• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Unsafe Speed on Ice in Texas

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Patty621

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

Hello,

My husband received an unsafe speeding ticket on January 7, 2010. He was driving 30 mph in a 70 mph speed zone and hit a patch of black ice at 5:37 am. A Department of Public Safety officer was behind him and witnessed the accident. It was a single car accident with no injuries and very little damage to the vehicle or the concrete wall.

My husband was not sure how fast he was driving because he was busy watching the road and not his speedometer. When asked he told the officer that he was going between 30 and 40 mph. The officer stated that he was going 30 mph.

The Officer put a speed of 40 mph on the ticket and listed the weather as clear/cloudy. He made no mention of the ice at all which I thought was strange. On May 19th we went to a pre-trial and the assistant DA immediately said she would reduce the ticket from $170 to $108. I said aren't you going to hear our evidence. She said that the accident was prima facie evidence that he was going an unsafe speed. We told her about the ice and she would not listen stating that she had to go by the ticket. Now I know why the officer neglected to put it on the ticket - it gives the DA prima facie evidence.

The judge was nice and told us to get a copy of the accident report and come back for another pre-trial. We got the report and I also contacted the Toll Road Authority and got the times of all of the cars that passed by the accident site between 5 am and 6am. Out of 23 cars, only two were going below 30 mph. I also calculated my husband's speed at 30 mph. I called the officer to see if he video taped giving my husband the ticket and he stated that he video tapes every incident (I tape recorded our conversation). I also asked him why the ticket stated the weather as clear/cloudy but on the accident report he stated that there was rain and ice. He said, "I don't recall." I told him that I got the speeds and asked him if there was a speed that he would not have given a ticket say 20 mph and he said no that he would have given the ticket at any speed.

Since both the police officer and my husband were going 30 mph and 21 cars were driving over 30 mph, will this be enough to prove that my husband was going a prudent and reasonable speed given the road conditions. He was going 40 mph below the speed limit to account for any ice. This is a four lane toll road and the ice was in intermittant patches and it was dark. Also my husband was driving a 2000 Ford Ranger which is a light weight pick-up truck. Pick-up trucks are more likely to spin out on ice since there is very little weight in the back of the vehicle.

Where is the justice in a police officer driving 30 pmh giving a citizen an unsafe speeding ticket when they are going the same speed? I told the officer that if the DA does not dismiss the ticket when we go back for another pre-trial on September 15th that we will take it to a jury trial. I seriously doubt that a jury will convict my husband for unsafe speed when given the facts that I have outlined here.

What do you think? TC 543.351 does not give any specific speed limits - it merely states you must drive a prudent and reasonable speed given the road conditions.
 


justalayman

Senior Member
Also my husband was driving a 2000 Ford Ranger which is a light weight pick-up truck. Pick-up trucks are more likely to spin out on ice since there is very little weight in the back of the vehicle.
I suppose you realize this knowledge would prove he knew he should have been driving slower than any non-similar vehicle, right? Knowing your vehicle is more prone to such a problem and then claiming it should be a mitigating factor is like hitting your head on a wall and not expecting to get bruised. It is just the opposite. It means he should have driven even more slowly than other vehicles because he knew his vehicle was more prone to such an accident.

Where is the justice in a police officer driving 30 pmh giving a citizen an unsafe speeding ticket when they are going the same speed?
because the cop didn't get in an accident while your husband did.

TC 543.351 does not give any specific speed limits - it merely states you must drive a prudent and reasonable speed given the road conditions.
as you were told: the accident itself provides prima facia evidence that your husbands speed was not prudent and reasonable.

what I would look for is something showing the black ice situation was not a foreseeable condition and therefor, would not be required to be a consideration when determining what would be reasonable and prudent.
 

racer72

Senior Member
Since both the police officer and my husband were going 30 mph and 21 cars were driving over 30 mph, will this be enough to prove that my husband was going a prudent and reasonable speed given the road conditions.

This is just further proof your husband was going too fast for conditions, he was the only one out of 23 cars that crashed.
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
Not that I think it will help, but get a certified weather report for the date of the accident (that shows an ice condition existed). His "word" that the accident happened because of black ice without proof is about as useful as your belief that he shouldn't have been ticketed.
 

Patty621

Junior Member
Unsafe Speed on ice in Texas

In response to just a layman who stated that since my husband knew that he was driving a light weight pick-up that he should have known to go slower than other vehicles – he did.

Here are the speeds of the other 23 cars: (remember the speed is 70 mph)

1 car at 54 mph
1 car at 51 mph
5 cars at 45 mph
6 cars at 40 mph
4 cars at 39 mph
3 cars at 36 mph
1 car at 33 mph
1 car at 28 mph
1 car at 27 mph

Mark was driving 30 mph a good 40 miles below the posted speed limit – a prudent and reasonable speed given the weather conditions and his vehicle type.

