Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ski Man
"...The statute [HB162] clearly states "but any speed in excess of the limit specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful..."
|
Had I ever contributed to WinnFABS, I would have advised them against such phraseology.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ski Man
"...I am unable to find a single case in New Hampshire where a speeding violation was dismissed expressly on the basis that the posted speed limit was less than "reasonable and prudent" because prevailing conditions were ideal, traffic was light, or such..."
|
One can't help but note that this state frequently finds itself behind the 8-ball in its quaint laws and lawmaking skills.
Nationally, the trend in state Supreme Court rulings is to find the "reasonable and prudent" phase "unconstitutionally
vague".
For example, Montana once had a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit on its highways. It was tossed out because it was too vague—unconstitutionally so. In other words, if you had a Porsche, 160-MPH was OK. But 100-MPH in a Ford Focus was not.
Today, Montana has a new "maximum speed"—75-MPH —a quantifiable number. (Which is not vague at all). It's like adding, "you shall operate your boat with common sense".
With its recovery from its own recent scandalous history, the NH Supreme Court is likely to toss out "reasonable and prudent" as well. It will only take the first HB162 violation to test it—probably of a wealthy speedboater in BIG TROUBLE.
It may take years to challenge—or may not happen at all—but it's already showing leaks.