MN man has liscense revoked for driving too slowly
 

I think it was more the swerving than the going 6mph too slow to him losing his license.

Oh no, not again. :D

IT WASN'T ME!!! :eek:

Hwy 7 is straight as an arrow 2-lane when it's near Lester Prarie, but it does curve when it goes around lakes, and hills and valleys are gently rolling. Sometimes traffic is steady but mostly it's sparse.

They seem to be focusing on his speed but it seems to me he has issues staying in his lane.

My command of the English language tells me that this statute defines the minimum speed limit as, there is only a minimum speed limit if one is posted. IIRC, I haven't seen any minimum speed limit signs on #7 thus there is no minimum speed that must be maintained.

So maybe they used this:

Well that is clear as mud. :mad:

If I want to go 55 in a 55 and I come up on traffic going 52 and passing is difficult, am I impeded? If so, does that mean I get to determine the other motorist's speed is illegal? Do I get to declare under MN 169.15 there are no minimum speed limits; that the speed posted is a speed requirement, and that 169.14 is null and void?

But wait! 169.18 also allows traffic to go less than the posted maximum: Look at that! "Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway"!!! The statute 169.18 is legally requiring Constans to move over just as he did! :eek: I mean, if all he did was go 30-45 in his lane and/or over the fog line. If he was floating around over the centerline, that would be legally unacceptable and I'd agree.

So yes, it is legal to go less than the posted limit. I do not get to declare the guy going 52- impeding my desire to go 55- as driving unlawfully slow.

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?

If passing is available then traffic isn't impeded or blocked. Passing is definitely available on the straight parts of #7; less so where it's curvy. Now, even on the straight section where passing is available, it might not be available in reality because of the quantity of opposing traffic. But the article simply doesn't specify exactly the circumstances of each warning event and grounds for revocation. I find it highly unusual that- if I am correct on this- all he received was warnings until the revocation. Revocation with no tickets? Really? :confused:

Of course I'm not going to defend that swerving all over the place. I think that's what did it, but I can't say for sure.

As far as speeds, were I to drive #7 at 30 mph and get pulled over, I would inquire of the officer what the legal minimum speed is, if any, under 169.14 and see what the officer says. It does say he's out late at night and chances are very, very high the cops and Highway Patrol are out on one of their monthly federally-funded "crackdowns", phishing for drunks when they see someone driving that slow and are really P.O.'d (A PUN!) when the target is sober.

At any rate, if it would have been me I'd have fixed the alignment on the 278,000 mile pile so there would be no swerving and kept speed no lower than 45 on the curvy bits where no passing is allowed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBjNp...yer_detailpage

This is the first thing I thought of about people swerving and driving too slowly lmao :D

IIRC, swerving all over is not one of the hypermiling techniques :D

The court case: http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa...307-081913.pdf

On a related subject, the DMV should run the licensing/revocation program on a bell curve, with the bottom 10% of drivers being denied license, or having their license revoked.

I believe it is the bottom 10% that make driving suck for the other 90%.

He's been warned by the police for doing the same thing repeatedly. By now he has a reputation for doing it. Witnesses said they have seen him not staying in lane despite his insistence that he is not impaired, which may or may not be true. In fact he may be falling asleep at the wheel, which is as much an impairment as substance abuse. He maintains he has a right to drive slowly. He's got an "attitude" about his "right" to do it regardless of his safety or that of others on the road.

Driving very slowly at night on a highway and not staying in lane amounts to inviting to be rear-ended due to erratic driving. That's a public safety issue. Those who go on ideological crusades, which amounts to looking for trouble, will find it.

He went looking for trouble and he found it.

His having a record of doing it repeatedly matters, due to his ongoing baiting of the local police by continuing doing it. It's hard to feel sorry for him. He got his chance to plead his case before a judge and he lost.

Good. Let this be a lesson to the rest of you rolling road blocks.