Ticketed for hypermiling

[redyaris]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

As far as how many cars passed me I don't know the exact number. I don't usually count. Plus, I don't see how it's all that relevant how many, as long as they could all pass easily in the open left lane. Remember, we got two lanes in each direction. If there were so many cars that both lanes were blocked behind me that would be one thing. I keep my speed up closer to the speed limit when that situation does happen.

As far as cops looking for something odd or different, I completely agree. They're trained to do that and SHOULD do that. I have no problem whatsoever with the officer pulling me over for suspicion.

The relevants of the time of day, location, traffic count is that if you want the judge to agree with you that the movement was safe he/she will need some evidence to judge which statement is more credable, yours or the peace officers. In the abcents of evidence it's a coin toss. contact the highway department they ususaly have that type of info. I think you have a very good chance of being found not guilty. just keep this in mind when making your desision about going to trial; " ...evidence and argument on the evidence...". told to me by a lawer. this statement has helped me over the years to undersrand the legal system.

[Diesel_Dave]

Not sure how relavant it is, but I did find some traffic data from the Indiana DOT. It lists average number of vehicles per day. The highway I was on there's an average of 9,400 vehicles per day, which works out to be an average of 6.5 vehicles/minute. Compare that the the nearby interstae, which runs almost parallel. It has 63,350 vehicles per day (44 per minute). Both the interstate and the highway are the same size (4-lane divided).

For the time of the incident (6pm) in the direction I was travelling the average is 5 vehicles/minute on average.

Again, I'm not sure hoe relavant it would be in court, but that gives you all some idea of what Iwe're talking about in terms of traffic load.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

Here's my thinking.

With regard to the first incident (the "stopping"), if there's no one behind me how can that not be considered "reasonably safe"? That incident is the one he said the ticket was for (not the going 28 in a 60).

In my book I'm not "impeding or blocking" the normal and reasonable movement of traffic if the left lane is clear and people can pass me easily.

My father had the opposite situation happen to him several years ago, a guy slammed on his brakes and came to a stop on the highway causing my father on a motorcyle to glance against his rear taillight because he couldn't slow quickly enough, the ferriing on the bike was junk and the cop said it was his fault because

You can stop at any time on any road if you feel there is reason to do so.

In this case there was no reason for him to stop.

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

My father had the opposite situation happen to him several years ago, a guy slammed on his brakes and came to a stop on the highway causing my father on a motorcyle to glance against his rear taillight because he couldn't slow quickly enough, the ferriing on the bike was junk and the cop said it was his fault because

You can stop at any time on any road if you feel there is reason to do so.

In this case there was no reason for him to stop.

Sure, so in that case the guy stopped and couldn't do so with reasonable safety because he did it suddenly and there was somebody right behind him. That's what the law is there for. In my case when I "stopped" there wasn't anybody behind me, therefore, it was reasonably safe.

[Arragonis]

The simple answer is that the cop car will probably have a camera, and will be able to show what you did. If you are sure of your case legally then go to the court and argue, otherwise (or if you don't have the time or it is inconvenient) then pay it and walk away and avoid that situation from now on.

I have to tap that IMHO coasting down to 10 MPH, or anything under 40 MPH, on a "highway" seems a little too extreme - it is not something I do. I wouldn't coast to 10 or less except when coasting for a light and even then only when in town and with my foot covering the brake pedal - pedestrians always seem to want to get a "free ride" on my bonnet.

The problem is that normal people (i.e. morons) don't notice the speed of the vehicle they are catching until it is between them and their headlights - or it seems that way.

Honestly, I have cruised at 55 (PSL 70, normal traffic 60) and had cars only notice me at the last moment and swerve to the outside lane. These days if I intend to cruise slow or coast I find something big, slow and visible to follow so that people see it and move over.

Even with that I still get people only paying attention at the last moment.

[user removed]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The simple answer is that the cop car will probably have a camera, and will be able to show what you did. If you are sure of your case legally then go to the court and argue, otherwise (or if you don't have the time or it is inconvenient) then pay it and walk away and avoid that situation from now on.

I have to tap that IMHO coasting down to 10 MPH, or anything under 40 MPH, on a "highway" seems a little too extreme - it is not something I do. I wouldn't coast to 10 or less except when coasting for a light and even then only when in town and with my foot covering the brake pedal - pedestrians always seem to want to get a "free ride" on my bonnet.

