Failure to Yield - Indiana

[davew128]

What is the name of your state? Indiana

Was driving a rental truck and trailor with my car on the trailor from Massachusetts to California. In Indiana I was pulled over for Section 9-21-8-35(b), failure to yield for two cruisers thad pulled over another vehicle. Background of the situation: I was in the right lane (I want to point out that this is a law that doen't exist in MA or CA apparently) and didn't change lanes upon approaching and passing the stopped vehicles. It was roughly 10 pm, speed limit is 70, I was driving only 60 (probably 50-55 when I pased), with off and on snow squalls and high wind gusts. I didn't much changes lanes the entire 3 day drive unless absolutely necessary and LOTS of clearance to do it.
Statute reads:

(b) Upon approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle,
when the authorized emergency vehicle is giving a signal by
displaying alternately flashing red, red and white, or red and blue
lights, a person who drives an approaching vehicle shall:
(1) proceeding with due caution, yield the right-of-way by
making a lane change into a lane not adjacent to that of the
authorized emergency vehicle, if possible with due regard to
safety and traffic conditions, if on a highway having at least
four (4) lanes with not less than two (2) lanes proceeding in the
same direction as the approaching vehicle; or
(2) proceeding with due caution, reduce the speed of the
vehicle, maintaining a safe speed for road conditions, if
changing lanes would be impossible or unsafe.

It would seem to me that someone in my situation under those weather conditions and driving that type of vehicle would be justified in not changing lanes and just applying a slight reduction in speed. Other factors, trooper didn't pay close attention to my Mass license, using the old address from the front and not the then current address on the rear, although he seemed royally ticked like I kicked his dog or something. Based on the facts as I've described and the trooper's apparent lack of attention to detail, is this a $140 ticket worth flying back to Indiana and fighting? If I simply pay it, will it show up in CA or MA (I now live in CA)? I feel I should fight it on principle as it seems to me to be a bad ticket, but other opinions are welcome.

 

[The Occultist]

Firstly, ignorance of the law is no excuse, so whether or not you've heard of that law, or know states that don't have the law, is completely irrelevant.

Secondly, that bit about changing lanes except when it's unsafe to? That's mostly referring to there being a vehicle in the far lane that would prevent you from safely moving over.

Thirdly, the officer was probably pissed as an object with a LOT of mass (TRUCK and TRAILER) passed the poor officer with small distance between the truck and the officer at 50+ mph. There are too many officers that have been killed by people like you.

 

[justalayman]

is this a $140 ticket worth flying back to Indiana and fighting? If I simply pay it, will it show up in CA or MA (I now live in CA)? I feel I should fight it on principle as it seems to me to be a bad ticket, but other opinions are welcome.

is it worth it? How much will it cost you to fly back to Indiana, twice. (once for prelim and then back (at least once) for the trial). How much time (and money) lost from work?

I agree wholeheartedly with the need for the law but as written, it is unenforcable due to its' the ambiguity. The requirement to "slow down" is not defined.

reduce the speed of the
vehicle, maintaining a safe speed for road conditions

Well, they issue tickets left and right around here (Indiana) for sliding off the road when it is icy because you were traveling at an unsafe speed. Their claim is if you were traveling at a safe speed, there would have been no accident. Well, how I see it, you didn't hit the officer so it must have been a safe speed.

As well, if the speed limit is 70 (for a truck? where was that? I can't think of any highways that allow a 70 mph limit for trucks) and you were driving considerably slower than that, who is to say you had not slowed down to abide by the law?

If you have a lot of time and money, I would suggest fighting it if only so the law would be re-written to define the required action.

Unless you are blessed with an excess of money and time, I would simply pay the thing and be done with it.

 

[JETX]

Firstly, ignorance of the law is no excuse, so whether or not you've heard of that law, or know states that don't have the law, is completely irrelevant.

Secondly, that bit about changing lanes except when it's unsafe to? That's mostly referring to there being a vehicle in the far lane that would prevent you from safely moving over.

Thirdly, the officer was probably pissed as an object with a LOT of mass (TRUCK and TRAILER) passed the poor officer with small distance between the truck and the officer at 50+ mph. There are too many officers that have been killed by people like you.

I agree 110%!!!

It is absolutely terrifying for an officer to deal with traffic zooming by at 55 plus miles per hour only 5 feet away.... and I applaud the fact that most states now require that a vehicle either change lanes or slow to a reasonable speed (some states require 20 mph less than posted limit) when passing.
We had an officer in Houston get killed only a few weeks ago when some driver side-swiped a stopped vehicle while trying to answer his phone!!!

Pay the fine and learn how to help protect those that are protecting you.

 

[FlyingRon]

INDIANA has large signs on the freeways when you enter the state and other places warning you to slow down or move over for emergency vehicles. The incidence of emergency workers being struck while attending to people on the side of the road is staggering. While you are trained to park your unit so as to protect you, you are still exposed.

