Ticketed for hypermiling

[joejoe317]

I think that may soften the cops defense; however, you are talking about the popcorn kernel that fell on the floor.

If you go with that defense, what are you going to lead in with for the actual citation?

are you making a point that the cop doesn't know other "laws" so how can his judgement of "safe" speeds etc be valid?

or do you think you will just let them know it was a mistake on your behalf? or that there isnt a min speed that you could find anywhere (also going against what the cop said)

This is really debatable just because its open for interpretation.

From the way the story sounded, is that you are getting to a point where the cops version and your version are different.

Do you know the literal number of cars that passed you in a period of time?

anything will help.

if 3 cars pass you in 15 minutes, I wouldn't really consider that blocking or impeding.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On a side note:

What is up with cops taking forever when they pull you over?

Also why is the court date 3 months away?

haha

[slowmover]

Get an attorney. Keep the violations off of your record. Period.

He said that some cars behind me had had to step on their brakes and that cars were passing me left and right. He said he had first spotted me back earlier where he said that I came to a complete stop in the middle of the road. I stated that I hadn’t completely stopped and he responded that I was going really slow, like 2 mph.

Is the thing in a nutshell. He's covered himself. You haven't.

Why you were doing something didn't add up. If you'd said, the truck is running badly it would be more consistent with normal expectations. You weren't drunk or having a meds problem, so maybe you have some weird sex thing going. No telling. The catch-all pertaining laws cover judgment calls made by the LEO.

Weird driving and weird story = slam dunk fine due.

Get an attorney. Have a better story next time.

.

[redyaris]

Originally Posted by 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".

I still think you will need some traffic flow infomation to present at trial so that your claim is backed by evidence. without this traffic flow evidence it is your word against to officers and the judge can go eather way. you will also need to prepare some probing questions for the officer when he takes the stand. as you are not likly to take the stand yourself you will need to enter evidence that suports your case. See if you can find a rules of the court document that gives you a clear understanding of the order of events in the trial and when to say what...

[Frank Lee]

I don't know if your state is different but I thought it was common knowledge that highways have minimum speed limits of 45mph unless posted otherwise, and they do not have to post the 45 mph minimum although once in a while I will see such a sign.

The cop screwed up with the "slow vehicle" bit- totally misapplied.

P.S. DON'T say anything about aerodynamics or hypermiling or any such. Judges couldn't care less about that.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by joejoe317

On a side note:

What is up with cops taking forever when they pull you over?

Also why is the court date 3 months away?

haha

I recall being pulled over by some punk cop that was still wet behind the ears, supposedly for speeding. He got my driver's license and went back to his car, and I don't know if he was finishing a four-course meal, composing a novel, surfing net porn, or what but it took him an eternity to get back to me with my license. That was a huge mistake on his part, because if there would have been a pressure gauge on my head while I was waiting one could have seen it climb steadily into the red danger zone. When he finally got there I ripped that license right outta his hand and lit into him in a way that I rarely do, then started up and floored it outta there and got sideways like, oh, you might see on the Dukes of Hazzard, except I didn't catch any air.

Went to court and beat the little dummy out of the ticket too.

[redyaris]

Most if not all of the minimum speed laws I have seen are context based and in order to be charged or convicted you have to be doing something really outragious. when in really bad wind or weather conditions [8" of snow and 0 visability] I have driven on a highway with a posted speed limit of 110 km/hr at a speed of 40km/hr passing other cars going 30km/h, and the only thing passing me are 18 wheeler transport trucks going 50km/h and a few 4 wheel drives that are going 60km/h. in fact I have yet to see an absolute minimum speed limit.

[ecomodded]

Trying to eco drive a hummer does not make it a eco car or a good idea.

I realize your trying to make lemon-aid from lemons but
you need a more fuel efficient vehicle D Dave, kiss driving 28 mph in a 60 zone good-bye If you were to drive a economy car you could save fuel while maintaining the minimum speed limit.

[California98Civic]

I would go, tell them you slowed down but did not stop, tell them you were careful of traffic. Plea your good safety record and clear driving history and let them know that you now know what the law is. Hope for the leniency they don't have to give and that current budget constraints don't encourage. But be prepared to just pay the ticket and forget it. Chalk it up to experience. I got a tint ticket in another part of Cali that was not fair, but I paid it and forgot it because it was not worth the journey to fight and the aggravation. Sorry you got singled-out. I drive closer to the speed limits because I worry about this kind of police attention.

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by 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.

Irrelevant. You're charged with impeding traffic, not with driving a low speed vehicle.

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

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.

Irrelevant. You're charged with impeding traffic, not with driving a low speed vehicle.

Bottom line. Were you or weren't you going 10 mph in a 60 mph zone? Once that's established from the officer's testimony and yours, you've got maybe a 1 in 1000 chance of convincing a judge that driving at 10 mph (or 28 mph) on a 60 mph road in the dark, with dry roads and no hazards is a safe thing to do.

With attorney's fees at ~$175/hour, hiring an attorney to fight the what, $105? fine doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Frank Lee]

I third the notion of no attorney. They like to chit chat about everything under the sun and then when you get the bill you find all that small talk was billable? I'll take my chances representing myself, and I have, and it works (sometimes).