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.

Next time I'm on 7 it'll be at 30 mph. :thumbup:

Frank -

Just remember to keep left when not swerving back and forth!

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.

That sounds so similar to these guys:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/movielady/...d-costello.jpg

Eyup.

Anyway, I can understand going too slow as being dangerous. I'd still like some minimum speed limit signs to be put up in Pennsylvania, Though, So I know how slow "Too Slow" is according to the PA DMV.

*Post-editing text* Hm... Editing this, I realize that I might have been acting selfishly. I admit I like going 55 on two-lane highways and now my mother wants me to go 60 on such a road which is rated for 65 maximum. As for causing an accident? Well, I'm 22 now - Do I really need that on my driving record? The whole thing about going 55 was so I wouldn't have one and so I would get higher fuel economy.

And why overall was his license revoked - Because of the swerving or just because he went below 50 or both? The article is talking about him going below 50, Mostly, Though I don't think that not staying in the proper lane would've helped.

That is the question. I couldn't find the statute that allowed them to yank his license due to speed.

Nah, uses more fuel AND your driven distance increases.

To his credit, Frank posted the entire court record:

The court case: CLICK HERE

I suggest that everyone read it before commenting further about what actually happened, rather than what we think might have happened.

If you don't want to read the entire case, at least read the initial section titled "FACTS".

BTW, the accused not only lost his case, he also lost upon appeal. End of story.

You are correct. There was more to this case than just his low speed.

It's not end of story for me, because I still don't understand the legal basis for yanking his license.

Here it is, Frank. Minnesota Statutes section 171.04, subdivision 1(10) (2012) says and Minnesota Statutes section 171.14(a)(4) (2012) says

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...

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.

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...

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

Bingo!
 

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.

+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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

^^
Can only Thanks! it once.

Agreed. Based on Frank's boots-on-the-ground interpretation of the statutes, the speed one is poorly defined and might not stick if the guy challenges it. But the swerving appears to demonstrate poor control of the vehicle, which assumption is supported by the additional evidence of inconsistent speed control.

Honestly, I think that if I were repeatedly pulled over by the highway patrol, I would do whatever they did not like less.

Actually the problem with this and what no one realizes is that his actual driving isn't really documented. "Witnesses" are sometimes folks that are disgruntled for one reason or another and their testimony may be shaded by such, they also are MANY times other police or government workers, as was the case of my folks harrassment because of having 2 trailers on our property instead of none.

I have been pulled over 6 times (over many years) for too low of a speed on a road that farm tractors and buggies drive on as well.

The only time I get pulled over is
1. late at night
2. Almost always going up a hill
3. No traffic to be found.

I have never been pulled over during the day.

When I am pulled over I have my license ready and my MPG meter ready as well.

The first thing I am told or asked is why are you going 35 or 45 or 50 or whatever it was at the time they checked.
They sometimes will ask if I am drinking

I promptly state, I am getting 76mpg and am in no hurry to get home and show it and state there was no traffic and when I go up a series of hills my speed tends to get low, usually when I see a light or a car coming from behind I speed up and I tend to move over (even on 4 lane roads)

Occasionally (twice actually) the cop was interested in the MPG and techniques.

usually though when I have been pulled over I have been told that I have to get a warning because I was swerving around, usually that I was crossing the centerline. When I questioned a cop on this once (a mistake) I was told I crossed the centerline 3 times over 25 miles, depends on his definition of cross I guess.

My insight and cobalt are both a bit flakey on handling but my lane discipline is as good or better than the majority of folks that seem to drive around me.

I won't say that a large bump, wind gust or other thing might move me to touch the centerline but I believe that is the cops

cop out

as it were to provide reasoning for a bit of discipline and a warning (never have been ticketed) is to say you were driving erratically. Also in my case never had anything as major happen as this guy got, like interviews and the like. I have enough common sense that I am extremely defense in my driving and unless caught in the middle of no where, nobody much notices my hypermiling. This guy not so much.

So to make it clear, IF YOU DRIVE SLOWLY and GET PULLED OVER, you will get asked first for why you were driving slowly, (and usually if you are drunk) if it pans out you will automatically get told you were driving erratically. Seems to be standard operating procedure here and likely there as well.

Most cops feel SPEED by itself is erratic and in this case it probably was the same but they needed justification.

This is just as sad as the fact that police, government and people in Wisconsin don't know of any possible negative side affect of moving highways to 70mph from the 55/65mph we have today.

