TexasCHLforum.com

mloamiller wrote:I think it is a good example of how laws are made, interpreted and precedents set.

Indeed, which is why the piece is simultaneously amusing, instructive, and a bit scary.

GEM-Texas wrote:An interesting issue is if you see a sign and do puzzle out that it is correct sign in terms of wording, I doubt your arguments about contrast and color would hold up as you have admitted to noticing its meaning.

The statutory wording pretty clearly sets out a contrary standard. But nothing in life is for sure. If you want an amusing example how a clear rule can be completely subverted by judicial rulings, each of which is in good faith, see the following:

http://www.greenbag.org/v12n3/v12n3_levin.pdf

Soccerdad1995 wrote:the penalty [for speeding] is also higher when you consider insurance and other increased costs.

Well, you can take defensive driving. Sometimes apart from that, you can get deferred adjudication. That keeps the ticket off your record and thereby avoids bad insurance consequences. As for fees and fines, well, I guess I should have slowed down.

nimravus01 wrote:The way I am reading the law, I do not think a sign split (into anything other than one complete sign,) would be in compliance with the law.

A respectable argument, no doubt one most judges would listen to and consider. Whether it's consistently a winning argument is less clear to me. I intend to treat such signs as binding. Whether others do so is up to them. We each have different tolerances for risk. On criminal prosecutions, mine is pretty low ( I have been known to exceed the speed limit).

WildBill wrote:I worked on a book with another author and it took about two years to write it and get it published.

That's fast.