People use the term “speed trap” to describe various scenarios. Some people use the term to refer to an officer hiding behind a billboard or other obstruction trying to catch unsuspecting speeders. However, the term is most commonly used to refer to situations where the speed limit is reduced for a certain stretch of a roadway. The classic example of a speed trap is a small town on a highway that reduces the speed limit dramatically (say from 65 to 30 miles per hour) for a half-mile stretch.
Speed traps are an inconvenience for drivers and sometimes appear to be intentionally designed to for local municipalities to raise revenue through ticketing. But still, there’s usually nothing illegal about the use of speed traps. Regardless of drivers’ suspicions, local governments justify these reduced-speed zones as necessary to ensure public safety. After all, it’s reasonable to conclude that highway-speed traffic could present serious dangers to children and other pedestrians going about their business in town. And the fact that an officer was sneakily hiding behind a billboard sign generally isn’t a valid defense to a speeding ticket.
Each state has its own rules governing speed limit enforcement. Many defenses to speeding tickets relate to challenging the reliability of the officer’s speed measurement. These kinds of defenses can apply to any type of speeding ticket. But some states have rules directly related to speed traps that can give a driver additional way to fight speed trap ticket.
In some states, the law requires evidence that specific speed limits are justified by safety concerns. For example, California’s speed trap law requires posted speed limits to be justified by an engineering survey. In other words, speed limits are mathematically determined based on various factors, including the amount of traffic and nearby safety concerns. Under California’s speed trap law, with certain exceptions, a speed limit isn’t enforceable unless supported by an engineering survey.
Another possible speed trap defense is based on inadequate signage. Almost all states require that speed limits be posted in a clearly visible manner. So, you might be able to beat a speed trap ticket by presenting evidence that the speed limit sign was obscured by branches or other obstructions.
]]>This article focuses on how police measure drivers' speed. The most common methods are explained in more detail below. However, not all methods are allowed in all places—it depends on the laws of your state.
Lots of speeding tickets involve the use of radar measurement systems because it's generally a reliable and straightforward method for measuring vehicle speed. However, despite their general reliability, radar devices aren't infallible.
The word “radar” is an acronym for “Radio Detection and Ranging.” In simple terms, radar uses radio waves reflected off a moving object to determine its speed. With police radar, that moving object is your car. Radar units generate the waves with a transmitter. When they bounce back off your car, they are picked up and amplified by a receiver so they can be analyzed. The analysis is then reflected in a speed-readout device. Radar systems use radio waves similar to those involved in AM and FM radio transmissions, but with a higher frequency—up to 24 billion waves per second as compared to one million per second for AM radio.
Typically, the radars police use are one of two types: car-mounted units that can be operated while the officer's vehicle is stationary or moving and hand-held radar "guns."
Most radar units used in patrol vehicles are shaped something like a side-mounted spotlight. They are usually mounted on the rear left window of the police car facing toward the rear. The officer reads your speed on a small console mounted on or under the dash. The unit has a digital readout that displays the highest speed read during the second or two your vehicle passes through the beam.
Most modern police radar units can also operate in a "moving mode," allowing the officer to determine a vehicle's speed even though the officer's own patrol vehicle is moving.
Hand-held radar guns are most often used by motorcycle officers. Radar guns use a trigger system. So, the officer just pulls the trigger when he or she wants to measure a vehicle's speed.
Most radar errors result from the radar's operation in real-world conditions, which are often far less than ideal. And, of course, human error can also cause radar devices to fail.
Radar beams are similar to flashlight beams—the farther the beam travels, the more it spreads out. And this simple fact often results in bad speed readings because a spread-out beam can hit two vehicles in adjacent lanes (or that are otherwise near each other).
In other words, if you're in one lane and a faster vehicle is in another, the other vehicle will produce a higher reading on the officer's radar unit, which the officer may mistakenly attribute to you.
Most radar units have a beam angle, or spread, of 12 to 16 degrees. So, the beam width will be about two lanes wide (approximately 40 feet) at a distance of only 160 feet from the radar gun.
The inability of the equipment to distinguish between two separate objects is called "a lack of resolution."
A few factors can make this kind of error more likely. Resolution problems are more likely to occur if the other vehicle is larger than yours simply because the other vehicle has a greater surface area. And, automatic radar units (or those set to automatic mode) tend to produce this type of error more frequently than units that the officer manually turns on and off such as with a trigger system.
Although metal reflects radar beams better than most surfaces, pretty much any material will reflect radar waves to some extent. In fact, on windy days, windblown dust or even tree leaves can be picked up by radar devices. The same is true of rain, snow, and the like. Sometimes these spurious readings can be attributed to your vehicle.