If you irritate a cop, he will say what he needs to, to ensure you don't bother him anymore.

This is no different than the drunk guy that first kept getting pulled over in his car and then on his bicycle and then on foot.

irritate a cop or two many and you will become a target to follow around and harass.

This is how the world works and always has, sometimes its for the better, other times, not so much.

Really depends and in reality we will never really know the truth in this case.

What I wonder is how many accidents has he been in? I wonder if its the same 0 for 1,000,000+ miles I have?

So if the commisioner is a **** with little understanding of the stautes, what she says goes anyway. Got it.

I've not been giving the "reports" on his crossing centerline absolute credibilty because, indeed, people can either "embellish" or make stuff up outright.

Where does it say there was lots of traffic? Where does it say there is no shoulder? :confused:

I replied to a couple of the comments off the article and within a few minutes my posts were deleted :)

A few here should check and see what happens if they dissagree with any of the flaming comments on that site :)

Too bad, banned and I wasn't even real nasty.

Try to spin it all you want. Here's the actual case upon appeal.

FACTS
Constans is an adult male in his late 50’s. At 11:42 p.m. on June 10, 2008,
Constans was driving home to Lester Prairie when he was stopped by a Carver County sheriff’s deputy on Highway 5 in Victoria for swerving over the center line and crossing the fog line. The officer’s record noted that Constans had been stopped four times in the last year for the same driving conduct. As a result of the June stop, the officer asked the department of public safety (department), driver and vehicle services division, to conduct a driver evaluation A-5 interview with Constans. During the interview with a driver improvement specialist Constans denied that he was crossing the center and fog line. He also denied that he had four previous encounters with the police for “erratic driving.” The driver improvement specialist noted that Constans had “very good knowledge” of traffic signs and laws and no further action against Constans was taken.

About 12:30 a.m. on May 8, 2011, a Lester Prairie police officer received a call from McLeod County that 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 saw a pickup matching the description, pulled it over, and identified the driver as Constans. Constans was driving home from his work as a disc jockey. The officer described to Constans why his driving conduct was concerning, Constans denied crossing the center line and explained that he did not travel faster than 48 miles per hour because his truck has high mileage. The officer told Constans that he would follow him home and continue to observe his driving conduct. Constans then continued west on Highway 7 driving 30 – 45 miles per hour. 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. The officer drove Constans the rest of the way home and noted that it “didn’t seem like [Constans] understood” safe driving conduct.

As a result of the May 8, 2011 stop, Constans was required to participate in a second A-5 interview. The driver-improvement specialist noted that Constans claimed that he drives slowly to save gas and that he planned to continue doing so. The specialist specifically told Constans, and he acknowledged in writing, that if he continued to drive slowly and to impede traffic, his license could be canceled as inimical to public safety. As a result of this second interview, Constans was required to take written and road driving tests, which he passed.

On July 19, 2012, a Carver County sheriff’s deputy observed Constans driving eastbound on the shoulder of Highway 7 at County Road 11. Constans’s hazard lights were not on, he appeared to be driving 40 miles per hour, and all four tires were completely over the fog line. The officer stopped Constans who then explained that he was driving on the shoulder and going slower than other traffic because he was trying to find “the sweet spot for gas mileage.” The officer noted that Constans had nine previous contacts with law enforcement since 2007 for similar reasons, and advised Constans that it is illegal to drive on the shoulder. The officer was concerned that Constans appeared unable to understand why impeding traffic is dangerous and that he “truly did not comprehend why it was an issue” to drive under the speed limit. The officer notified the department after the stop because there was a notation on Constans’s license to do so “for any and all driving issues.” Upon receiving this information, the department notified Constans that his driver’s license was canceled as inimical to public safety, effective August 13, 2012. Just before the cancellation took effect, Constans met with Pamela Moe, a driver-improvement specialistat the department, to discuss the cancellation notice. Moe explained that Constans’s license was canceled because (1) her office received another request to examine him, (2) her office received another report that Constans had been impeding traffic by driving too slowly and with all four wheels over the fog line, and (3) Constans had signed a statement acknowledging that if vehicle services received another report, his license would be canceled. Moe also explained to Constans why his driving conduct was dangerous and got the impression that he was not going to change his conduct. At the reinstatement hearing, Moe Testified that Constans’s license was canceled not because of her impressions, but because “[i]t was already set up that if we would get a report on him, it would get canceled.”

