driving on improved shoulder

[hawk2728]

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

I cant seem to get this out of my head tonight, so I thought I would see what you all had to say. I got pulled over the other day for driving on an improved shoulder. I was pulling a 20' foot trailer. I was worried about the items falling over or blowing off, so I was driving slow around 35-45 MPH. The speed limit was 75 MPH, traffic was fairly heavy. When the officer pulled me over he stated it was not legal to drive on the shoulder. Texas transportation code � 545.058. DRIVING ON IMPROVED SHOULDER says (a) An operator
may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only:
(5) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass;
(7) to avoid a collision

in the end the officer wrote me a ticket for expired insurance and expired license plate on the trailer. I had current insurance but could not find the current proof of insurance card. The trailer belonged to my in laws and the registration was up to date the sticker must have fallen off. both of these offences can have a reduced fine of $30 or so but you have to plea guilty or no contest. The kicker is in Texas if you have two no insurance charges on your record in a 36 month period, you have to pay a surcharge of 250 dollars a year for three years. The nice thing is that the police also have a data base showing if a vehicle has insurance or not.

Texas transportation code Sec. 601.053. EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. states you must provide proof of insurance, but the goes on to say
"does not apply if the peace officer determines through use of the verification program established under Subchapter N that financial responsibility has been established for the vehicle. If a peace officer has access to the verification program, the officer may not issue a citation for a violation of Section 601.051".

My main concern here is the officer pulled me over for something that a reasonable person would think is legal if they had read the law. This then would make the entire stop illegal and the citation not admissible in court. I may be wrong what do you think?

Second I do not know for sure the officer had access to the data base for insurance. but he did have a radio and a second patrol car (upon my request for reasons not suitable for an open forum) showed up on the scene that had video and audio recording capability's and I would presume it also had a computer with the data base access. Do you think the officer should have written the expired insurance citation?

 

[FlyingRon]

So did you get a ticket for driving on the shoulder? I suspect not. The stop is not ILLEGAL. The criteria for making a stop is low and all it takes is an articulable suspicion. The fact that you were apparently on the shoulder illegally even though in the light of your explanation you were justified, is MORE THAN ENOUGH.


You've got no defense on the trailer registration issue. You not only have to register the trailer but make sure it is displaying the proper plates (with stickers).

I'd certainly go and contest the insurance violation. First, there's no reason you should have to plead guilty. You can rebut the presumption that you were uninsured because you didn't have the current card by showing you were continually covered over the period in question. Second, I certainly would bring up the failure to verify by TexasSure. You can bet that if you DID have a current card the cop would likely have called TexasSure to see if it was still valid (that's the whole point of TexasSure).

 

[HighwayMan]

My main concern here is the officer pulled me over for something that a reasonable person would think is legal if they had read the law.

Your kidding, right?

You cannot drive on the shoulder under the circumstances. Your complete inattention to properly securing the load on your trailer hardly constitutes a justification under the quoted statute. Sounds like you should have also gotten at least one ticket for an unsecured load violation.

 

[hawk2728]

Your kidding, right?

You cannot drive on the shoulder under the circumstances. Your complete inattention to properly securing the load on your trailer hardly constitutes a justification under the quoted statute. Sounds like you should have also gotten at least one ticket for an unsecured load violation.

I sure would like to know how you know so much about my load and how it was secured. I also would like to know what Texas state law covers unsecured load. Know to follow your reasoning. If I ran out of gas, would it not be justified( under the same law (1) to stop, stand, or park because my complete inattention to properly fuel my car hardly constitutes a justification under the quoted statute. Sounds like you should have also gotten at least one ticket for failing to properly maintain your car.

 

[Just Blue]

I sure would like to know how you know so much about my load and how it was secured. I also would like to know what Texas state law covers unsecured load. Know to follow your reasoning. If I ran out of gas, would it not be justified( under the same law (1) to stop, stand, or park because my complete inattention to properly fuel my car hardly constitutes a justification under the quoted statute. Sounds like you should have also gotten at least one ticket for failing to properly maintain your car.

I cant seem to get this out of my head tonight, so I thought I would see what you all had to say. I got pulled over the other day for driving on an improved shoulder. I was pulling a 20' foot trailer. I was worried about the items falling over or blowing off, so I was driving slow around 35-45 MPH.

In case you forgot OP the ^ is from your first posting on this thread.

As you were driving 30+ miles under the posted limit that, in itself, was cause for you to be pulled over and cited.

 

[HighwayMan]

I sure would like to know how you know so much about my load and how it was secured.

By your own admission it was not properly secured.

I also would like to know what Texas state law covers unsecured load.

