Source: https://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/346/346.57
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:41:43+00:00

Document:
(ag) "Expressway" means a state trunk highway that, as determined by the department, has 4 or more lanes of traffic physically separated by a median or barrier and that gives preference to through traffic by utilizing interchanges or limiting at-grade access to selected public roads and public driveways.
(ar) "Outlying district" means the territory contiguous to and including any highway within the corporate limits of a city or village where on each side of the highway within any 1,000 feet along such highway the buildings in use for business, industrial or residential purposes fronting thereon average more than 200 feet apart.
(b) "Semiurban district" means the territory contiguous to and including any highway where on either side of the highway within any 1,000 feet along such highway the buildings in use for business, industrial or residential purposes fronting thereon average not more than 200 feet apart or where the buildings in use for such purposes fronting on both sides of the highway considered collectively average not more than 200 feet apart.
(2) Reasonable and prudent limit. No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. The speed of a vehicle shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and using due care.
(3) Conditions requiring reduced speed. The operator of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of sub. (2), drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hillcrest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, when passing school children, highway construction or maintenance workers or other pedestrians, and when special hazard exists with regard to other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.
(gm) Sixty-five miles per hour on any freeway or expressway.
(5) Zoned and posted limits. In addition to complying with the speed restrictions imposed by subs. (2) and (3), no person shall drive a vehicle in excess of any speed limit established pursuant to law by state or local authorities and indicated by official signs.
(6) Certain statutory limits to be posted.
History: 1973 c. 157; 1975 c. 192, 210; 1977 c. 29 s. 1654 (3), (8) (a); 1977 c. 30, 67, 116, 203, 272; 1987 a. 17, 136; 1993 a. 246; 1995 a. 318; 1997 a. 35; 2001 a. 47.
While sub. (2) is related to sub. (3), it is not limited by sub. (3). Sub. (3) creates a greater duty in respect to speed than sub. (2) does. Thoreson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp. 56 Wis. 2d 231, 201 N.W.2d 745 (1972).
Judicial notice may be taken of the reliability of the underlying principles of radar that employs the Doppler effect to determine speed. A prima facie presumption of accuracy of moving radar will be accorded upon competent testimony of the operating officer of required facts. State v. Hanson, 85 Wis. 2d 233, 270 N.W.2d 212 (1978).
A prima facie presumption of accuracy applies to stationary radar devices. City of Wauwatosa v. Collett, 99 Wis. 2d 522, 299 N.W.2d 620 (Ct. App. 1980).
The application of the Hanson requirements is discussed. State v. Kramer, 99 Wis. 2d 700, 299 N.W.2d 882 (1981).
An actor may claim the defense of legal justification if the conduct of a law enforcement officer causes the actor to reasonably believe that violating the law is the only means of preventing bodily harm to the actor or another and causes the actor to violate the law. State v. Brown, 107 Wis. 2d 44, 318 N.W.2d 370 (1982).
This section does not impose absolute liability upon drivers to avoid accidents. Millonig v. Bakken, 112 Wis. 2d 445, 334 N.W.2d 80 (1983).
The presumption of the accuracy of moving radar is discussed. The elements of the Hanson/Kramer criteria are explained. Washington County v. Luedtke, 135 Wis. 2d 131, 399 N.W.2d 906 (1987).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.