After the cancellation, Constans petitioned the district court to reinstate his license. See Minn. Stat. § 171.19 (2012). He argued that he was entitled to reinstatement and his driving was not inimical to public safety because it did not threaten physical harm or involve driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A reinstatement hearing was held on October 25, 2012. In addition to the testimony of the driver-improvement specialist, Moe, and the admission of the department and police files relating to Constans’s driving history and two A-5 interviews, Constans testified at the hearing. He explained that he has not had any car accidents in 35-plus years, and that he had received only one traffic citation in the past five years, which was for impeding traffic. He explained that he had been required to participate in the A-5 interviews because of erratic driving, but denied driving erratically on any occasion. Constans also testified that he signed the statement acknowledging that his license would be cancelled upon his next offense because he thought that if he did not, he would not get his license back. Constans also testified that he complies with traffic regulations when he is driving. He admitted that he might have crossed the fog line, but he did not think he was breaking any traffic laws because he was going above the minimum speed limit at all times and because crossing the fog line is discouraged, but not prohibited. Constans also explained that he sets his cruise control at 48 miles per hour because that is his vehicle’s “sweet spot” for gas mileage and because driving slowly keeps him from hitting “critters,”or animals,in “critter zones.” It is important for him to not hit any animals, Constans explained, because he only carries liability insurance on his truck. Constans also testified that he pulls over to the shoulder to let cars pass when he is driving slowly but that he drives the posted speed limit when he drives to visit his grandchildren, some of whom live out of state in California and North Dakota. Finally, Constans testified that he was willing to change his driving conduct by “get[ing] rid of the sweet spot” and driving the speed limit in the future. The district court noted that Constans’s driving conduct was concerning and that it violated Minnesota laws. Specifically, the district court cited Minnesota Statutes section 169.15, subdivision 1(2012), which provides that “[n]operson shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation,”and section 169.18, subdivision 7(a) (2012), which requires drivers on highways with clearly marked lanes to drive entirely within a single lane. The district court explained its understanding that, despite Constans’s driving history, the department was willing to consider reinstating his driver’s license “just simply based on two things: No. 1, that [he] complete a driver’s education class, which might be overkill, and, No. 2, that [he] modify [his] driving conduct and start driving 55 miles per hour on 55-mile-per-hour roadways.”

The district court emphasized that, based on testimony and the history of at least nine prior police contacts stemming from his driving conduct, it understood why the commissioner said “enough is enough.” The district court told Constans that it was “concerned about five, six cars coming up behind you and people that are antsy to get moving, one of them goes by you when they shouldn’t or when it isn’t safe to do so.” The district court found that it “cannot find that the commissioner’s decision to cancel [Constans’s] driving privileges is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,” and sustained the cancellation.

***

This case is not about driving slowly or using hypermiling as an excuse - as much as some would like to make it appear.

In many states it is illegal use the shoulder as a lane of travel. Apparently in Minnesota they call that area of roadway the "fog line".

He pissed off the cops by deliberately doing the same thing repeatedly. He insisted he has a right to drive erratically by not staying in lane. He refused to change his driving behavior despite numerous attempts to convince him that what he was doing was unsafe. They gave him every chance to reform his ways. But he wanted to rebel against authority.

The lesson here? If you pissed off the cops repeatedly, and you blew off the driver's ed specialist, and you couldn't convince the judge at your trial, and you lost your license and then ultimately lost your appeal - you went looking for trouble and you found it

Driving is not a right; it's a privilege granted by the state. By the time someone's case reaches the desk of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of their state, they've got a real reputation. And yes, the authorities do have the power to revoke your license - especially if you have an "attitude" that shows blatant disregard for highway safety.

So Frank, don't tell us the commissioner is an A******. That's just as rebellious and immature a stance to take as Mr. Constans did.

I DRIVE THAT ROAD. Do you?

I've NEVER seen heavy traffic on it.

It has shoulders.

I wonder what fe he gets?

At 30 MPH, I get 60 MPG--coasting!

It says 30-45 MPH, so it sounds like he was not maintaining a constant speed. If he was doing pulse-and-glide, it should have been more efficient to drive 40-55 or even 45-60, and stay in his lane.

So, he may have held up one car at a time, but he kept doing it, even when a police officer said he would follow him home.

Okay, seriously?

To clarify what I wrote before, if someone yells at me for something, I am going to stop doing that thing until I can avoid that person. If the highway patrol pulls me over for driving too slowly, I will drive the speed limit until they go away.