The problem is that normal people (i.e. morons) don't notice the speed of the vehicle they are catching until it is between them and their headlights - or it seems that way.

Honestly, I have cruised at 55 (PSL 70, normal traffic 60) and had cars only notice me at the last moment and swerve to the outside lane. These days if I intend to cruise slow or coast I find something big, slow and visible to follow so that people see it and move over.

Even with that I still get people only paying attention at the last moment.

I can only guess that all of the people who pay attention have moved back to the other side of the pond, cause there ain't none here.

regards
Mech

[user removed]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

In my case when I "stopped" there wasn't anybody behind me, therefore, it was reasonably safe.

This is your principle defense, but include the fact that you did not come to a complete stop. You knew it was clear behind you before you slowed down, and coasting to a lower speed in itself is not a willful illegal act, especially since you were not aware of the minimum speed requirement.

Kind of hard getting hit in the rear end coasting to a lower speed, without having some real Moron behind you. Heck I have people pass me and accelerate when I am coasting to a red light. I guarantee you the law does not require me to wear my brakes out prematurely. If the driver behind me wants to burn extra fuel then burn up his brakes, he's got putrid all over his head and no brain within.

regards
Mech

[jonbest]

I have to third (fourth?) the no-lawyer take, I've certainly been part of some litigations with and without attorneys- the majority of judges, at least in VA/NC, will generally help an HONEST, RESPECTFUL, and CONCISE pro-se defendant, at least with process.

I think the right tack's been outlined here, it's just keeping your cool, saying what you need to say, and staying focused.

Most judges know smokescreen a mile off.

He warned you for something incorrectly?
Judge: "Sounds totally reasonable to me, the officer thought it was a problem but wasn't 100% sure on the law, so he didn't ticket you. He probably wouldn't have issued the warning if there was nobody around." Score one for the officer, and you haven't even talked about the ticket yet.

He told you a speed limit existed that you weren't aware of?
Judge (now annoyed) "And whether he should or should not have issued that ticket, he did not, again showing you leniency in the field. It sound like you're lucky to walk in here with ONE ticket. I've heard enough."

Avoid those issues like the plague.
Officer: "I observed him at what I believed to be a complete stop."

You: "I probably did go under the 28 miles per hour on the citation at some point, but in my effort to recover from my own stupid mistake of running nearly out of gas, since traffic was very light, I coasted down to about that speed, then accelerated back up."

<somebody says something about minimum speed>
"You know, the officer mentioned that, and I hadn't heard of it, so I looked it up. Turns out he was 100% correct that there is a law, but it stipulates when posted, so he was correct in not issuing that citation. But I certainly learned something from it."

More advice is probably overkill here, though, I just have trouble not jumping in.

Jon

[Arragonis]

The ticket price seems sneaky too - its kind of set to make you think about paying to avoid the hassle of taking a day off to face court where you may or may not win.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

I have a very high regard for law officers and I also believe in being honest.

The latter is good, the former maybe not so much. But then perhaps I've been pulled over by sniveling power freak jerks in uniform too many times. I once got a ticket from a cop who had passed me illegally on the right, running into my car in the process, so that he would not have to pay for the damage he did to my car. Nope, sorry, I have no expectation of competency from any local law enforcement officer. State cops I tend to assume are professionals; locals, less so. Far, far less.

That said, I don't think this cop was one of those. My take: he pulled you over for legitimate reasons. He tested you for the effects of drugs or alcolhol for legitimate reasons. He observed you operating your vehicle erratically. Although you were not impaired, you admitted operating the vehicle 'erratically' in the course of the discussion with the officer.

You coasted down to 10mph on a 60mph road, at night, engine off. You got caught doing it.

Speaking of which, if you go to court, don't tell them you were operating the vehicle with the engine off! That's against the law too in most places.

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

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.

I think that pretty much captures it.

As to the amount of the fine: if it's anything like the speeding ticket my wife just got, most of the total is tack-ons like processing fees, court fees, blah blah blah. Even if they reduce the fine you'll still owe all that stuff. I'd consider fighting it if the points are going to cause you woe, otherwise I'd just 'rub my neck and write 'em a check.'