Ticketed for hypermiling

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

28 in a 60 mph zone is breaking the law

What law? If it's illegal I'll admit it, but I don't think it's a law. This wasn't the interstate remember, this was a highway out in the country. I've searched and can't find anything on unposted minimum speed limits on non-interstates/freeways.

I did find this:

IC 9-21-5-8
Minimum speed limits
Sec. 8. Whenever the Indiana department of transportation within the department's jurisdiction or a local authority within the authority's jurisdiction determines, based on an engineering and traffic investigation, that slow speeds on a part of a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the Indiana department of transportation or local authority may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which a person may not drive a vehicle except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. A limit determined under this subsection and declared by appropriate resolution, regulation, or ordinance becomes effective when appropriate sign or signals giving notice of the limit of speed are erected along the affected part of a highway.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.

It says that it becomes effective, "when appropriate sign or signals giving notice of the limit of speed are erected". I read that as, "no sign, no minimum limit"

And furthermore, he said the minimum speed limit was 45mph in that 60mph zone. If that's the case how am I supposed to know what the minimum speed limit is on other roads in other speed limits. If you can be ticketed for going to slow, even if it's safe, you need to know what the limit is, right?

[Daox]

I'd have to say you did break the law per the officer's judgement. He saw you as slowing down enough to not be 'reasonably safe'.

IC 9-21-8-24
Slowing down, turning from a direct course, and changing lanes; performance with reasonable safety; signal Sec. 24. A person may not:
(1) slow down or stop a vehicle;

The only problem here is reasonable is always up to whoever's judgement at the time. You see it as reasonably safe because you were looking out for traffic and being mindful of the situation. The officer can't know that, and if I were him I wouldn't assume you were doing that knowing how most people drive.

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by Daox

I'd have to say you did break the law per the officer's judgement. He saw you as slowing down enough to not be 'reasonably safe'.



The only problem here is reasonable is always up to whoever's judgement at the time. You see it as reasonably safe because you were looking out for traffic and being mindful of the situation. The officer can't know that, and if I were him I wouldn't assume you were doing that knowing how most people drive.

If your talking about the 28 in a 60, then I agree then it comes down to my opinion vs his on the definition of "reasonably safe". But, at the time, he stated that it was for the "stopping" incident.

Oh, and by the way, the ticket says the court appearence is for 7pm, so I wouldn't have to take of work to go.

[joejoe317]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

28 in a 60 mph zone is breaking the law, let alone 10, or 2 mph. I don't see any argument that will convince a judge that Diesel Dave wasn't breaking the law. Best bet there is to admit it, and promise not to do it again, but why waste the officer's, prosecuting attorney's, and judge's time to tell them that?

I don't think your safety argument will fly, Dave. By the time your nearly stopped vehicle appears in someone's headlights, you're an immediate danger to them.

He has been researching and is finding differently, can you point him in the direction stating that it is against the law?

[joejoe317]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

I'm not interested in making up any stories to get out of a ticket. I have a very high regard for law officers and I also believe in being honest. What I am saying is, based on my current understanding, I did not break the law.

Uhh... I just re-read my post... It sounded kinda bad... haha

Yeah, I didn't mean to make up a story. In my case I never did. I just told him the story and with-held other info... Like the fact the cop seized my wallet because he saw 2 state licences. I withheld irrelevant info... info that courts don't need to hear.
That is what I learned to do from my special friend.

What is the ticket actually for? does it say exactly?

if its a defined law, and the cop messed up... I would say that would not hold up very well in court.

[UFO]

I'd be sorely tempted to take it to court and see what happens. From what you have posted, I'm not sure the officer can demonstrate you broke a law.

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

By the time your nearly stopped vehicle appears in someone's headlights, you're an immediate danger to them.

I'll firmly disagree whith this. This was a flat, open stretch a road where you can see proably close to a mile or more out in front of you and my lights were on even though my engine was off.

[redyaris]

I can only speek to my own experiance in Canada, however I suspect the fudemantal legal principals are the same. what you may want to do first is get "disclosure" from the court, prosicuters office, clark of the court... on what facts/charges the state will be presenting at trial. I have defended my self on a trafic ticket with the defence that the charge does not match the facts in the case, and the judge agreed with me. The desision of the judge will be based on what facts are presented at trial, not on who thinks your inocent or not.
If based on the facts, you have a case, then defend yourself. If not, pay the fine and consider it a very expensive driving lesson.

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by joejoe317

Uhh... I just re-read my post... It sounded kinda bad... haha

Yeah, I didn't mean to make up a story. In my case I never did. I just told him the story and with-held other info... Like the fact the cop seized my wallet because he saw 2 state licences. I withheld irrelevant info... info that courts don't need to hear.
That is what I learned to do from my special friend. .

Wouldn't that go against, "...to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" part?

Originally Posted by joejoe317

What is the ticket actually for? does it say exactly?

if its a defined law, and the cop messed up... I would say that would not hold up very well in court.

The ticket says it's for violation of 9-21-8-24(1) (which I quoted earlier).

[joejoe317]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

Wouldn't that go against, "...to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" part?




The ticket says it's for violation of 9-21-8-24(1) (which I quoted earlier).

Sorry, I read the whole post and missed it.

Yeah, tell the whole truth on what they are prosecuting you for. The officer taking my other permit was brought up later, and was irrelevant to me wearing my safety belt. It proved to help me later, because it made the officer look bad.

It sounds like you are doing the right thing in researching. Once you know exactly what is meant by the ticket, you will know if your facts will be relevant or not.

Good luck!