The law is rolling across the country. It will be pretty universal before long.

Ignorance is no excuse, and I suspect you saw and ignore the signage that they put up to warn you anyway.

 

[davew128]

Firstly, ignorance of the law is no excuse, so whether or not you've heard of that law, or know states that don't have the law, is completely irrelevant.

Secondly, that bit about changing lanes except when it's unsafe to? That's mostly referring to there being a vehicle in the far lane that would prevent you from safely moving over.

Thirdly, the officer was probably pissed as an object with a LOT of mass (TRUCK and TRAILER) passed the poor officer with small distance between the truck and the officer at 50+ mph. There are too many officers that have been killed by people like you.

Firstly, I didn't claim ignorance of the law as an excuse. Did you read what I posted?
Secondly, do you have case law to support that there has to be another vehicle there? I would think someone who is used to driving a small sports car who is driving a truck and car trailer at night during what the news channel called a "Wind Advisory" would be a reasonable explanation for not changing lanes, particularly when already well under the speed limit.
Thirdly, I mentioned the officer's attitude as an observation only, as generally it is wholly irrelevant to matters of facts. As for people like me, I've never hit a stopped vehicle before, so please do not lump me in with some hayseed doing 115 like you see on reality television shows.

As well, if the speed limit is 70 (for a truck? where was that? I can't think of any highways that allow a 70 mph limit for trucks) and you were driving considerably slower than that, who is to say you had not slowed down to abide by the law?

Well you lay out my point exactly. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean you didn't unintentionally comply with it, which is why some of the holier than thou responses o this thread are perplexing.

About the speed thing, from Boston to about Denver I don't recall separate speeds for trucks. Heck 18 wheelers were passing me quite often unless I was doing 70. As it turned out the vehicle's top speed was only 75, so speeding was rarely an issue until I started driving downhill in Colorado and Utah and then trust me it wasn't an issue I wanted to deal with. I can be certain about the speed as I had to keep my foot on the pedal the whole time to keep any speed going and there was no cruise control. It was after Denver I started to see separately posted speed for trucks and vehicles with trailers.

The reason I was so steamed about it was first of all, the attitude I got from the officer, secondly the fact that two cars didn't change lanes and went by me after_I_was stopped without anything happening, and finally when I got to CA and looked up the statute and read it verbatim and that's when I called BS on the ticket. Looks like I'll be fighting this one.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

I agree 110%!!!

It is absolutely terrifying for an officer to deal with traffic zooming by at 55 plus miles per hour only 5 feet away.... and I applaud the fact that most states now require that a vehicle either change lanes or slow to a reasonable speed (some states require 20 mph less than posted limit) when passing.
We had an officer in Houston get killed only a few weeks ago when some driver side-swiped a stopped vehicle while trying to answer his phone!!!

Pay the fine and learn how to help protect those that are protecting you.

Of course it is but show OP in the law where it is mandated he must move over. Your accuracy percentage is declining.

 

[justalayman]

this info is was posted 2 years ago on some website:

Posted speed limits on the Indiana Toll Road will increase to 70mph (113km/hr) cars and 65mph (105km/hr) for trucks when present bills in the state legislature pass. These speeds also apply to other rural interstate expressways, rural defined as being outside any city of 50,000 people.

that means since this ticket was apparently recently issued, the speed limit for a truck was 65, at most on any Indiana highway. I suspect that from where you started and where you went, you travelled the Indana Toll Road (northern route across the state). I travel that roadway several times a week and the signage most definately states that trucks are limited to 65 mph.

what the other traffic was driving is not any defense to speeding. Indiana law does not allow for what many people believe to be the law, which is "with the flow of traffic". Indiana has absolute speed limit laws and there is no justification for speeding but all of that is irrelevent but I would strongly suggest not heading into court and arguing the speed limit was 70 mph because the judge will see this as either ignorance of or disregard for the laws. Not a good place to start your defense.

Like I stated before, I am very supportive of this particular law. We have had several officers in the past couple of years that were injured or killed in north central Indiana from this type of situation. I do not believe the officers should be subjected to unneccessary danger when it is simply remedied but I do not support the law as written. It does not define what is acceptable as "reduce the speed" and because of this, should be rewritten top clarify it.

So, best of luck to you but remember, whether it is a law or not, the proper thing to do when passing an officer alongside the road is to change lanes or slow down. The problem with the law is the same as with many laws; those that break the law do not so it intentionally but due to ignorance or disregard.

Does anybody really think this law will stop the person that talks, or God forbid, texts, on their phone from accidentally injuring or even killing an officer because of their lack of attention to the road? Of course it won;t. It only gives the courts an easier way of prosecuting the offender.

Writing a law does not make a moron intelligent.