Pre-thunderstorm atmospheric electrical charges can also interfere with a radar unit. This interference occurs when electrically charged storm clouds reflect a bad signal back to the radar unit even though they are high in the sky. If such a storm cloud is traveling at a sufficient speed, a false radar reading can result.
Every scientific instrument used for measuring needs to be regularly calibrated to ensure its accuracy. Radar equipment is no exception. It must be checked for accuracy against an object traveling at a known (not radar-determined) speed.
Calibration of a radar unit typically involves using a tuning fork as the moving object. Tuning forks are supplied by the manufacturer of the radar equipment and certified to correspond to the speed marked on the fork. According to most operation manuals, a radar unit should be calibrated with the tuning forks before and after every shift. Ideally, several tuning forks vibrating at different speeds should be used to check the radar unit's accuracy.
It is time-consuming to use a tuning fork as a calibration device. So a second—but far less accurate—method has been developed to check the accuracy of radar units. This second method is a "calibrate" or "test" switch built into the radar unit itself. The unit reads a signal generated by an internal frequency-generating device called a "crystal." The resulting number is supposed to correlate with a certain predetermined speed. Unfortunately, these internal calibrating systems don't work as well as they're supposed to.
Most states allow police officers to catch speeders using a technology called VASCAR ("Visual Average Speed Computer and Recorder"). VASCAR is basically a stopwatch coupled electronically with a calculator. The calculator divides the distance the target vehicle travels (as recorded by the stopwatch) by the time it took to travel that distance.
VASCAR is not like a radar or laser gun, which gives a readout of a vehicle’s speed by simply pointing and pulling the trigger. A VASCAR unit requires far more human input than radar or laser guns—which greatly increases the possibility of mistakes.
VASCAR works like this: The officer measures the distance between the two points—typically, by using the patrol car’s odometer, which is connected to the VASCAR unit. When the officer sees the target vehicle pass one of two points, the officer pushes a button to start the electronic stopwatch, then pushes it again to stop it when the vehicle passes the second point.
Using VASCAR correctly isn’t easy. For example, it is no easy thing to accurately push the “time” and “distance” buttons while observing the target pass between two points, at least one of which is almost sure to be far away from the officer. And, of course, doing this accurately is even harder when the patrol car is moving.
The most common three mistakes that can cause error in a VASCAR measurement are:
Generally, these errors become more pronounced and lead and lead to greater inaccuracies in the final speed estimate when the distance between the two passing points is small. For example, there's less likely to be significant inaccuracy using VASCAR if the measured distance is something like 1,500 feet than for a much shorter distance like 500 feet.
Because VASCAR accuracy can depend so heavily on the officer's reaction time, it's crucial to know the distance over which the officer clocked you. You may be able to obtain this information from the officer prior to the court date by requesting it through a process called "discovery."
Laser detectors are the most recent addition to the traffic officer’s arsenal of speed-measuring devices.
Built to look and act like a hand-held radar gun, a laser detector uses a low-powered beam of laser light that bounces off the targeted vehicle and returns to a receiver in the unit. The unit then electronically calculates the speed of the targeted vehicle. Laser detectors are supposedly more accurate than radar units.
One advantage for police officers of the laser gun is that the light beam is narrower than a radar beam, meaning that it can be more precisely aimed. This is true even though laser detectors use three separate beams because the combined width of the three beams is still much narrower than a single radar beam at the same distance. This technology reduces but does not eliminate the chance that the speed of a nearby car will be measured instead of the speed of the car at which the operator aims the gun.
Laser detectors measure distance (between the gun and the target car) using the speed of light and the time it takes the light, reflected off the target vehicle, to return to the laser gun. The detector makes about 40 of these distance measurements over a third of a second, then divides the light’s round-trip distance by the time, to get the speed. This means to be accurate the officer must hold the combined beams on the same part of the car during the test. While this is easier to do with radar because of its wide beam, it is tricky to do this with a narrow laser beam. Also, it’s impossible to be sure that the officer has been able to accomplish this feat because the officer can’t see the beam.
It’s also possible (especially in heavy traffic) for one beam to hit the target car and another beam to hit a nearby car. The chances of this happening increase with traffic density and the distance between the laser unit and the measured vehicle.
Many speeding tickets result from the police officer following or “pacing” a suspected speeder and using his or her own speedometer to estimate the suspect’s speed.
With this technique, the officer must maintain a constant distance between the police vehicle and the suspect’s car long enough to make a reasonably accurate estimate of its speed.
