Ticketed for hypermiling
 

I wanted to get folks thoughts on this. I'll start by reviewing the incident while being as objective as I can. I make comments in later posts.

I was going home last night at about 5:45pm on US-31. It's a 4-lane divided non-interstate highway with a posted speed limit of 60 mph. It was dark outside. 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). 5 miles later, a sheriff pulled me over.

He asked why I was going so slow. I told him I just wasn’t in any big hurry. He said that he had just clocked me at 28 mph. 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. He asked if I had been drinking or was on any medication or was diabetic or having trouble seeing. I responded no, I just wasn’t in a hurry.
He asked me to get out of the vehicle and he asked me again if I had been drinking. I again responded that I had not, and that I don’t drink. He asked me to remove my glasses, which I did, and he administered what I assume was a sobriety test by asking me to follow his pen with my eyes as he moved it around. He then asked me if I would take a portable breathalyzer test. I said, “Sure.” I then took the breathalyzer test, and I assume that I passed. He then asked me to get make in my vehicle and wait, which I did. It seemed like I waited for quite a while (I estimate at least 10 minutes) before he came back to the window.

He said he was giving me a warning for doing the 28 mph in a 60 mph zone. I responded that I was not aware that there was a minimum speed limit. He responded that there was and that for a road like US-31 that has a 60 mph speed limit the minimum speed limit is 45 mph. He said interstates also have minimum speed limits and quoted the number, which I do not remember. He said county roads don’t have a minimum. I gain responded that I was not aware of that. The written warning was for Indiana Code 9-21-5-8.5 (shown below).

He then said that he was giving me a ticket for the earlier incident in which he said I had come to a complete stop in the middle of the road. That ticket was for Indiana Code 9-21-8-24(1) (shown below).

Both the warning and the ticket show my speed as 28 mph.

The fine is $118.50 and there is a court date of March 7.

The warning looks like total BS to me. Your truck isn't a low speed vehicle so it has nothing to do with that law. Sounds like he couldn't back up that minimum speed limit law. This is probably why its only a warning.

The ticket I think is justifable. He doesn't know that you're paying that close of attention to traffic and taking advantage of things when you've determined its safe. Obviously others are not paying close enough attention as they had to brake (that is no surprise though). Hes just trying to keep everyone safe which is understandable albeit a bit annoying since your driving techniques are not the norm and you are watching out for other drivers.

I guess we would need to just break it down to something simple.

were you breaking the law?
YES

Did you actually stop on the road?
No

Did he write you the correct ticket?
I'm not sure. It doesn't make sense you will get a ticket for stopping in the middle of the road when the "ticket" says 28.

Also you stated that there was no traffic. The way you explained what he said was.... at least to me... There was mad traffic dodging and weaving around you consistently..

Cops and law enforcement always try and catch people by inconsistencies. I don't see why you can't do the same for your defense.

Also, state just like you stated. I am a very big enthusiast on "aerodynamics" and how it plays on "gas mileage." I would show them that you are serious by showing your work and or mods. This may not fly, but I really don't see what other options you may have.

My special friend is a court clerk, so I hear peoples stories a lot. I will ask her later for any tips etc...

Did you know that there are so many laws that not even the law enforcement themselves knows this.

Live and learn, In my job line I am always more lenient towards people who admit they messed up, and then structure what they will do in the future to make sure it never happens again.

The same goes with a tail light. If you get a ticket for a broken one, and you fix it before court, the judge usually tosses the ticket (haven't heard of one where this hasn't happened.)

In your case, technically nothing is broken, Other peoples concepts of stretching your mpg may be . What is "broken" in your case is that you didn't know that the "MINIMUM" speed... (not posted anywhere btw)...

How are you going to fix this?
By not going under the minimum speed.

Always back up with you have to say with reason, or else it turns into I said/he said.... COPS ALWAYS WIN THOSE!

XXXXX

On a side note.... $108!!!!

There are 2 ways of thinking of this....

Most tickets are way more....

Or...

Imagine how much more aerodynamic my car can be for $108!!!!!

GOOD LUCK!

Here's my thinking.

The minimum speed limit thing as fas as I can tell is total BS. I read through the Indiana code on speed limits and no such mention of unposted minium speed limits are mentioned. If there is such an animal I don't know where to find it. If somebody can show me where it is in the law, I'll back down.

Doax is right about the "low speed vehicle" thing. There's a difference between a "low speed vehicle" and a vehicle traveling at low speed. Based on what I found, "low speed vehicle" is a term used to describe a class of vehicles such as farm tractors, gold carts, etc. which are incapable of high speeds.

At this point, I'm not sure I did break the other law. It reads,

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).

I did find another section of the law which may be applicable:

I don't know as this is relavant at all, since I wasn't cited for it but let's go with it anyway. I could see where it's arguable if I was cited for this. 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.

Unfortunately, ignorance of the law is no excuse. From what I've seen and heard, most jurisdictions prefer not to try cases. They often have a pre-trial conference with you and a screener, whose job is to try to get you to agree to a plea bargain. If that's the case, it's your best bet to get the charges reduced. The question is, what could they reduce them to, to satisfy both you and the state? You're already getting off very lightly - so much so, it may not be worth your time to take the time off from work to go to court.

If you do go to court, your best bet is the officer won't show, and the charges wil be dismissed. Otherwise, it's all downhill from there.

Wouldn't this go against what the cop told you?

No, he said the ticket was for the stopping and the warning was for the 28 in a 60.

I think he has a shot.. If there is nothing stating what the cop said of 45mph, this can be pointed out.

There is right and wrong, then there is breaking the law.

If he can prove he did not break the law, then he does not deserve a ticket for
"breaking the law."

I would only go this rout if you are 100% sure that this is the case...

nothing worst then thinking of a defense, then getting it shoved back in your face.

At this point, if he chooses to plead not guilty, he can only prepare until march.

Once I got a seatbelt ticket, and i was not wearing my lap belt. I fought it, came up with a consistent story and stuck with it.

The ticket was dismissed, even with the officer present.

And the reason was.... THE COP WAS INCONSISTENT, where I was very detail oriented on what was said and what happened.

I filtered out what I didn't want the judge to know, and called it a day.

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.

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. The only thing I could see is if he wanted to argue that the 28 in a 60 was a violation of IC 9-21-8-24(1) (which is not what he said at the scene). If that were the case then I guess it's a matter of my opinion against his as to whether the 28 in a 60 constituted a "slow down that is not reasonably safe".

I'm hesitant to say something negative against a law officer, but I'm wondering if he saw me, was sure he'd caught a drunk and then when I wasn't he was like, "Something is fishy here. He was doing something. I need to get him for something."

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.

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:

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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...:confused:
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...:thumbup:

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

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.

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.

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...

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 !

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".

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.

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

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.

.

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...:o

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.

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. :thumbup:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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? :mad: I'll take my chances representing myself, and I have, and it works (sometimes).