Ticketed for hypermiling

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by joejoe317

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

Dave wasn't cited for dropping below a minimum speed. He was cited for "Sec. 7. A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law. " - impeding or blocking the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. Since the officer saw other traffic forced to take evasive action, Dave's toast (IMHO). 45 mph is reasonable in a 60 mph zone. 28 isn't, and 'nearly stopped' isn't going to be reasonable to the judge.

[redyaris]

Quote:
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;
(2) turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway; or
(3) change from one (1) traffic lane to another;
unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety. Before making a movement described in this section, a person shall give a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by the movement and give an appropriate stop or turn signal in the manner provided in sections 27 through 28 of this chapter if any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.
1 the fact that you slowed down is not disputed. The only issue before the judge is ...unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety...
the question is then; what evidence will the state bring to trial and does it prove that the movement was done without ...reasonable safety. the Law only prohibits slowing down or stoping when unsafe to do so.
What you may have to do is get some trafic flow information on that peace of highway for the time of day you where driving, in order for show that the officer was in error. If you deside to go to trial you should lern some of the basic rules of the court and be as dispasinat as posible and repectful of the court. Most judges will be quit helpfull if you present yourself as a well prepaired amatour. See if you can get some free legal advice on the best way to present your case...

[Milwaukee]

I know that highway's min speed is 45. This come from Michigan road book.

Never say about country road or cities road min speed. But I image you would get ticket for impeach traffic in city

[CigaR007]

Even if there is no stated minimum speed, 10 mph is low. I would have put the hazards on and pulled over to the shoulder at that speed as a way to clearly signal my intentions to the oncoming cars.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

If he wants to claim that my "stopping" was in violation of IC 9-21-8-24(1), I believe I'm on firm ground that I am definitely not, because there was no one behind me and therefore my action was reasonably safe.

How do you think you'll get away with the "stopping in the road, being passed left and right " parts of the officer's story ?

Can you prove that to be false ?
(say, with a dash-camera ?)

If you can't prove your claims, don't take it to court.

[joejoe317]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

Dave wasn't cited for dropping below a minimum speed. He was cited for "Sec. 7. A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law. " - impeding or blocking the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. Since the officer saw other traffic forced to take evasive action, Dave's toast (IMHO). 45 mph is reasonable in a 60 mph zone. 28 isn't, and 'nearly stopped' isn't going to be reasonable to the judge.

So then this would basically mean... His word vs the cops?

Sec. 7. A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law.

breaking it down

A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic...

Cop stated there was traffic....
"He said that some cars behind me had had to step on their brakes and that cars were passing me left and right. "

If the cop is correct, then a ticket is warranted.

However Diesel Dave says....
"
I looked in my rearview mirror and didn’t see any cars behind me and decided to experiment a little with engine off coasting. I accelerated up to about 50 mph and shut the engine off. I kept coasting and coasting (probably about a mile or so). Since there wasn’t anyone behind me and I wasn’t in a big hurry I decided to milk it for all it was worth and coasted down to about 10 mph or so before restarting and continuing on my way. I resume my normal pulse and glide technique, going from about 28 mph to 45 mph and back, keeping an eye on the cars behind me, and making sure I wasn’t holding up anybody too much (allowing them to pass on the left)."

I can see Dave being innocent until he says... "and making sure I wasn’t holding up anybody too much (allowing them to pass on the left)."

This part of it...

"except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law. "

doesn't have anything to do with your situation..

I'm sorry Dave, but I would side with you until the point where it coincides with the written law....

from this

" impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic."

and this....

"28 mph to 45 mph and back, keeping an eye on the cars behind me, and making sure I wasn’t holding up anybody too much (allowing them to pass on the left)."

Even though you are being safe, you are technically impeding and blocking traffic that is in your lane to go a normal speed, even if you were allowing them to pass.

I don't want you to have to pay a fine or even have a ticket with points on your record. That sucks. I think the best that can be done is getting a reduction, or possibly having the judge understand sometimes people just don't know, and it was for scientific research. You were obviously doing something very odd to most people, so maybe an explanation that the cop explained to you that it is 45 min on this road, and there is no limit on other roads etc, and you will never do it again because now you know...

ITS THE OLD... "I DIDN'T KNOW I COULDN'T DO THAT" defense. (If you watched Chappelle show in the past you may know what I'm referencing)

I can tell you that I have learned from your mistake, because I did not know you could not do that.

I figured if it was safe, and there was 0 traffic that it would be okay.

I know when I P&G and I see a car I will usually try and speed up a little bit more and start P&G at more reasonable speeds...

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by CigaR007

Even if there is no stated minimum speed, 10 mph is low. I would have put the hazards on and pulled over to the shoulder at that speed as a way to clearly signal my intentions to the oncoming cars.

There was no relavant oncoming traffic (it's a divided highway). And there were no cars behind me for a very long way. There wasn't anybody that needed to see 4 ways.

[CigaR007]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

There was no relavant oncoming traffic (it's a divided highway). And there were no cars behind me for a very long way. There wasn't anybody that needed to see 4 ways.

I believe you, except I would have done it either way, think of it as a reflex maneuver. That way, it makes it hard for the cop to find a motive to pull you over.

It sucks, I know. Best of luck in preparing your defense !

[Diesel_Dave]

Now that I've thought about it some more the written warning may actually help me ( the one for low speed vehicle. The officer verbally told me I was in violation of the minimum speed law. At this point, I don't know that law to exist. He then gave me a written warning for operating a low speed vehicle on a road with a >35 mph speed limit. I don't have a low speed vehicle, hence, I obviously didn't commit the infraction he gave me a written warning for--nor could I have.

So I can point out:
1) The officer verbally told me I was in violation of a law that did not exist.
2) The officer issued me a warning for an infraction I did not commit, and was incapable of committing.

Given those to things, I think it might be much easier to call into question the officer's judgement on whether my slow down was "reasonably safe".

[Diesel_Dave]

By the way everybody, thanks for all the comments. I really wanted to get everybody thoughts on this (positive and negative), and I really am not trying to be difficult or testy with anyone. Sorry if I've come accross that way.

It's also caused me to rethink my driving strategy and think about whether I DO have to make some changes for better safety.