Some states have rules requiring the officer to verify speed by pacing over a certain distance. (For example, at least one-eighth or one-fourth of a mile.) In practice—even in states that don’t require pacing over a minimum distance—most traffic officers will usually try to follow you for a reasonable distance to increase the effectiveness of their testimony, should you contest the ticket.
The accuracy of pacing depends on the officer's ability to maintain a constant distance from the target vehicle. So any facts that might prevent the officer from doing so can lead to an inaccurate speed estimate. For example, where an officer is a long way back from the target vehicle, it's more difficult to maintain a constant distance. Hill, curves, and traffic can also make it hard for the officer to keep a constant following distance and lead to an inaccurate speed estimate.
]]>Most state laws on stoplights read something like this:
A driver facing a steady circular red signal shall stop at a marked limit line, or if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection.
The elements of this offense that the government must prove are basically the same as for driving through a stop sign, with one obvious exception—stop signs are constant while traffic lights cycle through from colors from green to yellow to red.
In most states, it's legal to drive through an intersection when the light is green or yellow. Generally, as long as the front of your vehicle entered the intersection (passed the crosswalk or limit line) before the light turned red, you haven't broken the stoplight law. The laws of most also allow drivers to turn right at a red light after making a complete stop.
Unless your red light ticket was issued by an automated camera system—which many states use to catch red-light violators—the government's evidence will typically consist of only the testimony of the officer who issued the ticket. So, stoplight ticket defenses generally focus on casting doubt on the officer's perception of events.
As previously noted, if you cross the limit line prior to the light turning red, you generally haven't broken the law.
The only time an officer has a really good view of when your car entered an intersection is when he or she is sitting directly to the side of, and close to, the intersection. But chances are the cop was someplace else—sitting across the street in a parking lot, perhaps.
You can cross-examine the officer as to exactly where he or she was when he or she says you ran the red light. Ask the officer whether other cars were in a position to obscure the view of the intersection. Then, when it's your turn to testify, provide detailed testimony, making it clear where you were when you saw the light turn yellow and how far you were across the intersection when it turned red. Make a simple diagram like the one below (adapted for your particular situation, of course) and show it to the judge.
When a judgment call is involved (such as the location of your front bumper when a light turned red), two observers are always far better than one. So, if someone who was riding in your front seat can testify that the light was still yellow when you entered the intersection, it can strengthen your defense.
Another defense to a red light ticket focuses on the officer not being able to see the signal that allegedly turned red before you entered the intersection.
When a light turns green, we assume the light for cross-traffic has simultaneously turned red. For example, if an officer approaches an intersection with a green light and sees you drive across the intersection, the officer will assume you ran a red light and won't later check to be sure that the light changes were synchronized. Sometimes they aren't. If you can go back to the scene and document that the light was mistimed, you should be entitled to acquittal. Don't dismiss this possibility—neither machines nor the people who time them are infallible.
]]>Stop sign laws generally read something like this:
"The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection, shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway or railroad grade crossing."
If you decide to take your case to trial, the government has to prove that you committed the violation. That means there generally must be proof of the following three elements (parts that make up the offense):
Basically, to get a conviction, the government needs to show you either didn't stop or stopped too late.
Most statutes say you must stop at the nearest of the limit line, crosswalk, or entrance to the intersection. Practically, this means you must stop slightly before you reach one of these points. Some conscientious drivers, however, stop well in advance of where they have to. In these cases, an officer hiding behind a bush 50 feet down a side street might not be able to see whether the driver stopped or not.
To mount this defense, you'll first want to request a copy of the officer's notes. Typically, this involves making a written request to the police department or local prosecutor's office through a process called "discovery." The notes, if obtained, can be used to verify where the officer was positioned when you allegedly ran the stop sign. In many cases, the officer won't have any notes, so you'll just have to ask the officer during cross-examination about where he or she was positioned when the violation allegedly occurred.
For this type of defense, it's also important to have a visual aid so you can show the judge the physical layout. In many situations, taking pictures of the scene will do the trick. Especially if you can document a visual obstruction—and convincingly testify you did stop—this defense can be a winner. Of course, it's a big help if you can produce a passenger or other witnesses who can corroborate your version of events.
Generally, you can't be prosecuted for running a stop sign that was obscured or illegible. With a defense based on obscured or illegible signage, you essentially concede that you ran the stop sign but argue it wasn't your fault because the sign wasn't visible. This can occur if the stop sign is hidden by storm-blown branches, twisted the wrong way by kids, or obscured in any other way.
