Return to “Pulled Over by DPS”
You should try it sometime. That new car smell is great. That is until you throw up in it after you get your payment book from the loan company and realize you can't really afford it.Bullwhip wrote:Thanks, that explains why I didn't know it. Never bought a brand new car, doubt I ever will!Keith B wrote:Yes, a new car can get a 2 year inspection sticker.
OK, I give up trying to convince you that it is the law. You have your interpretation that differs from numreious others and even from individuals that ARE active LEO's in the State of Texas. So, I see your views will not change so they will meet your desires to do as you want, even thought the DPS (who enforces the laws in Texas) quote states:speedsix wrote:...my objective has not been to insult anyone...or anger anyone...but we can't win an argument by quoting a law and then adding our opinion to the words of it...that's opinion...nor can we say "this means that...or which proves"...when the law...or other "authority source", in this case the Director's letter..or the reference to the signage law...does NOT say what you have said it does...or when what a blogger or Highwayman writes contradicts the law's content and intent...
...HB297 of the 75 R session says: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/75 ... 00297F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; does not change the driving law at all...the change for us happens when the sign is posted and we read it...it, where it is used, supercedes the normal(there's that word again) driving law as defined in 545.051....
...now I'm done...and you may still disagree with my post...but the law is the law...and it only says what it says....
So, I am done too.Law enforcement agencies have long had the ability to write citations for slower vehicles failing to keep to the right or for impeding traffic. The new law does not affect that.
Understand. Just trying to make sure that the law as it stands is really passed along to the members. When you have active/former LEO's disagreeing, it makes it confusing to the members on who they should listen too. Just need to make sure we get it clear as to the right info.terryg wrote:Hi Keith,Keith B wrote:I refer you to the above links and posts to see that several of us here have NOT misinterpreted the law. As it is you are required to move to the right (out of the furthermost left lane) and not impede traffic, period. Speeding is another issue, that is not dealt with in the that law. It is pretty well spelled out in the quote above from the DPS website.
I am sorry, I don't think I expressed myself well. I was not saying who might be right or wrong here. Only that nobody was intentionally misinterpreting or misrepresenting the law. It appears to me that all parties (you, speedsix, Excaliber) are doing their best to apply the statutes to this situation - no matter who is correct or not.
I refer you to the above links and posts to see that several of us here have NOT misinterpreted the law. As it is you are required to move to the right (out of the furthermost left lane) and not impede traffic, period. Speeding is another issue, that is not dealt with in the that law. It is pretty well spelled out in the quote above from the DPS website.terryg wrote:Hi speedsix. I think you are right that both sides here are not going to budge. But, I think a key here is that both sides (you and Keith B and Excaliber) are all attempting to interpret the law as it is written. By writing the following, you are implying that they are intentionally reading it incorrectly in order to support their position:speedsix wrote:I guess nothing is served by continuing if my point's not clear now it never will be
I don't know myself - that's why lawyers bug me almost as much as politicians - nothing is ever clear on concrete. (No offense intended to Mr. Cotton or other of that professionspeedsix wrote: I'm not torqued but I'm not convinced, either, and I am only using the law to support my view what it SAYS not what I want it to say) If they wanted 'normal' to reference the posted speed limit - why couldn't they simply add those three words to the code "posted speed limit"? On the other hand, why should this law supersede the speed limit statutes? I can see it both ways and am unconvinced by both arguments - at least from a legal perspective. But then, I am a legal ID10T.
But I don't think it is correct that either are intentionally misreading the statute. They are both attempting to do exactly what you have been doing - reading the law and attempting to figure out exactly how it applies in this instance.
Sincerely,
t
And, here is a website from a guy that is very knowledgeable on Texas highway laws and rules. See his paragraph on the left lane laws at http://texashighwayman.com/laws.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The section on the law is about 6th from the bottom of the page.New law requires "left lane for passing" signs
A law passed during the last legislative session requires that the Texas Department of Transportation put up signs that say "Left Lane for Passing Only" whenever the department needs to replace signs that say "Slower Traffic Keep Right."
The legislation in effect requires slower traffic to travel in a lane other than the left lane. Signs can be placed only on highways with more than one lane traveling in the same direction.
