Cop didn't care about CHL - still wrote me two tickets.

[rider]

Its because you ride a Triumph and not a Harley. LEO's like Harleys

This guy was a bike cop. Told me during the stop he had to drive the car that day b/c his bike wouldn't start that morning. Gotta love HD tech. And for the myth that bike cops let riders off easy.. about as true as CHLs get you out of tickets.

Here is my two cents, take it for what it is worth......$0.02.

FIrst the Cop asked you a question where he believed (or should have believed) who could have incriminated yourself. He did not advise you of your miranda rights so any action based upon your "admission" would have been illegal and therefor thrown out.

Second, the Cop has the burden of proof that both your speed and your lane change were unsafe. (You should review the elements of the offense and if you didn't mean ALL of them, you did not commit the offense). What were the conditions... Was there heavy traffic, you were weaving in and out of traffic, etc or was there noone on the road or was the closest car 100, 200 feet away, etc.
Same for the unsafe speed, first, he doesn't know how fast you were going and as mentioned in point 1, he is not supposed to use what you told him (different story if you would have been mirandized). If he cited you on the unsafe speed based on your "admission", again see point 1

Bryan

He didn't base it on the admission - he explicitly told me so. He based it on this lovely catch-all ticket they have that if the cop believes my speed was unsafe, he can cite me. FWIW, traffic was light (11:45 on a Tuesday). I wasn't weaving. There was not enough cars on the road to really be weaving.

And to address your later post - it is much easier to take the 90 day probation, 12 hours of defensive driving, and pay the $400. Both tickets get off my record. A lawyer would cost too much and I'm not comfortable risking a guilty judgment resulting in my insurance premiums on 3 vehicles to skyrocket. Gotta love being 22.

I guess the real answer is not to bring your 955 on the highway - b/c it's impossible to go 60. Or I could just take the cop's advice and run (sarcasm).

[SCone]

Agreed, more to do with the 90 mph speed than anything else.... contrary to popular belief, you really can tell when someone is going too fast. Might not be able to say how fast, but you can tell.

[Originalist]

[quote="rider]He didn't base it on the admission - he explicitly told me so. He based it on this lovely catch-all ticket they have that if the cop believes my speed was unsafe, he can cite me. FWIW, traffic was light (11:45 on a Tuesday). I wasn't weaving. There was not enough cars on the road to really be weaving.

And to address your later post - it is much easier to take the 90 day probation, 12 hours of defensive driving, and pay the $400. Both tickets get off my record. A lawyer would cost too much and I'm not comfortable risking a guilty judgment resulting in my insurance premiums on 3 vehicles to skyrocket. Gotta love being 22.

I guess the real answer is not to bring your 955 on the highway - b/c it's impossible to go 60. Or I could just take the cop's advice and run (sarcasm).[/quote]


Gotcha, he applied Prima facie speed law (in a nut shell - based on the conditions, was your speed reasonable and prudent, if he answered no, then the cite was legit) Forgive me for my crudeness and non specific ability, I am going from memory as best I can because I didnt bring my enforcement books TDY with me. Cool, he is one of the good guys. And it really isnt a catch all ticket, he still has to prove it was unreasonable and unprudent. What about the unsafe lane change (what was his basis for this)? If it was just because you didn't use a turn signal, there is a seperate offense for that (one not so severe).

Speaking as some one who has had the priveledge of being on both sides of the fence on this one, I agree the the 90 days, DD and the $$$ one time is alot better then repeat $$$$ for a LONG time. May I recommend drivesafely.com, it is Texas approved, relatively inexpensive and work at your own pace. Just get your Driving Record yourself, it is cheaper....Dont ask how I know!!

A lawyer most likely would have gotten (for a fee) you the same thing you got yourself (for free).

Bryan

[LedJedi]

I dont mean to sound terse here, but....

you WERE speeding and I would say 90 in a 60 or whatever the speed was is pretty much reckless and i would think any lane change at 90 miles an hour is inherently unsafe.

then again, i've been told i drive like a grandma.

[KBCraig]

you WERE speeding and I would say 90 in a 60 or whatever the speed was is pretty much reckless and i would think any lane change at 90 miles an hour is inherently unsafe.

then again, i've been told i drive like a grandma.

You really wouldn't like the Autobahn.

I've changed lanes at 120+, and done so "briskly" in order to get out of the way of faster traffic. There's nothing inherently unsafe about either the speed, nor changing lanes at speed.

[LedJedi]

you WERE speeding and I would say 90 in a 60 or whatever the speed was is pretty much reckless and i would think any lane change at 90 miles an hour is inherently unsafe.

then again, i've been told i drive like a grandma.

You really wouldn't like the Autobahn.