 

[davew128]

this info is was posted 2 years ago on some website:

that means since this ticket was apparently recently issued, the speed limit for a truck was 65, at most on any Indiana highway. I suspect that from where you started and where you went, you travelled the Indana Toll Road (northern route across the state). I travel that roadway several times a week and the signage most definately states that trucks are limited to 65 mph.

what the other traffic was driving is not any defense to speeding. Indiana law does not allow for what many people believe to be the law, which is "with the flow of traffic". Indiana has absolute speed limit laws and there is no justification for speeding but all of that is irrelevent but I would strongly suggest not heading into court and arguing the speed limit was 70 mph because the judge will see this as either ignorance of or disregard for the laws. Not a good place to start your defense.

Like I stated before, I am very supportive of this particular law. We have had several officers in the past couple of years that were injured or killed in north central Indiana from this type of situation. I do not believe the officers should be subjected to unneccessary danger when it is simply remedied but I do not support the law as written. It does not define what is acceptable as "reduce the speed" and because of this, should be rewritten top clarify it.

So, best of luck to you but remember, whether it is a law or not, the proper thing to do when passing an officer alongside the road is to change lanes or slow down. The problem with the law is the same as with many laws; those that break the law do not so it intentionally but due to ignorance or disregard.

I was in fact on the Indiana Toll Road. Speeding is not an issue here. I can assure you that at no point was I ever over 65 on that road, and I can be sure of it not only because of the vehicle's maximum speed of 75 but also because the wind was blowing very hard that night, and given my low comfort level driving that thing and feeling the wind's effect on driving, it scared the hell out of me so I kept the speed down. I doubt from Cleveland to just west of Chicago when I stopped for the night that I spent much time over 60. If as you say the speed limit for trucks is 65 and not 70, I don't see that as a material change to my defense since I was still below noticeably below it. Thank you for your insight.

 

[JETX]

clearly far more interested in arguing "I am correct" than he is in getting valid legal advice.
.

 

[davew128]

This idiot is clearly far more interested in arguing "I am correct" than he is in getting valid legal advice.
Ignore the little whiner.

Your two posts offered tons of on point legal advice, if this were an episode of COPS,South Park, or The Simpsons. So did all the others, fact of my correctness notwithstanding. I suspect only a couple of thread readers even bothered to read the posted statute for the violation.....
Those idiots were more interested in arguing "protect the cop in the breakdown lane" than discuss the application of the law to the facts.

 

[Zigner]

(I want to point out that this is a law that doen't exist in MA or CA apparently)

I can't speak for MA, but it absolutely DOES exist in California...it is relatively new here, but it's the law. You must either move over a lane or slow to a "reasonable" speed. And, can you guess who the court is gonna believe when it comes to testimony about reasonableness of speed?

 

[davew128]

I can't speak for MA, but it absolutely DOES exist in California...it is relatively new here, but it's the law. You must either move over a lane or slow to a "reasonable" speed. And, can you guess who the court is gonna believe when it comes to testimony about reasonableness of speed?

Well beyond the natural court bias towards the cop, unless the cop was actually watching you BEFORE you passed him AND had radar on you to clock your speed, how can any officer offer credible testimony about what the speed was in the first place, let alone it's reasonableness? Outside of the obviously fast and obviously slow, I doubt he can.

Example, car is in the right lane driving at 55 in a 65 zone with a posted 45 minimum and passes a stopped cruiser without changing lanes or slowing. Is that a reasonable speed? What if there was moderate traffic? Can't change lanes, but the flow of traffic keeps you at 55 and you simply CAN'T slow down much without creating havoc. Is it reasonable then?

See the problem with laws like this, (and Layman touched on it) is that in the attempt to protect officers from harm, too much ambiguity is written into the law. Who should be the one to define reasonable? The officer? Not in my opinion, because that leaves the driver at the mercy of the officer's subjective opinion and for person on the side of the road, any speed is too fast. The driver? No again, because every driver would say his speed is reasonable unless it causes an accident.

Remember, just because a law was passed doesn't make it wise or right, or that the people who created the law are smarter than my Shih Tzu.

 

[The Occultist]

AND had radar on you to clock your speed, how can any officer offer credible testimony about what the speed was in the first place

Your assumption here is incorrect. When officers are trained on radar, they are actually being trained to visually estimate speeds; radar merely confirms it. Several courts will accept an officer's visual estimation assuming he has the training.

 

[davew128]

Your assumption here is incorrect. When officers are trained on radar, they are actually being trained to visually estimate speeds; radar merely confirms it. Several courts will accept an officer's visual estimation assuming he has the training.

The assumption may or may not be incorrect but again, when a cop is pulled over, is he paying attention to his radio/computer/ticket or watching cars come up from behind and estimating their speed? To me, tht should be the easiest rebuttal you ever see in court.