Pictures are worth a thousand words. Pictures taken from different angles or distances are generally more convincing than just an explanation. For example, if a stop sign is hidden from view by overhanging branches until a few feet before the intersection, take pictures or a video from inside of your vehicle (with someone else driving) as the car approaches the sign. In court, you can show your pictures or video to the judge and explain the situation.
Ignorance is no excuse. It's not a valid defense to say you didn't know that what you did was illegal (rolling through a stop sign, for example). In other words, the law assumes that drivers know the rules of the road.
Generally, the fact that a sign was recently installed isn't a valid defense to running it. However, there's no question that it's easy to miss a new sign placed on a road that you travel regularly. So, some judges might be sympathetic and let you off the hook or at least reduce your fine if you can show the sign really was recently installed.
Crosswalks and limit lines fade. If you are ticketed at a stop sign for stopping a little too far into an intersection, you may be able to beat your ticket by showing that the limit line or crosswalk was too faded to see clearly. (Here again, a picture or video is probably necessary.) But it depends on the specific wording of your state's law. With the example above, this defense probably wouldn't work because the law requires drivers to stop at the nearest of a limit line or the intersection itself.
]]>Most drivers are aware that when there are multiple lanes of traffic going in the same direction, the far left lane is for passing and faster traffic and that slower traffic should generally stay in the right lanes. But this isn't just a general understanding—it's required by law.
The laws of most states say something like this:
"Any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction."
Most state laws also contain an exception for vehicles that are preparing to turn left off the highway.
Defenses to this type of driving-too-ticket might include:
Basically, it comes down to whether you were driving unreasonably slow in the left lane or you had a legitimate reason for doing so.
"Impeding traffic" is similar to driving too slowly in the left lane. The difference is that you can be ticketed for impeding traffic even if you were driving in the right-hand lane or on a single-lane road.
Impeding traffic laws are normally worded something like this:
"No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or compliance with the law."
The defenses that might work for an impeding-traffic ticket are similar to those that apply to driving too slow in the fast lane. Basically, you'll want to show that you were either driving the speed limit or you were driving at a slower speed because it was reasonably necessary for safety reasons.
Another variety of impeding traffic is based on a driver's failure to use roadside turnouts when a line of cars has accumulated behind.
Most states have a law that reads something like this:
"On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one that is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place."
Again, if you're ticketed for violating a turnout law, you're best defenses—assuming there were five more cars lined-up behind you—are going to be based on safety or that you were driving the speed limit.
Red light camera system work by triggering a camera or multiple cameras as a vehicle passes over a sensor in the intersection when the light is red. The cameras take pictures that normally show the vehicle's license plate and the driver. Many camera systems also take video footage of the vehicle driving through the red light.
Red light cameras are fairly accurate but sometimes are falsely triggered. To weed out errors, an officer or technician generally reviews the photos and videos before any tickets go out. If the reviewer determines there was a red light violation, the registered owner of the vehicle will receive a ticket in the mail.
The starting point for fighting a red light camera ticket is to view the photos and videos. The ticket the vehicle owner receives in the mail will normally include the photos and a web address to view videos. It's also important to read the state law pertaining to red light cameras—the available defenses depend on what the law says.
Probably the most common red light camera defense relates to who was driving the vehicle when the violation occurred. In most of the states, it's the driver—not the vehicle owner—who's liable for the violation. Many states allow owners who receive tickets to submit an affidavit swearing that he or she wasn’t driving when the violations occurred. Generally, submitting this affidavit will result in the dismissal of the ticket.
Generally, the existence of the photos and video puts to rest any argument that no red light violation occurred. But red light camera systems and reviewers occasionally make mistakes. So, drivers can sometimes use the photos and videos to their advantage in getting a red light ticket dismissed.
Basically, the photos and videos must show the vehicle crossed the limit line or entered the intersection after the light turned red. Otherwise, there's no proof that the driver actually violated the law.
The laws of some states require signs that tell drivers red light cameras are in use at an intersection. Generally, these types of requirements specify what the signs must say and where in relation to the intersection they must be located. Drivers who are cited for violations at intersections that don't have the required signage might have a good defense to the ticket.
In some states, red light camera tickets carry the same penalties as any other red light violation. Generally, these penalties include fines in the range of $75 to $400 and demerit points being assessed to the driver's record.
But most states, for whatever reason, penalize red light camera violations less severely than traditional stoplight tickets issued by an officer. Camera violation fines are usually much lower and camera tickets typically don't result in demerit points.
]]>This article covers the first piece—the different types of speed limits.
