Failure to Yield - Indiana

[JETX]

To me, tht should be the easiest rebuttal you ever see in court.

Great. You have decided, against ALL legally valid advice, to proceed with your defense. Go ahead.
When your day in court comes up, just be sure you take enough cash to pay the ticket and fine.

 

[Zzzyx]

California Vehicle Code

California DMV Code is specific to FREEWAYS. Note that it also states "tow truck."

21809. (a) A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a
stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergency
lights, or a stationary tow truck that is displaying flashing amber
warning lights, shall approach with due caution and, before passing
in a lane immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or
tow truck, absent any other direction by a peace officer, proceed to
do one of the following:

(1) Make a lane change into an available lane not immediately
adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or tow truck with due
regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not
prohibited by law.
(2) If the maneuver described in paragraph (1) would be unsafe or
impracticable, slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe
for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic
conditions.
(b) A violation of subdivision (a) is an infraction, punishable by
a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50).
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2010, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2010, deletes or extends
that date.

 

[Zigner]

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.

Tell you what big guy...why don't you come back and tell us how your day in court goes

 

[davew128]

Great. You have decided, against ALL legally valid advice, to proceed with your defense. Go ahead.
When your day in court comes up, just be sure you take enough cash to pay the ticket and fine.

Well Denny Crane, given that I was WELL under the speed limit at the time, I'm not bringing a dime into the courthouse. How do you like them apples?

 

[davew128]

Tell you what big guy...why don't you come back and tell us how your day in court goes

Tell you what tough guy, I'll put money on winning.

 

[JohnBLZ]

Tell you what tough guy, I'll put money on winning.

nice...what's the spread?

 

[Zigner]

California DMV Code is specific to FREEWAYS. Note that it also states "tow truck."

21809. (a) A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a
stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergency
lights, or a stationary tow truck that is displaying flashing amber
warning lights, shall approach with due caution and, before passing
in a lane immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or
tow truck, absent any other direction by a peace officer, proceed to
do one of the following:

(1) Make a lane change into an available lane not immediately
adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or tow truck with due
regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not
prohibited by law.
(2) If the maneuver described in paragraph (1) would be unsafe or
impracticable, slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe
for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic
conditions.
(b) A violation of subdivision (a) is an infraction, punishable by
a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50).
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2010, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2010, deletes or extends
that date.

CVC

332. "Freeway" is a highway in respect to which the owners of
abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their
abutting lands or in respect to which such owners have only limited
or restricted right or easement of access.

 

[Zigner]

Well Denny Crane, given that I was WELL under the speed limit at the time, I'm not bringing a dime into the courthouse. How do you like them apples?

What makes you think the speed limit has ANYTHING to do with "...a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic
conditions."?

 

[davew128]

What makes you think the speed limit has ANYTHING to do with "...a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic
conditions."?

Irrelevant. You're applying California statute to an Indiana ticket. Indiana statute only references: reduce the speed of the
vehicle, maintaining a safe speed for road conditions, if
changing lanes would be impossible or unsafe.

Now, given that I was well under the speed limit AND easily the slowest vehicle on the road, telling me I was driving too fast or that the limit has nothing to do with this law is foolish. I was already driving as fast as I felt comfortable doing under the conditions and if I'm under the posted limit and others are going at or over the limit under the same conditions, saying I didn't slow down enough is asinine.

 

[The Occultist]

Irrelevant. You're applying California statute to an Indiana ticket. Indiana statute only references: reduce the speed of the
vehicle, maintaining a safe speed for road conditions, if
changing lanes would be impossible or unsafe.

Now, given that I was well under the speed limit AND easily the slowest vehicle on the road, telling me I was driving too fast or that the limit has nothing to do with this law is foolish. I was already driving as fast as I felt comfortable doing under the conditions and if I'm under the posted limit and others are going at or over the limit under the same conditions, saying I didn't slow down enough is asinine.

