Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

CTYankee · 03-09-2019, 12:45 PM

"The court found that Amatucci had been travelling forty-two miles per hour in an area where the posted speed limit was thirty miles per hour. The court further found, however, that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amatucci had been travelling at a speed that was "unreasonable and imprudent for the conditions existing," and that it had therefore failed to prove a violation of the state speeding statute, N.H. Rev."

Traveling at a speed above the limit as posted by the appropriate traffic authority is per se "unreasonable and imprudent for the conditions existing." Speed limit signs are not advisory. The speed limit set for a given roadway expresses the upper legal limit of what is reasonable and prudent. The courts reasoning is completely wrong.

03-09-2019, 12:45 PM	#10
CTYankee Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Guilford, CT and Bear Island, NH Posts: 28 Thanks: 430 Thanked 19 Times in 8 Posts	It's the Judge that got it wrong "The court found that Amatucci had been travelling forty-two miles per hour in an area where the posted speed limit was thirty miles per hour. The court further found, however, that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amatucci had been travelling at a speed that was "unreasonable and imprudent for the conditions existing," and that it had therefore failed to prove a violation of the state speeding statute, N.H. Rev." Traveling at a speed above the limit as posted by the appropriate traffic authority is per se "unreasonable and imprudent for the conditions existing." Speed limit signs are not advisory. The speed limit set for a given roadway expresses the upper legal limit of what is reasonable and prudent. The courts reasoning is completely wrong.