There are three types of speed limits that states use. We call these “absolute” (or “maximum”), “presumed” (or “prima facie”), and “basic” speed limits. Most states use two of the three types, while others use all three or only one type.
Because the available defenses are different for each type of speed-limit violation, it is key to understand which you are charged with violating.
Most states have some absolute speed limits. There is no trick to how these limits work: If the sign says the maximum speed limit is 40 miles per hour and you drive 41 miles per hour or more, you've violated the law.
“Presumed” speed-limit violations are a little more complicated but give you far more flexibility in building your defense. In states that use this system for all or some of their roads—California and Texas, for example—it’s legal to drive over the posted limit as long as you are driving at a safe speed.
For example, if you are driving 50 miles per hour in a 40-mile-per-hour presumed zone, you're presumed to be speeding. But if it's 6 a.m. on a clear, dry morning with no other cars on a wide, straight road, and you can convince the judge that you were driving safely given those conditions, you should be acquitted. That’s because you present facts that “rebut the presumption” that by going over the limit you were driving at an unsafe speed. (There's more on this below.)
The concept of the basic speed law is even trickier. Basic speed laws require drivers to always drive at a safe speed. So, you can be charged with speeding by violating a basic speed law, even if you were driving below the posted speed limit. The ticketing officer must simply decide that you were going faster than was reasonably safe, taking into account the driving conditions at the time.
For example, if you're driving 40 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone, but the road is icy and there's heavy fog, a cop could sensibly conclude that by driving too fast for road conditions you are in violation of the basic speed law. This type of ticket is mostly handed out after an accident.
For some people, it's easier to just pay a speeding ticket and move on. In most states, you can admit a traffic violation and pay the fine through the mail or internet without even going to court.
But other people might want to avoid having to pay the fine or insurance rate increases that often come with traffic tickets. For these people, it might be worth the time and effort it takes to fight the speeding ticket in traffic court. After all, if you beat a speeding ticket in court, you won't have to pay any fines or worry about the ticket affecting your driving record. (It's also a good idea to research whether traffic school might be an option.)
To get an idea of how likely you are to win a traffic court trial, you should talk to a traffic lawyer in your area about possible strategies.
Speeding ticket defenses differ depending on the type of speed limit. On your ticket, it'll generally say what type of speed limit you're accused of violating. However, the officer will sometimes just write the number of the code section, like "Vehicle Code section 3451," which you can look up online.
The most common defenses to absolute speed limit tickets involve attacking the accuracy of the officer's speed measurement. For example, you might be able to successfully argue:
Because these types of defenses are geared toward casting doubt on the officer's speed measurement or estimate, they can be used to defend against all three types of violations.
With “presumed” speed limits, the question is whether the driver was driving at an unsafe speed given the road and weather conditions at the time and place the violation allegedly occurred. If you’re accused of violating a presumed limit, you generally have two possible defenses:
Occasionally an officer will incorrectly measure your speed. But even when that happens, it can be hard to convince a judge to accept your version of the story. So, for presumed violations, it's often more effective to rely primarily on the argument that you may have been driving slightly over the posted speed limit, but it was safe to do so considering all the highway conditions at the time.
For example, if you know you were driving 33 to 35 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone, you should concentrate your defense on showing that your speed was safe because of factors like sunny skies, no traffic, and perfect visibility.
Because basic speed laws focus on driving a safe speed, as with presumed limits, the question comes down to whether the driver was going at a speed that was reasonably safe in relation to the conditions that existed at the time.
For example, driving exactly at the 65‑mile-per-hour posted limit on the freeway would be really dumb amidst slower and heavy traffic, in a dense fog, or in a driving rainstorm or blizzard. In commonsense terms, such unsafe driving is unlawful, regardless of the posted speed limit. Police most often rely on the basic speed law after an accident. The reasoning is that you were driving too fast, no matter how slow you were driving, because you were in an accident.
The difference between fighting a basic speed law ticket and a speeding ticket for going over a presumed limit is that the government has the burden of proving you were driving unsafely. With presumed limits, it's flipped: Once the government shows you were driving faster than the presumed limit, it's up to you to prove your speed was nevertheless safe. In other words, the officer must testify that given the road, weather, or traffic conditions, your speed was unsafe.
It never hurts to talk to an attorney about your case. But if you were involved in an accident, you definitely should consult with an attorney because doing anything on your own. In addition to the penalties for a speeding violation, you might also be facing a lawsuit. Getting an attorney's assistance in this situation is a good idea.
