Reckless Driving...huh?

Im in Oklahoma..

I was Traveling eastbound I-40 in the fast lane. There was a truck infront of me and he wasdoing 15 below speed limit, holding up all traffic behind me. So brake checks me, no problem,because I wasnt that close, so I let off the gas and i never had to touch my brakes because of the fact I wasnt even that close...He does it immediatly again as were going about 30mph now - well, of couse Im closer to him this time because he slammed his brakes on once, so the cars behind me almost all hit each other this time causing one car about three cars behind me to swerve off the road. I decide to go around him in slow lane, and he swerves into my lane intentionally, almost hitting me and he flips me off - I return the bird. I get by him and go back in the fast lane, moments later he catches up with me doing well over 90mph and cuts infront of me. He called an officer (im assuming), and officer pulled me over without seeing incident several miles later. I didnt feel safe on overpass so I turned my blinker on and pulled off highway as we crossed the overpass. I pulled off the off-ramp and the a parking lot where I felt it was safer than stopping on an overpass in afternoon traffic, ..it woul have gotten all of us killed. The Officer started screaming at me, told me I should go to jail because I didnt pull over on highway. He took my license without saying anything, and came back ten minutes later with ticketbook. He told me to sign the ticket and I asked him 'why am I getting a ticket?" He screamed at me again "sign it or I'll take you ass to jail!!!" ..well that kinda scared me, so I signed it. Again, asked him why I got a ticket and whats the ticket for, and again he screamed at me "dont argue with me, if you want to argue then you can argue with judge!!!!!" Ticket was "reckless driving." I wasnt reckless driving, I was the one that almost got killed. How can he give me a ticket when he didnt witness the incident? Can he give me a ticket without telling me what its for? ..even when I asked him what its for? ...and isnt it my right to stop where "I feel its more safe?" when he was screaming at me and threatening to take me to jail for not pulling over on the overpass?

I dont want a $400 ticket for getting run off the road, what can I do?? am I in the right??

Yeah, he wrote "witness" at the bottom of the ticket ..and that person is the driver of the truck. Its his word vs. my word ..what I told you is what happened, theres "nothing more to the story"

But the whole point is, how can I get a ticket for reckless driving when all I did was flip him off, after he fliped me off and tried to run me off the road?

So, thats like saying I could be on the highway, call 911 and say "the car infront of me is throwing things at me and trying to kill me" ..and a cop is going to pull them over and give them a ticket for reckless driving with he didnt see the incident that I would have lied about? it doesnt make sense. Yeah, Im going to go to court for the simple fact that I got a Reckless driving ticket when I honestly dont know why I got one.

Juggalo5900 said:

Yeah, he wrote "witness" at the bottom of the ticket ..and that person is the driver of the truck. Its his word vs. my word ..what I told you is what happened, theres "nothing more to the story"

But the whole point is, how can I get a ticket for reckless driving when all I did was flip him off, after he fliped me off and tried to run me off the road?

So, thats like saying I could be on the highway, call 911 and say "the car infront of me is throwing things at me and trying to kill me" ..and a cop is going to pull them over and give them a ticket for reckless driving with he didnt see the incident that I would have lied about? it doesnt make sense. Yeah, Im going to go to court for the simple fact that I got a Reckless driving ticket when I honestly dont know why I got one.

Click to expand...

You have to keep in mind now that the officer is not a witness so now the prosecution only has this much more unreliable witness who may not even show up for the court date after cooling off and thinking it over a little more now. You should also be able question him on the stand under oath so he will either need to perjure himself or admit to his wrongs. Sounds like the guy was violating the impeding law and also slamming on the brakes without signalling is gernerally unlawful - check the OK vehicle code under the signalling section...In any event I would certianly go in and contest it.

cepe10 said:

slamming on the brakes without signalling is gernerally unlawful

Click to expand...

Other than that little tidbit - Cepe is correct on this one. Definitely worth fighting (based solely on your post)

cepe10 said:

Sounds like the guy was violating the impeding law and also slamming on the brakes without signalling is gernerally unlawful - check the OK vehicle code under the signalling section...In any event I would certianly go in and contest it.

