experience that this speed was not reasonable and prudent

that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful b unless a

operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances

than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential

is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent that the speed

reasonable and prudent under the circumstances than existing also b in 352 which says unless

greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual

greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances than existing cannot be

in an operator and what is reasonable and prudent and what circumstances constitute

reasonable and prudent it's entirely arbitrary but the law cannot be arbitrary it cannot

or even if i am exceeding the pace of traffic what is not reasonable and prudent if i have

able to do this be reasonable and prudent exercise do care and not harm another person

They are common sense, non-technical conceptions that deal with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.

Well, I mean, hopefully they'll just – they'll be reasonable and prudent and drop it, but –

what's reasonable and prudent under the conditions than existing,

arbitrary and subjective as to what constitutes reasonable and prudent in accordance with the

and what constitutes reasonable and prudent in the statute.

reporting the state's claim that the speed was not reasonable and prudent

maximum reasonable and prudent speed at which that portion of the public right of way may

So that being said, at a speed that is greater than reasonable and prudent under the circumstances

Again, greater than is reasonable and prudent according to who and what facts and circumstances,

what criteria determines what is reasonable and prudent.

not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions

a reasonable and prudent speed as determined by 352, which we've already determined is

It doesn't even hold even the semblance of reasonable and prudent.

The speeds are what is reasonable and prudent.

then you proved your speed to be reasonable and prudent because regardless of how fast

certain criteria that have to met for reasonable and prudent or is it just what you're saying

okay it's it's logic to begin with okay you can't say reasonable and prudent is set in stone

when i can do something that is different than what you say is reasonable and prudent and i do it

yes if you prove those facts to be untrue then you prove the criteria of not reasonable and prudent

And the cop always referred back to reasonable and prudent as did the judge.

Reasonable and prudent is an opinion and a conclusion.

How do you prove reasonable and prudent?

How is the state required to prove that something was not reasonable and prudent?

So if on its face this is not reasonable and prudent, then what is evidence that proves reasonable and prudent applies and is correct and was not violated?

If the state says 60 is the only reasonable and prudent speed limit as a prima facie speed limit,

and that you could not possibly have traveled one fraction of a mile per hour over 60 and not caused it harm, thus making it not reasonable and prudent, how do you refute that?

What evidence is the state going to introduce to show that reasonable and prudent is supported by an accident that never happened?

The officer is claiming not reasonable and prudent.

The officer has not introduced one shred of evidence the speed was not reasonable and prudent on its face.

and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men not legal

Reasonable and prudent prudent to combat this circumstance. Will you do these things?