Law enforcement agencies have long had the ability to write citations for slower vehicles failing to keep to the right or for impeding traffic. The new law does not affect that.
The new signs already have been posted in some parts of the state, and TxDOT held a news conference in San Antonio in late June to unveil the new signs.
The new signs don't give motorists "a license to speed." Motorists still must obey all traffic laws, including speed laws.
Here is the transportation code. It clearly states you are to drive on the right side of the road UNLESS passing another vehicle or other reason. Period.speedsix wrote:...the one thing that would change my mind about this is for someone to show me a statute(law) that dictates that I'm wrong to continue driving legally where I have a right to be...and I haven't seen that...feelings and opinions and ideas aside...tell me factually why my opinion is wrong and yours is right...that's winning the argument...
Sections 545.351 and 545.352 deal with Maximum Speed Requirement and Prima Facie Speed Limits respectively, and 545.051 never refers to that section or refers to posted, Prima Facie Speed Limits or Maximum speed.§ 545.051. DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY. wrote: (a) An operator on a roadway of sufficient width shall drive on the right
half of the roadway, unless:
(1) the operator is passing another vehicle;
(2) an obstruction necessitates moving the vehicle
left of the center of the roadway and the operator yields the
right-of-way to a vehicle that:
(A) is moving in the proper direction on the
unobstructed portion of the roadway; and
(B) is an immediate hazard;
(3) the operator is on a roadway divided into three
marked lanes for traffic; or
(4) the operator is on a roadway restricted to one-way
traffic.
(b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions
shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the
right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is:
(1) passing another vehicle; or
(2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or
into a private road or driveway.
(c) An operator on a roadway having four or more lanes for
moving vehicles and providing for two-way movement of vehicles may
not drive left of the center line of the roadway except:
(1) as authorized by an official traffic-control
device designating a specified lane to the left side of the center
of the roadway for use by a vehicle not otherwise permitted to use
the lane;
(2) under the conditions described by Subsection
(a)(2); or
(3) in crossing the center line to make a left turn
into or out of an alley, private road, or driveway.
I didn't say you weren't breaking the law if you are speeding. That section refers to the speed traffic is moving and never implies anything about the posted limit. If you notice, the word 'conditions' is placed in there. So, let's take an example, it is a little foggy and you don't feel it is safe to drive over 35 in a posted 55 MPH zone. While it may not be, you are to pull over to the right and allow faster traffic (who want to drive 40) to pass you. You are NOT the person who can enforce this at that point, you are just another driver, so you are not the one who dictates who can drive faster than you or not.speedsix wrote:...the word you're contesting is "normal"...and you're saying that because a lot of folks like to speed much over the limit, that that's normal? nope...not buying that argument...there've been too many times I've pulled a speeder out of traffic and his argument was that "everyone else" was speeding just as much or more than he was...that doesn't make it normal...that doesn't make it right....and the judge has told more than one of them that no matter what someone else was doing...he was breaking the law....the point was not missed...there just is no reasonable way to justify the "right" of someone to demand the law-abiding to move out of their way so that they can break the law more flagrantly...that's what's gotten this country into the mess we're in...
You are missing the key point here. 'Normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions' is NOT the posted speed limit, it is the speed at which traffic is currently moving, so yes, it would apply to you if you were moving slower than other traffic on the roadway at the present time (whether below or above the speed limit.)speedsix wrote:...srothstein...that is NOT what it says...you posted this: "... An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is:..." and then interpreted it wrongly to fit your argument... if you'll read my post, I was moving at or perhaps slightly above the speed limit (normal speed...not more slowly)...so that which you quoted does not apply to my situation...
This is a good method for letting EMS know your emergency contacts. However, this will only work if you don't have a password on your phone to get to the contact list, otherwise there will be no way for them to get into the phone to see the information.RoyGBiv wrote:Also...Symtex wrote:Thanks.
I got the idea when I used to ride motorcycles. I had a bright orange laminated card attached to my jacket zipper that had a lot of info on it. If you get into accident or emergency situation they will always look for the ID.
In your mobile phone, set up a contact called "ICE - XXXXX" (where XXXXX = the name of your In Case of Emergency contact)...
There are many smartphone applications that hold emergency/contact/medical data, etc...
Here's just one... http://www.androlib.com/android.applica ... -jqpz.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