Here you go (quoted from austin.legalexaminer.com):

Texas, like most other states, has a law (in Texas, the law is Transportation Code section 725.001 et seq) that makes it a misdemeanor for a driver to not secure a load. The code is a little convoluted, but the Texas Driver’s Handbook summary of the law is fairly straightforward:

TRANSPORTING CARGO AND MATERIALS
In order to prevent cargo or loose materials from falling or spilling from a vehicle car, truck, trailer, etc. onto the roadway and possibly causing accidents or damage to the roads, state law requires that drivers comply with certain requirements.

State law mandates that no person shall load or transport any loose material on or over the public highways, such as dirt, sand, gravel, wood chips, or other material (except agricultural products in their natural state), that is capable of blowing or spilling from a vehicle unless:

(1) the bed carrying the load must be completely enclosed on both sides and on the front and on the rear by a tailgate, board or panel, and all must be so constructed as to prevent the escape of any
part of the load by blowing or spilling; and

(2) the top of the load must be covered with a canvas, tarpaulin, or other covering firmly secured to the front and back to prevent the escape of the load because of blowing or spilling. This requirement does not apply to any load-carrying compartment that completely encloses the load or to the transporting of any load of loose materials that are not blowing or spilling over the top of the load-carrying compartment.

 

[hawk2728]

you forgot the most important part of that law.

Sec. 725.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Load" means a load of loose material.
(2) "Loose material" means material that can be blown or spilled from a vehicle because of movement or exposure to air, wind currents, or other weather. The term includes dirt, sand, gravel, refuse, and wood chips but excludes an agricultural product in its natural state

this law is directly intended for very small items It does not have any all encompassing words. It also states material that can be effected by the weather, I.E or other weather. It does not mention bumpy road, sudden stop or evasive actions, or any other words to lead one to believe it means otherwise.

Perhaps the confusion is in the lack of detain in my original post.

The officer stated it was not legal to drive on the shoulder, and the way he said it, I believe, he believes it is illegal under any circumstances to drive on the shoulder. Thus he had no articulated reasons for the stop and thus no probable cause. Although I agree the officer could make some up. but as with any lie you tell you have to remember it.

This leads one to wonder how many officers actually know the laws they are enforcing. I mean actually read and study them, or is it most likely that they just have some idea of what the laws are based on some website or what they have been told?

 

[justalayman]

you forgot the most important part of that law.

Sec. 725.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Load" means a load of loose material.
(2) "Loose material" means material that can be blown or spilled from a vehicle because of movement or exposure to air, wind currents, or other weather. The term includes dirt, sand, gravel, refuse, and wood chips but excludes an agricultural product in its natural state

this law is directly intended for very small items It does not have any all encompassing words. It also states material that can be effected by the weather, I.E or other weather. It does not mention bumpy road, sudden stop or evasive actions, or any other words to lead one to believe it means otherwise.

Perhaps the confusion is in the lack of detain in my original post.

The officer stated it was not legal to drive on the shoulder, and the way he said it, I believe, he believes it is illegal under any circumstances to drive on the shoulder. Thus he had no articulated reasons for the stop and thus no probable cause. Although I agree the officer could make some up. but as with any lie you tell you have to remember it.

This leads one to wonder how many officers actually know the laws they are enforcing. I mean actually read and study them, or is it most likely that they just have some idea of what the laws are based on some website or what they have been told?

Ok, make it simple and using your quote since I;'m not going to hunt the law:


had you pulled onto the shoulder temporarily to allow traffic to pass?

had you pulled over to avoid a collision?

if neither of those apply, then it was illegal to drive on the shoulder as you were.

Sec. 725.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Load" means a load of loose material.
(2) "Loose material" means material that can be blown or spilled from a vehicle because of movement or exposure to air, wind currents, or other weather. The term includes dirt, sand, gravel, refuse, and wood chips but excludes an agricultural product in its natural state

this law is directly intended for very small items It does not have any all encompassing words. It also states material that can be effected by the weather, I.E or other weather. It does not mention bumpy road, sudden stop or evasive actions, or any other words to lead one to believe it means otherwise.

it doesn't matter. It is required that your load of any sort be secured such that it cannot fall off the platform. It is unsafe to drive with a load (not referring to the loose material load) that is not secure and that is illegal in every state of the country. It is a hazard to others on the road. You can research it if you so choose but I am confident in my statement.

If you were concerned about your load falling, it was unsafe to be on the roadway with your load in that condition.

 

[hawk2728]

the obvious answer is yes i was driving on the shoulder to let faster vehicle's pass. If there was no traffic I would not have been driving on the shoulder. If my math is correct, a car travailing at 75 mph will travel 110' per second
and a car travailing at 45 mph will travel 66' per second
and it takes the average person 1.5 seconds to react to to any situation.
and 10 cars passed you in a span of 2 miles
that would mean that you pull on to the shoulder temporarily every 15 seconds to let a car pass. or every 990 feet.