Click to expand...

I doubt that failing to signal before braking is an issue ... how would one do that?

Juggalo, I suspect the driver's version of events will be different. That difference in court does not necessarily mean that one person is lying or not, it just means that their perceptions are different. Two reasonable people CAN look at the same set of circumstances and come to two reasonably different conclusions.

As for pulling over where it is "safe", this is not generally your decision. Failure to yield whithin a reasonable distance after the officer attempts the detention CAN result in additional offenses. It also increases an officer's "pucker factor" as the officer will be wondering whether you are preparing an mbush, calling for friends, or looking for a place to run. I can relate a number of ambush plans that drug runners and outlaw motorcycle gangs have in place for police stops ... and with traffic stops being one of the most deadly events for officers, I think you can understand why the officer would prefer to be in control of the location and timing of the stop.

- Carl

CdwJava said:

I doubt that failing to signal before braking is an issue ... how would one do that?

Juggalo, I suspect the driver's version of events will be different. That difference in court does not necessarily mean that one person is lying or not, it just means that their perceptions are different. Two reasonable people CAN look at the same set of circumstances and come to two reasonably different conclusions.

As for pulling over where it is "safe", this is not generally your decision. Failure to yield whithin a reasonable distance after the officer attempts the detention CAN result in additional offenses. It also increases an officer's "pucker factor" as the officer will be wondering whether you are preparing an mbush, calling for friends, or looking for a place to run. I can relate a number of ambush plans that drug runners and outlaw motorcycle gangs have in place for police stops ... and with traffic stops being one of the most deadly events for officers, I think you can understand why the officer would prefer to be in control of the location and timing of the stop.

- Carl

Click to expand...

It is the law in OK Carl - and this guy was intentionally slamming on the brakes for no good reason....

§47-11-604. Turning movements and required signals.
A. No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection, a public or private road, or a driveway, unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required in Section 11-601 of this title, or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. No person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal as provided in subsection B of this section, in the event any other traffic may be affected by such movement.
B. A signal of intention to turn right or left as required by law shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.
C. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in subsection B of this section to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give such signal.

I still ask how one signals a braking movement?

First, the one part is subjective: "when there is opportunity to give such signal" ... second, the reference it looks back to is for turning to the right and left. Given that the section covers "Turning movements and required signals" I'd suggest that the 'C' section concerns suddenly stopping or braking when making turning movements or changing lanes and NOT simply for braking in the middle of the road.

I don't know about you, but I don't have a "warning: Driver about to brake" light on my vehicle. And signaling for a turn without actually making one could well be another violation.

I doubt there is any chance of the truck driver getting hit for that one. His actions might constitute some other act of bad driving, but i doubt that the section quoted would apply unless OK trucks are given special brake warning lights.

- Carl

There's always the "emergency flashers"...trucks going slow use them all the time. You are correct in that I also think impeding would be the main violation.

However, I do believe the cited text is intended to allow for the smooth flow of traffic by not allowing slamming on the brakes for no reason without signalling or because the driver missed his turn etc. This case here brings up this point... Now if the truck had something ahead of him causing him to slam on his brakes like a deer that would be a different story (thus the "opportunity" relief) however, in this case the driver was slamming on his brakes intentionally to disrupt traffic without cause...

I suspect that slamming his brakes for no reason other than to cause the driver behind him distress MIGHT be some other infraction. But, since the officer wasn't present to sitness it, the issue is pretty much moot except so far as it relates to the OP's argument in court of the totality of the events surrounding his citation.

In any event, chances are a truck driver is not going to show in court. If he is a long-hauler, chances are even greater he won't show. So, if witnesses are required for hearings in the OP's state he ought to come out okay.

- Carl

And saying, He was going 30mph in the passing lane and repeatedly slamming on his breaks, you safely passed him on the right he gave you the bird, might help.
and you don't know how fast he was going, you had gotten way ahead of him he chased after you. That 90 sounds like you were doing 90 to get away.

Here in NC. We dont have drug dealers
that's a CA or Fla. thing.
But we did have a few cases of people pretending to be police officers, and most agencies allow you to continue to a safe place. depending on location and time of day or night.