How To Beat a Texas Speeding Ticket

[rpm]

I mentioned this in another thread a few weeks ago. Here, my fellow Texans, is how you can legally beat a speeding ticket, without a lawyer, in our great state. Feel free to ask any legal types you know to verify this. You can thank me later.

Read on, and you'll see I've listed the two relevant statutes.  First, I'll explain them, and then I'll give you the full text of each:

Explanations of the statutes...

1. § 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.
Subsections "(a)" and "(b)(1)" are the "speeding" statutes in Texas.  Basically, they say that you're "speeding" if you're driving at a rate of speed that is "unreasonable and imprudent under the circumstances then existing."  

2. § 545.352 PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS.
This statute says that a posted "speed limit" is "prima facie" proof that you're guilty of speeding (i.e., that the speed at which you are traveling is "unreasonable and imprudent under the circumstances then existing").  "Prima facie" means "sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved" or "at first sight; before closer inspection." In other words, if, upon "closer inspection" there is sufficient evidence that the speed at which you are traveling is NOT "unreasonable and imprudent under the circumstances then existing," YOU ARE NOT SPEEDING UNDER TEXAS LAW!!!  

Hence, simply because you're driving 75 in a 60 m.p.h. zone, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're "speeding."  If it's not "unreasonable and imprudent under the circumstance then existing" to do so, you can lawfully drive 75 m.p.h.  Think about the times you've "gone with the flow" of traffic, even though everyone was going faster than the posted speed limit.  Were all of you being unreasonable?  

Again, there are no "speed limits" in Texas.  Rather, posted "speed limits" are the presumptive legal speed for the stretch of roadway to which they pertain... a presumption which can be rebutted by proof that you were driving in a way that was not unreasonable (or imprudent under the blah blah blah).


Okay, enough chatter.  Here are the statutes:


§ 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.  
        (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
    (b)  An operator:                                                              
        (1)  may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is
reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for
actual and potential hazards then existing;  and
        (2)  shall control the speed of the vehicle as
necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is
on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of
each person to use due care.
    (c)  An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and
(b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:
        (1)  the operator is approaching and crossing an
intersection or railroad grade crossing;
        (2)  the operator is approaching and going around a
curve;                  
        (3)  the operator is approaching a hill crest;                                
        (4)  the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding
roadway;  and        
        (5)  a special hazard exists with regard to traffic,
including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.  Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


    § 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS.  (a) A speed in
excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another
provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed
is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.
Text of subsec. (b) as amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 663, § 2 and Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 739, § 1

I have used this to beat several tickets in a local speed trap. It does not work in all cases, such as being an arse and weaving thru traffic or blowing thru a school zone, but it works in just about any other situation.

[eagl]

The same types of laws are in place in Calif, however the Calif Hwy Patrol takes a great deal of trouble to train their officers to a level of judgement that is generally accepted by most judges as being superior to that of the average driver.

Meaning that in Calif, if a CHP officer says that in his professional judgement you were going to fast, then the fact that calif speed limits are often prima facie limits won't help you a bit.  CHP officers have such a good reputation in general that when it comes down to the judgement of an officer against the judgement of a normal citizen, the officer usually wins unless there is some sort of clear evidence that the officer's judgement was flawed or the officer made a mistake.

[-Concho-]

Just like I told you last time, your going to get a lot of people in trouble.

[eagl]

Concho,

Actually, it's good to know the laws.  Ignorance and blind submission to authority is the key to slavery.  We are a nation of laws, and it's very important that we know what those laws mean.

They wrote those laws for very specific reasons, but the loopholes in the laws can be used for oppressive reasons just as easily as they can be used by scofflaws.  Only knowing the law and it's application can let you remain a free citizen in a free society.

That said, speeders who get caught generally deserve what they get.  Yea it warms my heart to hear about a guy getting out of a ticket for going 80 in a 60 at midnight on a road with ZERO traffic, but if the guy doesn't get out of the ticket then there's no pity from me either.

[-Concho-]

I agree eagl,

It is the citizen's responsibility to know the laws that govern them.

But, unless your in Austin you won't sail this crap past a good JP.

[Jackal1]

LOL
Argue that point up in court in my fair county and you will surely win.
You will win an all expense paid vacation in the luxurious crossbar hotel for contempt of court...........or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be.

[eagl]

Job permitting, I would always go to court to contest a ticket.  If the cop doesn't show, you get off free.  If the cop does show, plead guilty and work a deal to keep the ticket off your record with traffic school or whatever.  The cop gets overtime, the judge feels good for being "fair", and at least you gave it your best shot.

In a prima facie situation, pointing out that you've taken driving lessons, are driving a car designed to go fast, and your speed was not reckless or unusual shouldn't get the judge too pissed off.  If you were caught doing 100 through downtown, then suck it up and take your lumps.  But 80 in a 70 at midnight on an empty road is a chickenshxt ticket and a polite explanation of why you thought it was reasonable shouldn't be held against you.