I have the newspapers from January 7th and 8th where the icy conditions were top stories. There were 83 ice related accidents in Dallas on January 7th – these are just reported accidents – I am sure that there were more.

In response to racer72 who stated that the fact that my husband is the only one who crashed out of 23 cars proves that he was going too fast, is missing my point. I am trying to prove the point that the patch of unavoidable black ice caused the accident and not the speed of the vehicle. The accident occurred on a straight and level four-lane portion of a toll road (the George Bush Turnpike). The weather reports were stating to watch out for ice on bridges and overpasses meaning they were not expecting accumulations of ice on the roadways. The sand trucks were out but had not yet sanded the GB Turnpike.

Here is the question that I will pose to a jury if it gets that far: You have two cars traveling down the road going the same speed – one spins out on a patch of black ice and the other doesn’t. Do you contribute the accident to the speed of the car or the ice?

Most lay people would say the ice. Police officers would say the speed caused the accident arguing prima facie evidence – meaning the accident is proof of an unsafe speed. Quoting from Subchapter H. Speed Restrictions: Sec. 545.352 Prima Facie Speed Limits (b) states, “unless a special hazard exists that requires a slower speed for compliance with sections 545.351 (b), the following speeds are lawful:” It goes on to list lawful speeds but never gives a prudent or reasonable speed for driving in icy conditions.


Sec. 545.351 Maximum Speed Requirements (b) states, “An operator: (1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having a regard for actual and potential hazards then existing; and (2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.

Sec. 545.351 (c) (5) states, “a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.”


The real question is does the evidence that I have prove that my husband was going a reasonable and prudent speed given the ice hazard? I believe it does as do many other people that I have asked. The speeds of the other cars can offer proof that my husband was being prudent and reasonable since he was driving slower than they were.

The real problem here is that reasonable and prudent is not specifically defined meaning that it is subjective – what one person considers reasonable and prudent another person will not. I believe that this needs to be looked at from different perspectives just like in a football game or tennis match where from one angle the ball appears to be out but from another angle you can clearly see that it was in bounds.

The officer stated to me that he would have given Mark a ticket even if he were driving 20 mph. That totally ignores the prudent and reasonable clause within the law.

I am aware that police officers could be posting to this site, but I am looking for real legal advice from an attorney. Could an attorney identify him or herself as an attorney and post a reply for me considering all of he information that I have posted. Thank you!

I do appreciate your replies and would love to hear from others who have had a similar experience. Also please answer my question about the two cars going the same speed and one having the accident on ice and the other not – would you attribute the accident to the ice or the speed of the vehicle? Remember the police officer and my husband were both going 30 mph. I would love to hear how anyone could attribute the accident to the speed as opposed to the ice. The officer seems to completely ignore the ice – he even neglected to put it on the ticket.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Mark was driving 30 mph a good 40 miles below the posted speed limit – a prudent and reasonable speed given the weather conditions and his vehicle type.
And THAT is why you miss the point. He CRASHED. That is pretty damning evidence that it was NOT a "prudent and reasonable" speed.


Here is the question that I will pose to a jury if it gets that far: You have two cars traveling down the road going the same speed – one spins out on a patch of black ice and the other doesn’t. Do you contribute the accident to the speed of the car or the ice?
The crash is attributable to the unsafe operation for the conditions (ie: speed) of the vehicle that crashed. The 2nd car didn't get in to an accident and is irrelevant to the matter.





The real question is does the evidence that I have prove that my husband was going a reasonable and prudent speed given the ice hazard? I believe it does as do many other people that I have asked. The speeds of the other cars can offer proof that my husband was being prudent and reasonable since he was driving slower than they were.
And the ANSWER is that the CRASH proves that it was NOT reasonable and prudent.


I won't go any further on this. You don't/won't get this and it's like talking to a brick wall. Good luck.
 

Patty621

Junior Member
Zigner you are missing my point. I agree we are looking at this from different perspectives.

I see the unavoidable patch of black ice as the cause of the accident and not the speed because he could have been going as slow as 5 mph and still spun out on the ice. Rubber and ice do not mix at any speed. You could be walking to your mailbox and slip on ice. The speeds of the other cars can offer proof that my husband was going a prudent and reasonable speed because the ice was not in all of the lanes on the road. There were patches of black ice - my husband hit one the other cars did not.

Again, I am looking for real advice from an attorney.