I've changed lanes at 120+, and done so "briskly" in order to get out of the way of faster traffic. There's nothing inherently unsafe about either the speed, nor changing lanes at speed.

oh yeah?.... ask your grammy that same question and see what she says!

LOL

/concede that it's probably more a matter of opinion than fact.

[WildBill]

Everytime they ask me, "Do you know how fast you were going?" I give the same reply, "No, I thought was your job?"

Ha! As a stand up once said... "No I don't know how fast I was going. Snorting coke on the steering column tends to have its OWN challenges that require my attention!"

Try the standard answer; "two beers."

The reason that I like this forum is that it is soooo educational.

[The Annoyed Man]

I've changed lanes at 120+, and done so "briskly" in order to get out of the way of faster traffic. There's nothing inherently unsafe about either the speed, nor changing lanes at speed.

I have to respectfully disagree. No, you're right, there isn't anything inherently unsafe in speed, or changing lanes at speed, as long as you are trying to merge back into traffic that is going relatively fast. Two spacecraft in earth orbit are both going over 17,000 mph when they attempt to dock, but relative to one another, their speed differential is very low. Trying to merge back into slower traffic from 120+ is fine if the slower traffic is going 100+, with a 20 mph speed differential; but it is more dangerous when merging from 90 mph back into 60 mph with a 30 mph speed differential. Also, on the Autobahn you are talking about driving past and around cars at 120+, when those cars are accustomed to being passed by people going that fast; they have a reasonable expectation of needing to yield room for a faster moving car to merge into their lane; and they have the driver training to deal with it. Add to that the fact that the Autobahn is without a speed limit (or the limit is so high as to be meaningless). There is a dictum on the racetrack that it is incumbent on the driver/rider making the pass to make a safe pass; but this dictum is dependent on the notion that the person who is being passed is also a qualified racer and won't be startled into a ditch by getting stuffed by a faster driver diving into the next corner while executing the pass. And that is on a racetrack, not on the street. You can't have the same expectations that you would have for racetrack driving (or Germany's speed limitless Autobahn) as you would have on a Texas state highway. American drivers, for better or for worse, by virtue of the speed limits we have, are for the most part untrained in having to respond to the maneuvers of other drivers around them going that fast, and since the laws forbid that kind of driving, it is unreasonable to expect them to be so trained.

I would add that your assertion that there is nothing inherently unsafe about either the speed or such maneuvers is also entirely based upon whether or not your particular vehicle is engineered to withstand and safely absorb the forces generated, even assuming that other drivers are prepared for your moves. If you are driving a high performance car (say a Corvette or a Porsche) with well sorted out suspension, sticky tires, and high performance brakes, then yes, the maneuvers can be relatively safe. If you are driving a 15 year old Honda Civic (assuming you could get it to go that fast), or an 8 year old Ford Explorer with slightly worn stock tires, stock suspension, and stock brakes, then it would be absolutely idiotic to drive like that. If the driver you're passing is an 80 year old grandma who startles easily, then you have created an unsafe situation. Add to that that you are expecting drivers untrained in the macho art of the autobahn, driving vehicles that are not set up for high speed stability nor high speed maneuvering, to be able to deal with your desire to break the law at will - which brings me to the next point.

In this particular case on a Texas state highway, the speed limit was 60 mph - not 260 mph - and the drivers who are obeying the speed limit have a reasonable expectation that the drivers around them will also obey the speed limit, or at least stay close to it, which the law requires of all drivers, whether or not they have secret fantasies of being the next Wayne Gardner or Mario Andretti. After all, your driver's license represents a social contract you have with your society not to break laws which all are held to, regardless of race, creed, or religion. No driver has the moral authority to place other drivers at risk simply because they think of themselves as superior asphalt warriors who condescend to those people who insist that your drivers license is a privilege, and not a right - and you do place them at risk when you make them respond, without proper training or equipment, to your illegal actions.

That's just my 2¢.

[Commander Cody]

NEVER admit to going faster than the posted speed. Pay your dues and don't do it again.

[KBCraig]

In this particular case on a Texas state highway, the speed limit was 60 mph - not 260 mph - and the drivers who are obeying the speed limit have a reasonable expectation that the drivers around them will also obey the speed limit, or at least stay close to it, which the law requires of all drivers, whether or not they have secret fantasies of being the next Wayne Gardner or Mario Andretti.

That is a dangerous assumption, one that is just as foolish as assuming that all the drivers around them are sober and fully insured.

Other than that, this is probably not the place to debate Autobahn versus Interstate, but I do appreciate your comments.

[Odin]

Just wanted to point out that the police don't need to use radar to write speeding tickets.

The radar gun was invented in 1954.
The speeding ticket was invented long before 1954.

[Originalist]

Just wanted to point out that the police don't need to use radar to write speeding tickets.

The radar gun was invented in 1954.
The speeding ticket was invented long before 1954.