]]>Most drivers have their own idea of what it means to tailgate. But there’s also a legal definition that police look to when they write tickets. The specifics of state laws differ somewhat. But most states define tailgating (officially called “follow too closely” in many states) along the lines of:
In many states, the second type of tailgating (failing to leave enough space sufficient for another vehicle to fit) is a violation only if it occurs outside residential and business districts.
The tailgating laws of many states contain exceptions for funeral processions and other lawful motorcades. It’s also common for tailgating laws to contain qualifying language such as “when conditions reasonably permit.” This type of language basically inserts an element of common sense into these laws. For instance, it probably wouldn’t be reasonable for drivers to leave huge spaces in front of their vehicles while driving in dense traffic or a crowded parking lot.
Tailgating is generally a traffic infraction with penalties comparable to a speeding or stop sign ticket. In other words, you’ll probably be looking at a fine and demerit points on your driving record for a conviction.
But, in certain circumstances, it might be worth fighting a tailgating ticket in traffic court. If you do decide to fight your ticket, you should also consider talking to a traffic attorney. An experienced traffic attorney will generally have a good idea of the best defenses and other options for dealing with the ticket.
Tailgating tickets are often based on the citing officer’s subjective judgment. In other words, the officer believed, based on his or her observations, that you were following another vehicle at a distance that wasn’t reasonably safe. Of course, what’s reasonably safe is a judgment call. So, one possible defense is to simply argue that, under the circumstances, the distance between you and the other vehicle was safe. In making this type of argument, it helps if you can point to things like the weather conditions and visibility being good and low vehicle speeds. Depending on where the officer was while observing the alleged violation, you might also have success arguing the officer’s vantage point was inadequate to assess the situation correctly.
]]>California’s distracted driving law now prohibits driving while “holding or operating” a wireless communication device. But voice-operated, hands-free devices are exempt from the law. So, if you can operate your GPS without using your hands, you shouldn’t have a problem.
The new legislation also contains an exception for turning on or off a GPS device: Using your hand to activate or deactivate your GPS isn’t illegal as long as it takes only one tap or swipe to do so and the GPS is mounted on the dash or in the center console.
California’s restriction on using a wireless device doesn’t apply to “manufacturer-installed systems that are embedded in the vehicle.” Presumably, this exception covers all embedded systems, including GPS.
]]>Generally, passing laws are of three types: rules for passing vehicles when there are multiple lanes going in the same direction, rules for passing vehicles when you must cross into an oncoming traffic lane to make the pass, and rules that prohibit passing altogether.
Laws that cover passing when crossing the centerline of the roadway is not required (where there are multiple lanes in the same direction), often say something like this:
The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.
Some state laws also require the driver who is making the pass to give an "audible signal" (honk) when passing.
When you must cross the centerline of the roadway to pass (typically, on highways with only one lane in each direction), state laws normally impose a number of restrictions to ensure passing is done only when safe. Most state laws read something like this:
No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless such left side is clearly visible and free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event, the overtaking vehicle must return to the right-hand side of the roadway before coming within 100 feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.
Additionally, most state laws prohibit crossing the centerline to pass when:
The details of state laws vary somewhat. But most states have laws that roughly mirror these examples.
All states have no passing zones. Generally, no passing zones are areas where the department of transportation (or the relevant government entity) has determined that passing is not safe. Generally, state laws require no-passing zones to be identified with signs or appropriate pavement markings (normally, solid double yellow lines).
As with contesting any traffic ticket, fighting an unsafe passing ticket begins with looking up the statute you're accused of violating. The number of the statute (such as "W.Va. Code, § 17C-7-7") should be written somewhere on your ticket. With the code section, it's typically easy to find the text of the statute with an internet search. Reading the text of the statute should give you a good idea of the kinds of defenses that court work.
For instance, with many statutes, proving a violation requires the government to show that the driver's actions were unsafe. Whether a particular action of a driver was reasonably safe is a judgment call on the part of the officer who issued the ticket. So, in defending against this kind of ticket, you might want to focus on factors such as good road conditions and clear weather that tend to make vehicle maneuvering safer. And, if the officer wasn't in a position to view the situation clearly, you might want to bring this information out in cross-examination of the officer or in your own testimony.
]]>You can get a right-of-way ticket even if you weren't involved in an accident. But oftentimes, police issue right-of-way tickets after concluding that a driver's failure to yield the right-of-way was the cause of a collision.
Here is a rundown on the most common traffic right-of-way laws and ways to fight right-of-way tickets.