[Maverick]

FWIW if you are driving after dark and doing 80 in a 60 zone you are neither reasonable nor prudent and that includes on a road with no other traffic.

At 80 MPH you are traveling at 117.6 fps. If your headlights provide normal illumination of about 50 to 75 yards (and that is being very very generous) you will be traveling faster than the headlights will illuminate an obstacle, pot hole, whatever and give you reaction time to slow, stop or avoid said obstacle. This is taking into account normal reaction time of the driver, providing that driver is fully alert and prepared to react properly to the obstacle, which is not really likely given the "average"driver as the "average" driver is pretty unobservant at most speeds and not likley to be truly alert at midnight.

Figuring a coefficient of friction for clean dry pavement of about .67 (typical Tucson asphault, same conditions) a speed of 65 MPH would take a skid distance of just about 200 feet or 66 yards, that is after brakes have been applied after reaction time. Figure a reaction time of a half second (again being very generous) that means the vehicle traveled for about 48 feet before the brakes were applied. Total stopping distance would be about 248 feet in a panic stop situation. Again if the headlights gave you 75 yards warning at 65 MPH not the 80 mentioned you would have had 225 feet of warning prior to hitting the obstacle. That only leaves you with a deficit for stopping of about 20 to 30 feet. This is assuming a speed of 65 not the 80 mentioned in posts above.

Yep reasonable or prudent.  

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Jackal1
LOL
Argue that point up in court in my fair county and you will surely win.
You will win an all expense paid vacation in the luxurious crossbar hotel for contempt of court...........or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be.

What county is that? The "Austin" reference should have said Travis County to be more accurate, I live in hang-em-high (Williamson) County myself.

[Slash27]

Originally posted by -Concho-
Just like I told you last time, your going to get a lot of people in trouble.

What the hell are you? An expert on speeding tickets??

[x0847Marine]

Think of prima facie speed as "safe speed for conditions', it is entirely possible to be driving the posted speed limit and get a speeding ticket..

Example of a prima facie speeding ticket; you are driving 37 MPH, the posted speed limit is 40 MPH.... but it's raining heavily, so what's the legal speed limit in this case?

Answer; whatever speed limit the officer thinks is safe... so on your cite will be:
Posted speed: 40
Veh speed: 37
PF Speed: 20 <-- this is the officers opinion as to what the safe speed for conditions is.

I wouldn't get too excited about arguing a PF speeding ticket unless the difference in the two is either big or small, or you can argue the officers opinion was totally wrong.

In the above example, say you bring in a weather report from that day that says it was only drizzling, you can argue 20 MPH is much too slow for only drizzle... then the judge can agree, but decide that 30MPH was the safe speed and still find you guilty... but, usually, with a lower fine.

PF speed limits are totally open to opinion and traffic court judges, in my experience, usually rely on what the 'highly trained' officer has to say.

[-Concho-]

Originally posted by Slash27
What the hell are you? An expert on speeding tickets??

No I just keep the JP stocked in booze...

Everyone knows its a racket to make money.

[rpm]

Originally posted by -Concho-
I agree eagl,

It is the citizen's responsibility to know the laws that govern them.

But, unless your in Austin you won't sail this crap past a good JP.

I have personally used this in Wise, Denton, Tarrant, Dallas and Navarro counties. I have a CDL and am not eligable for driving school or deferred adjudication by state law. If the JP finds me guilty, I simply ask for an appeal bond and kick it up to a higher court.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by eagl
The same types of laws are in place in Calif, however the Calif Hwy Patrol takes a great deal of trouble to train their officers to a level of judgement that is generally accepted by most judges as being superior to that of the average driver.

Meaning that in Calif, if a CHP officer says that in his professional judgement you were going to fast, then the fact that calif speed limits are often prima facie limits won't help you a bit.  CHP officers have such a good reputation in general that when it comes down to the judgement of an officer against the judgement of a normal citizen, the officer usually wins unless there is some sort of clear evidence that the officer's judgement was flawed or the officer made a mistake.

In addition, CVC 22349 pretty much trumps everything else. If you exceed 65 MPH (and it's not posted at 70), you're probably going to be hit with a violation of maximum speed law regardless of the conditions.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by eagl
 If the cop doesn't show, you get off free.

Absolute falsehood... Twice I have  contested tickets in California and the officer has not shown up and his testimony via the ticket was sufficient to win.

That ticket where he states what he thinks you were doing at the time is testimony.

We are not talking about 150 in a school zone either, these were both things like 75 in a 65...

One was late on a dry summer night on a desert highway with not another soul around...  hmm.. re-reading that it sounds awfully similar to the beginning of Hotel California... But I digress... It was the middle of nowhere and it was between me, the cop and the joshua tree.  Ticket stood up like dirty underwear and the judge even said 'I've driven faster than that on that road in my own car...'