The real issue is what is deemed a reasonable and prudent speed for icy conditions. Can an attorney please answer this for me. Thank you!
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
Zigner you are missing my point. I agree we are looking at this from different perspectives.

I see the unavoidable patch of black ice as the cause of the accident and not the speed because he could have been going as slow as 5 mph and still spun out on the ice. Rubber and ice do not mix at any speed. You could be walking to your mailbox and slip on ice. The speeds of the other cars can offer proof that my husband was going a prudent and reasonable speed because the ice was not in all of the lanes on the road. There were patches of black ice - my husband hit one the other cars did not.

Again, I am looking for real advice from an attorney.

The real issue is what is deemed a reasonable and prudent speed for icy conditions. Can an attorney please answer this for me. Thank you!
The speeds of the other cars can offer proof that my husband was going a prudent and reasonable speed because the ice was not in all of the lanes on the road.
Wrong. Had he been going a prudent and reasonable speed, he wouldn't have had a wreck.
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
And THAT is why you miss the point. He CRASHED. That is pretty damning evidence that it was NOT a "prudent and reasonable" speed.
...
The crash is attributable to the unsafe operation for the conditions (ie: speed) of the vehicle that crashed. The 2nd car didn't get in to an accident and is irrelevant to the matter.
...

And the ANSWER is that the CRASH proves that it was NOT reasonable and prudent.
...
I won't go any further on this. You don't/won't get this and it's like talking to a brick wall. Good luck.
Zig, I didn't read this before I posted.

Yes, you're 100% correct.
 

adam_12

Member
And the ANSWER is that the CRASH proves that it was NOT reasonable and prudent.


I won't go any further on this. You don't/won't get this and it's like talking to a brick wall. Good luck.
So if I am traveling over a bridge, and the bridge collapses, and I crash into the opening, it is my fault since I was going too fast to stop?

Or a tree falls onto my car, damaging it- it is my fault for not driving faster or slower?

Are drivers obligated to have perfect knowledge of road conditions at all times? Despite being reasonable and prudent, slowing down, driving carefully, etc, etc, is there no chance that they just hit conditions that are beyond the scope of what a 'reasonable and prudent' driver could envision?

As a lay person, it seems unfair to attribute all accidents in inclement weather to speed.

But perhaps the law does not allow for this.... I'd go with a jury.

JMHO

A
 

xylene

Senior Member
Rubber and ice do not mix at any speed.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

VAST, vast swathes of these great American States cope with snow and ICE for months at a time.

It is called winter.

Your husband had an accident because he lacks a driving skill, and the $108 ticket is justified.

The fact that several other drivers also had accidents on the same motorway during similar road conditions only proves that many people in Texas are unskilled at driving in iced conditions.

It does not for a claim of prudence.
 

Maestro64

Member
5 or 10 yrs ago your husband would never have gotten a ticket, they police would have come and asked if he was okay, direct traffic to make sure no one else had an accident at the same spot and they would have called the road crew to come out and put salt on the road to clear the hazard.

Today police are told to issue a ticket. Why, because of what the DA said to your husband and what the above your guilt crowd said. The fact he had an accident means he was driving to fast for conditions, forget the fact the state fail to do their part which is make sure the roads are safe. The best part is what the officer said, no speed would have been safe if you had a accident. i.e he should have stop, but then the officer would have given him a ticket for obstructing traffic.

The reality of it all, police are told to issue tickets at accident to help pay the cost of an officer showing up on the scene, and to make sure your insurance premiums are hiked even future. All the insurance companies have lobbied states to have ticket issued at an accident to assign clear blame, but the nice side effect of this is you get points on your license and they can hike your insurance. Since you can have an accident like this and never turn it into your insurance but guess what you got points and they increase your premium for 3 yrs.
 

JIMinCA

Member
So if I am traveling over a bridge, and the bridge collapses, and I crash into the opening, it is my fault since I was going too fast to stop?

Or a tree falls onto my car, damaging it- it is my fault for not driving faster or slower?

Are drivers obligated to have perfect knowledge of road conditions at all times? Despite being reasonable and prudent, slowing down, driving carefully, etc, etc, is there no chance that they just hit conditions that are beyond the scope of what a 'reasonable and prudent' driver could envision?

As a lay person, it seems unfair to attribute all accidents in inclement weather to speed.

But perhaps the law does not allow for this.... I'd go with a jury.

JMHO

A
Adam,

These are good points. I do NOT subscribe to the horrifically over-simplification that brings one to the conclusion of "if you had an accident, it was because you were driving at an unsafe speed". However, I also believe that being "right" isn't enough. It is much more expedient for cops and courts to paint the world with one brush... so, once again, justice gives way to convenience.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top