This comment is based on......

Maybe in 1954 you didn't need a RADAR Gun to write speeding tickets but in 2008 with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (the standards they have established) and case law from around the country (including federal courts (other than the SCOTUS) you most certainly do. Not only do you have to have the RADAR Gun but you must be trained in how to use it, that is right...any cop who hops in a cruiser and turns on the RADAR Gun without any training is wrong.

Bryan

[Odin]

Just wanted to point out that the police don't need to use radar to write speeding tickets.

The radar gun was invented in 1954.
The speeding ticket was invented long before 1954.

This comment is based on......

Maybe in 1954 you didn't need a RADAR Gun to write speeding tickets but in 2008 with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (the standards they have established) and case law from around the country (including federal courts (other than the SCOTUS) you most certainly do. Not only do you have to have the RADAR Gun but you must be trained in how to use it, that is right...any cop who hops in a cruiser and turns on the RADAR Gun without any training is wrong.

Bryan

Don't need a radar to write a ticket using TC 545.351. In court the officer will simply say "based on my training and experience, and considering the road and traffic conditions, I believed the violator's speed to be unsafe".

Even if a vehicle is travelling under the posted speed limit an officer can write a ticket for speeding if the conditions make it unsafe to travel at the posted speed limit. Speed limits are just that - the maximum speed limit.

Don't need a radar to pace a vehicle using the patrol car's speedometer.

Don't need a radar to clock a vehicle using a stopwatch and 2 known, fixed points of reference.

While radar and lidar are the most commonsly used methods for determining speed, there are other methods that police can, and do, use to ticket violators.

Of course everyone is entitled to contest any speeding ticket, radar or not. And many times (not most times, but it isn't rare either) a judge will dismiss a ticket, even if radar was used. That's up to the judge. There are no guaranteed tickets nor are there any guaranteed ways out of a ticket (unless you're a judge).

[The Annoyed Man]

Just wanted to point out that the police don't need to use radar to write speeding tickets.

The radar gun was invented in 1954.
The speeding ticket was invented long before 1954.

This comment is based on......

Maybe in 1954 you didn't need a RADAR Gun to write speeding tickets but in 2008 with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (the standards they have established) and case law from around the country (including federal courts (other than the SCOTUS) you most certainly do. Not only do you have to have the RADAR Gun but you must be trained in how to use it, that is right...any cop who hops in a cruiser and turns on the RADAR Gun without any training is wrong.

Bryan

That may be true in Texas, but it is not true in all states. In California, for instance, a CHP officer can write you a speeding ticket for driving at any speed he or she deems to be unsafe for the conditions - even when that speed is lower than the posted speed limit. CHP officers have used this - very successfully, I might add - many many times to harass motorcycle riders on twisty roads. For instance, (and this actually happened to me one time) I was riding my bike on the Angeles Crest Highway, going 45 in a 55 zone through a corner which had a little bit of sand and gravel that had washed onto the roadway from the shoulder. Now, in my judgment, and being very experienced with that highway's twists and turns and the varying road conditions at the time, 45 mph was a safe speed under those conditions. I had taken the same corner (illegally) at speeds approaching 75 when the road was clean without a hint of trouble. But on that particular day, the officer who watched me ride through that corner made the judgment that 45 was an unsafe speed for the local conditions - even though the posted limit was 55 mph. He wrote me a ticket, and it stuck, because a CHP officer in California (the counterpart of a Texas DPS officer) is entrusted with that particular authority.

Thus, depending on how big a weasel he wants to be, he can write you for going 25 or 15 in a 55 zone, and it is perfectly legal for him to do that. Furthermore, if challenged in court, in the eyes of the court, he's the expert witness and a friend of the court, not the challenger. You're simply going to lose, whether or not the charge is ridiculous. And, when you are dealing with the CHP, all of this can happen without the benefit of a radar gun most of the time.

In fact, (at least prior to 2008) in California, the CHP required special dispensation from the state in order to use radar on clearly defined, limited stretches of highway, for limited periods of time. While other local agencies and sheriff's departments routinely equipped their squad cars with radar guns, you would rarely ever see one in a CHP car. I don't know if that still holds true in 2008. However, whether it does not not, a CHP officer can still judge speed as being unsafe for the conditions, regardless of how fast you are actually going, and regardless of whether you are above or below the posted limit. I would be surprised if they no longer had that discretionary authority today.

[Keith B]

I think you guys are talking green apples and red apples here.

IANLALEO (I am no longer a Law Enforcement Officer), but IIRC to write a ticket for excessive speed, you must have proof of the speed from radar, lidar, clocking (Vascar) or other measurement source. Unsafe spied (higher or lower) is a different ticket, similar to careless and imprudent or reckless driving and can be written under the discretion of a visual reference. All are moving violations, but written for a different reason.