All states have right-of-way laws that apply to vehicles crossing through intersections. The specifics of these laws differ depending on whether the type of intersection and control devices (signs and lights) that direct traffic at the intersection.
However, the general rule—provided there's no sign (such as a yield sign) or traffic control device directing otherwise—is that the vehicle arriving at an intersection first has the right-of-way.
For intersections that are "uncontrolled" (meaning, there are no signs or traffic lights), the laws of most states read something like this:
When two vehicles entered an uncontrolled intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
In other words, when two vehicles are approaching an uncontrolled intersection from different roadways at about the same time, the vehicle on the right goes first, and the vehicle on the left stops and waits.
The right-of-way rules for four-way stop intersections (stop signs or blinking red lights) are similar to those that apply to uncontrolled intersections. All drivers approaching a four-way stop must first make a complete stop and then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles that have already entered the intersection. And, when two vehicles arrive at the four-way stop at approximately the same time, the vehicle on the left must yield to the vehicle on the right.
The right-of-way rules for three-way (T-shaped) uncontrolled intersections are a little different from those that apply to four-way intersections. These right-of-way laws typically say something like:
At an uncontrolled approach to a T-shaped intersection, the driver required to turn shall yield the right of way.
In other words, the driver on the road that dead-ends must always yield to the other driver (the one crossing the T), no matter who got to the intersection first.
Lots of traffic accidents result from a vehicle being hit by oncoming traffic while attempting to turn left. The left-turn right-of-way laws of most states read something like this:
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left on a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction that are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement and shall continue to yield the right of way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn can be made with reasonable safety.
So, where oncoming traffic doesn't have a stop sign or red signal, it's basically always the driver turning left who must yield to other traffic.
State driving laws also cover the right-of-way rules drivers must follow when approaching pedestrians crossing a roadway. The laws of many states say something like this:
The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
State laws also typically require drivers to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians walking down the sidewalks.
In other words, drivers must generally yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing at an intersection (whether there is a crosswalk or not) and before cross a sidewalk (for instance, while entering or leaving a parking lot). Additionally, drivers must use caution, which might include reducing their speed, when approaching pedestrians crossing a roadway.
The best defenses to a right-of-way ticket will depend on the wording of law you were cited for violating and the specific circumstances of your case. So, a good place to start is to look up the law. The code section (such as "Vehicle Code section 21952") should be written on your ticket. With a quick internet search, you should be able to come up with the text of the law.
Once you have the wording of the law, try to determine whether you have an argument that your conduct didn't violate the law. For example, suppose you were involved in an accident at a four-way stop, and an officer tickets you for not yielding the right-of-way to a car on your right. You might have a viable defense if you actually arrived at the intersection well in advance of the vehicle to your right. When making this type of argument, it, of course, helps if you have a witness who can back your testimony.
Also, some states have laws that say a driver can forfeit the right-of-way by exceeding the speed limit. So, in some circumstances, you might be able to beat a right-of-ticket by showing that the other driver was speeding.
In most states, failing to yield the right of way is a traffic infraction. A traffic infraction will generally lead to fines and traffic demerit points. However, the specific fine amounts vary greatly by state and can be different depending on the type of right-of-way violation.
]]>The defenses that are available for an improper turn ticket depend on the type of turn. Below, we discuss different types of turning laws and how you might fight a violation ticket for each type.
All states have laws that dictate when a driver is permitted to make a right or left turn. Below is an example of how these laws are commonly worded and ways you might be able to get a turning ticket dismissed.
The laws of most states read something like this:
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn upon a highway shall do so as follows:
(a) Right Turns. Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
(b) Left Turns. The approach for a left turn shall be made as close as practicable to the left-hand edge of the extreme left-hand lane or portion of the roadway lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and, when turning at an intersection, the left turn shall not be made before entering the intersection. After entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered.
In other words, you aren't supposed to make a right or left turn unless you're in the corresponding far right or left lane. Additionally, before making either type of turn, you should be as close to the curb or edge of the roadway as reasonably possible.
Most tickets for an improper right turn are based on the turn being made while the driver allegedly wasn't as close as reasonably possible to the curb or edge of the roadway. So, defenses to these types of tickets should focus on why it was reasonable to make the turn without being right next to the curb or edge of the roadway. Generally, the best reasons have to do with safety and might include:
Another possible line of defense comes into play if the officer didn't have a good vantage point to see how close you were to the curb or edge of the roadway while making the turn. With this type of defense, maps and diagrams can help.
All states have laws that require drivers to abide by road signs and lane markings, including those that restrict turns at an intersection. Below we have an example of one of these types of laws and some possible defenses.