10 cars in two miles is a low estimate. would you consider someone changing from travel lane to shoulder every 15 seconds safe? or would you think that is unsafe. most would probably say what is that person smoking or how much have they had to drink.

so the argument to pull over temporally would not be a valid argument.

 

[justalayman]

hawk2728;3304145]the obvious answer is yes i was driving on the shoulder to let faster vehicle's pass.

if you remained on the shoulder, then no, it was not to let faster traffic pass. The allowance in the law is that while driving on the driving lane you can move to the shoulder to allow a faster car to pass. Once they pass you would be required to return to the driving lane.

10 cars in two miles is a low estimate. would you consider someone changing from travel lane to shoulder every 15 seconds safe?

nope but since when do you have to pull over for each and every car? This line of defense is not valid.

so the argument to pull over temporally would not be a valid argument

sorry but that is what you are allowed to do. You are not allowed to drive continuously on the shoulder.



so was this road a single lane in each direction? I cannot imagine the state posting a 75 mph limit on a two lane road. If there was more than one lane in each direction, you would have no purpose in pulling to the shoulder as there would be the second lane which could be used to pass you.



Bottom line; you had no business on the road you were on with the load in the condition it was. You can try all you want to make an excuse of why the cop couldn't pull you over but you would be wrong. Hell, he could pull you over if what you were doing was 100% legal just to ask you why you are driving on the shoulder.

just give it up; you do not have a valid argument that the cop had no right to stop you. You got caught and it's as simple as that.

 

[hawk2728]

if you remained on the shoulder, then no, it was not to let faster traffic pass. The allowance in the law is that while driving on the driving lane you can move to the shoulder to allow a faster car to pass. Once they pass you would be required to return to the driving lane.

If this where true then you would be in violation if there where a line of cars behind you and you did not get back into the lane of travel after the first car passed.

nope but since when do you have to pull over for each and every car? This line of defense is not valid.

true you do not have to pull over for every car. But how safe would it be to pull back into the lane of travel right in front of another car.

sorry but that is what you are allowed to do. You are not allowed to drive continuously on the shoulder.

I believe that the situation would dictate that.

so was this road a single lane in each direction? I cannot imagine the state posting a 75 mph limit on a two lane road. If there was more than one lane in each direction, you would have no purpose in pulling to the shoulder as there would be the second lane which could be used to pass you.

in Texas two lane roads often have 70 and 75 mph. in fact probably more often than not.

Hell, he could pull you over if what you were doing was 100% legal just to ask you why you are driving on the shoulder.

just give it up; you do not have a valid argument that the cop had no right to stop you. You got caught and it's as simple as that.

I agree he could have approached me in a caretaker manner. But he did not, furthermore an officer must be able to articulate reasons for detaining and questioning a citizen under both the Texas constitution and the United States constitution. If the officer can not articulate those reasons then the stop is unjustified. Regardless of what the officer thinks.

 

[justalayman]

I agree he could have approached me in a caretaker manner. But he did not, furthermore an officer must be able to articulate reasons for detaining and questioning a citizen under both the Texas constitution and the United States constitution. If the officer can not articulate those reasons then the stop is unjustified. Regardless of what the officer thinks

he did articulate a reason; you were driving on the shoulder. At that point he has a valid reason to stop you to investigate as to why.

 

[hawk2728]

My assumption is that this officer was not a traffic officer and does not know the traffic laws. Of course that will be proved true or false, if this case goes to trial and i suspect it wont. I suspect the officer believed it was never legal to ever drive on the shoulder. If it does go to trial I would be very stupid to not argue probable cause. The officer would most likely have to make up the facts to justify the stop. my reason to believe this is because the officer did not say anything to the effect of you can only drive on the shoulder under other conditions. He stated it was not legal to drive on the shoulder ever. I understand that I really do not know what he was thinking. If he has to make up a story it will show its self in cross examination, and in the end he will say something akin to " I really don't remember what happened that day".

 

[hawk2728]

he did articulate a reason; you were driving on the shoulder. At that point he has a valid reason to stop you to investigate as to why.

And I suspect that will be his argument.

and I will move to dismiss citing a case from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Lothrop v. State
found at this link http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13448172167229233022&q=Lothrop+v.+State&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44

The whole case is a very good read. and informative
here is a quote Estel is the officer
"we hold that Estel did not have reasonable suspicion that the appellant was illegally driving on an improved shoulder. Estel testified that the car in front of the appellant slowed down noticeably, and that the appellant then used the improved shoulder to pass the slowed car, as authorized by Section 545.058(a)(4). Estel did not testify that using the improved shoulder car was unnecessary"