MN man has liscense revoked for driving too slowly

[Frank Lee]

Yeah, I saw that. But WHY? The statutes ALLOW him to go as slow as he wants; there is no statutory minimum speed. And as per statute, he moved all the way to the right, presumably to let faster traffic past. So unless there was a lot of bobbing and weaving going on that made him too unpredictable to pass and/or going over centerline, I don't see the legal basis for this action.

However- as noted- I won't defend bobbing and weaving and going over centerline if that is what was going on.

Plus, that road isn't all that heavily travelled, especially at 1 a.m.

However, that is probably a large part of why he attracted attention to himself, because 1 a.m. is when the entire State is blanketed with law enforcement phishing for drunks.

It was exceedingly poor judgement to keep driving in the manner he did when the cop stopped him then followed. However if it isn't illegal...

[SentraSE-R]

The wording of the statutes allows the commissioner a lot of wiggle room. He/she declared Constans' driving inimical to public safety on the basis of only one ticket and a bunch of warnings. He/she could probably do it to someone for putting their dog on their lap, doing a wheelie within the speed limit, or whacking off while driving, even though there may not be specific statutes prohibiting those practices. The catch-all "inimical to public safety" covers a lot of ground.

[toc]

It doesn't seem like he was being dangerous.

I can see a dangerous argument if there were drivers coming up fast and risking it - but my reading of it suggests he was observant, driving to a speed he felt comfortable with and made sure traffic could pass.

He pushed it too far though - signing off that he wouldn't do it again as he would have his licence cancelled - and then doing it again, would have been better and cheaper for him to simply sell off and get a more efficient vehicle...

[Fat Charlie]

They seem to be focused on the wrong thing. A habit of erratic driving is dangerous enough to yank someone's license, but all anyone focuses on is the speed.

a Ford pickup truck was seen headed west on Highway 7 just west of Waconia and was “all over the road,” going over the center and fog lines, and traveling at “a very slow speed” in a 55 mile-per-hour zone.
...
The officer again pulled Constans over and explained that he could not drive that slowly because it was unsafe for other motorists and he could potentially cause an accident.

Personally, I'd worry more about his lane discipline.

Constans had been impeding traffic by driving too slowly and with all four wheels over the fog line...

Can you really be driving on the shoulder and impeding traffic at the same time? Maybe, if he's still swerving. But they aren't going after him for that. Just how heavy is traffic on the shoulder at that time of night anyway?

The guy is a beat, though. "I do all those gas-saving techniques that aren't against the law," he said. "It sends a red flag to these people who call the cops and say, 'This guy's a nut.' " He sounds like a Jerky Boys routine.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

He seems to suffer from a serious personality disorder: 30mph in a 55 zone with one lane, lots of traffic, and no shoulder is bad enough but ignoring nine officer warnings and continuing the behavior even when the officer is following you home is pathological.

And that's where the rubber meets the road. Going 30 in a 55 (I haven't read the article yet but I will, so if that factoid is off I'll come back and edit) is dangerously slow. Yes, tjts, I'll give you that one. Single lane, traffic, etc. If your hoopy can't hack it, pull over and let the stack go by. But dangerously slow isn't really the central issue here.

[edit]
Okay, 45 in a 55 is borderline. 30 in a 55 is way, way below the line. You'd better be driving something built by John Deere and flying a big ol' SMV before I tolerate that...and you should still move over to let a stack of traffic go by if you're causing congestion behind you.

Never heard it called a fog line before. But if the guy is drifting all the way over the fog line, isn't that just another example of, if not impaired, then at least reckless driving? Part of what makes traffic safe is everybody is doing more-or-less, with reasonable variations, the same thing at the same time. This guy is doing his own thing in his own little world, which unfortunately meshes to some degree with ours. Get him off the road.
[/edit]

Based on what I've seen so far, this dude is either deranged or stoned. In either case, I'd pull him over and crack out whatever statute I could find to get him off the road and keep him off. Because I want neither a crazy nor an impaired driver on the road. So shine up your walking shoes, man - you're gonna need 'em.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by elhigh

Based on what I've seen so far, this dude is either deranged or stoned. In either case, I'd pull him over and crack out whatever statute I could find to get him off the road and keep him off. Because I want neither a crazy nor an impaired driver on the road. So shine up your walking shoes, man - you're gonna need 'em.

+1.

But the swerving is the one they really should be using. I don't think a court would have wasted two minutes on someone who's "all over the road" multiple times. Maybe they just put their dimmest cops on in the middle of the night on weekends out there?

[Xist]

Maybe the Officers are not at their best in the middle of the night. I usually am not.

Did they cite him for driving slowly, but not for swerving? I have mentioned before that people, in an otherwise normal conversation, become angry when they learn that I drive 55 MPH on the freeway and they always claim that it is dangerous and that I am impeding traffic, but if there is not traffic, then it is impossible to impede it!

I do not think that we will ever know enough to decide what should or should not have happened, but is there a law about pulling over if there are a certain number of cars behind you? People like saying so when they claim that driving fifty-five is dangerous. It sounds more like he was swerving than pulling over to allow other vehicles to pass and I would hesitate to pass someone that I expected to swerve across the lane at any moment.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

What if a car is at 55 in a 55 zone and everyone else wanted to go 70? Is the 55 motorist impeding the normal flow of traffic?

That is normally my experience, although the closest stretches of freeway to me are sixty-five, with people wanting to drive 75-80.

I have been cited for speeding and "improper lane usage," but never for driving fifty-five. I was sleepy and did not realize that I was driving on the shoulder, even though there was a "rumble strip!"

I never sustain 30 MPH. Any area that requires driving that slowly always has frequent stops. How fuel efficient is that for normal cars, compared to at least 45 MPH?

[Frank Lee]

MN doesn't have a law specifying how many vehicles need to be piled up behind one before they must pull over to let them by. I would interpret that as you'd either have to pull over if there is even one vehicle behind you that wants to pass, or there can be 100 back there and you don't have to let them by.

I would certainly understand the State disciplining him for swerving around, but in the news stories and even in the court summary they fixate on his speed, for which as far as I can tell, there is no statutory minimum.

30 is too slow for max fe though. I wouldn't go 30 either, unless I knew tits1 was behind me and it was a no passing zone.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

30 is too slow for max fe though. I wouldn't go 30 either, unless I knew tits1 was behind me and it was a no passing zone.

Good. Just a heads up my front license plate read 1stjt or tjts1 if you're viewing through your rear view mirror.

[Frank Lee]

Don't need the plate numbers- if it's a Cali plate and there's steam pouring out of the windows, it's you.