Many states have laws that read something like this:
When right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an intersection, notice of such prohibition shall be given by the erection of a sign.
In other words, these laws require drivers to follow road signs and other markings that prohibit certain types of turns.
Defenses to violations of these types of laws (signs and lane markings) normally focus on inadequate notice. If you received a ticket, you probably made the prohibited turn. But, if you weren't given proper notice of the prohibition, you haven't committed the violation.
For example, you might be able to beat this type of ticket in court by showing that the sign was so old and faded that it was illegible or that overgrown trees covered the sign. In making this defense, you'll probably want to bring in photographs.
Most states have several times of U-turn laws. Which law applies depends on whether the driver made the turn in a residential or business district or some other area.
Most states have a business-district U-turn law that says something like this:
No person in a business district shall make a U-turn, except at an intersection or on a divided highway where an opening has been provided.
A "business district" is typically defined as a place where more than 50% of the property fronting the street is "in use for business" along a specified length.
One "defense" to a charge that you made a U-turn in a business district is that you weren't in a business district when you made the turn. To figure this out, you'll need to look up how your state defines "business district" and determine whether the site of the turn qualifies. However, it's really up to the government to prove the location was in a business district. If the government can't prove this fact, you should theoretically be able to beat the case by pointing out that the government hasn't proven the charge. But, if you're sure the turn did not occur in a business district, it would, of course, help to have some proof of that.
Most states have a residential-district U-turn law that says something like this:
No person in a residence district shall make a U-turn when any other vehicle is approaching from either direction within 200 feet, except at an intersection when the approaching vehicle is controlled by an official traffic-control device.
Basically, this law applies to areas of residential districts that aren't intersections with traffic lights or signs.
The most easily debatable part of these violations typically relates to whether another vehicle was approaching within 200 feet (or whatever the distance specified in the statute). If you're certain another car was not approaching within this distance, it might be helpful to bring in a map with the relevant distances and features clearly marked.
You might also be able to challenge the officer's conclusion that another car was within this distance by getting the officer to admit on cross-examination that he or she just estimated the distance but did not actually measure it. There could also be a defense based on the turn not taking place in a residential district (as with business district violations, you'll need to look this up and check the location).
Most states also have a U-turn law that applies to areas outside residential and business districts. These laws usually read something like this:
No person shall make a U-turn upon any highway where the driver of such vehicle does not have an unobstructed view for 200 feet in both directions along the highway.
Under these laws, you're free to make a legal U-turn as long as you have an unobstructed view for the number of feet specified in your state law. It doesn't matter whether other vehicles are approaching within that distance, so long as you can see them clearly and it's safe to make the turn.
In court, you can often use maps, diagrams, or pictures to demonstrate that you could see more than the distance specified by law.
In addition to the specific turn laws outlined above, most states also have a catchall category called "unsafe turns or lane changes."
These catchall laws typically read something like this:
No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
In other words, it's illegal to make a lane change or turn that's unsafe.
In theory, at least, it is up to the prosecution to prove facts that, taken together, demonstrate that you were not driving safely. But in a real courtroom, the ticketing officer will probably just testify that your actions were dangerous. Although this is a conclusion—not really proof—it is usually enough to shift the burden of proof to you. (The judge will now expect you to show your actions were safe.) It is, therefore, important for you to be prepared to produce evidence that this was the case.
It's possible to fight a traffic ticket without the assistance of an attorney. However, a traffic attorney can normally increase the probability of beating a ticket. If you're thinking of contesting a turning ticket, it's probably a good idea to at least talk to an attorney about your situation.
]]>Most state unsafe-lane-change laws say something like this:
Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rule applies: A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
So, generally, these types of laws require drivers to stay in their own lane (unless there are unusual circumstances justifying otherwise) and change lanes only in a safe manner.
Most drivers are on their best behavior when a police cruiser is close. So officers end up issuing many violations that they view from a distance, meaning their ability to judge the nuances of whether particular conduct was safe or not is poor. If this was true in your case, you'll likely want to ask the officer during cross-examination where he or she was located in relation to where the alleged violation occurred. You can also address this issue in your own testimony.
Because unsafe-lane-change violations hinge on whether the driver's actions were reasonably safe or not, it can be beneficial in fighting one of these tickets to point to any factors that tend to show the lane change was made under safe circumstances. For example, factors like clear weather and good road conditions would tend to support an argument that the lane change was safe.
Also, if another driver coming up behind you was driving unreasonably fast, resulting in that car being close to your vehicle following your lane change, it might help to explain these circumstances when you testify.
]]>