You've made another bad assumption, and I'm not going to bother correcting it. You lack the ability to read/understand law, so the only good advice that can now be given to you is to sit down with an attorney local to the area in which you were cited and let him explain things to you.

 

[Zigner]

Irrelevant. You're applying California statute to an Indiana ticket. Indiana statute only references: reduce the speed of the
vehicle, maintaining a safe speed for road conditions, if
changing lanes would be impossible or unsafe.

Now, given that I was well under the speed limit AND easily the slowest vehicle on the road, telling me I was driving too fast or that the limit has nothing to do with this law is foolish. I was already driving as fast as I felt comfortable doing under the conditions and if I'm under the posted limit and others are going at or over the limit under the same conditions, saying I didn't slow down enough is asinine.

Ok, I'll restate:
What makes you think the speed limit has ANYTHING to do with "...maintaining a safe speed for road conditions..."?
You are approaching the density of lead...

 

[FlyingRon]

Ok, I'll restate:
What makes you think the speed limit has ANYTHING to do with "...maintaining a safe speed for road conditions..."?
You are approaching the density of lead...

In addition, the road condition includes a stopped emergency vehicle on the side of the road. The posted speed limit doesn't have anything to do with that. If it did there would be no need for the statute that he was cited for.

 

[justalayman]

Ok, For all those that believe this guy is guilty, you must believe he was driving at an unsafe speed, so, toss out a speed you believe would have been safe.

define what you believe is a safe speed.


Like I said before, I support this type of law but Indiana's law is ambiguous. There is no defined "safe speed". If you apply the only other statute regarding speed that allows police discretion in determining a safe speed, there has to be some sort of accident or incident that shows the driver was proceeding at an unsafe speed as evidenced by the accident/incident that resulted.

So, would 50 been safe? How about 30? or is it 1 mph slower than the OP was driving?

 

[Zigner]

Ok, For all those that believe this guy is guilty, you must believe he was driving at an unsafe speed, so, toss out a speed you believe would have been safe.

define what you believe is a safe speed.


Like I said before, I support this type of law but Indiana's law is ambiguous. There is no defined "safe speed". If you apply the only other statute regarding speed that allows police discretion in determining a safe speed, there has to be some sort of accident or incident that shows the driver was proceeding at an unsafe speed as evidenced by the accident/incident that resulted.

So, would 50 been safe? How about 30? or is it 1 mph slower than the OP was driving?

Justalayman -
You are off-base here. WE can't define a "safe speed" because we were not there. Can 1 mph be unsafe? Well, if you are 1" in front of the car and the car is not stopping, then 1 mph can definitely be unsafe.
The point is that our OP did not slow to a safe speed FOR CONDITIONS (according to the officer.) The OP will have to successfully rebut the officer's testimony in court in order to prevail.

 

[justalayman]

Justalayman -
You are off-base here. WE can't define a "safe speed" because we were not there. Can 1 mph be unsafe? Well, if you are 1" in front of the car and the car is not stopping, then 1 mph can definitely be unsafe.
The point is that our OP did not slow to a safe speed FOR CONDITIONS (according to the officer.) The OP will have to successfully rebut the officer's testimony in court in order to prevail.

the point is the problem is with an officer simply grabbing some arbitrary number and calling it safe. Like I said before, I support these laws but this one is too loosely written to be enforcable (at least against a person that has enough money to fight it).

with a law like this:

(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.

the officer could argue that there is absolutely no safe speed. If an officer should slip and fall or react to a situation in the vehicle (such as withdrawing from having a weapon aimed at them), any motion could result in the officer being hit. Then, as in my argument, since there was no injury or incident, the driver had to be driving at a safe speed because there was no injury or incident.

Or, in an extreme situation, should an officer have some sort of fear of such a situation, he would list an extremely slow speed where as an officer that is comfortable doing the roadside thing, would not consider a much faster speed to be unsafe. The laws were not intended to allow an officer to use discretion to that extent.

That is why the law must be defined or trashed.

Given enough money, I can guarantee a successful defense.