seamusTX wrote:I had a friend who was a truck driver. (She's still my friend, but she quit driving a truck.) Her opinion was the police treated truck drivers like prey.
Of course; the fines are higher! Plus, they are usually aren't local, and aren't likely to be able to show up for a court date, even if they are inclined to fight the ticket.
Couple of things;
Only the smallest and poorest of municipalities get any significant revenue from traffic fines. In my town, is was less than half a percent of the total city budget.
The officers don't care how much the fines are. There is no bonus or toaster awarded for who writes the highest in fines.
Also most local officers don't pay extra attention to truckers. However, depending on the state, there are towns that have specialized commercial enforcement sections. Dallas County has one such division, as does DPS.
Given the number of truckers that are involved in fatal accidents and carnage, the ones driving with suspended licenses, on drugs, or having little sleep, perhaps they SHOULD get more attention.
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
seamusTX wrote:I had a friend who was a truck driver. (She's still my friend, but she quit driving a truck.) Her opinion was the police treated truck drivers like prey.
Of course; the fines are higher! Plus, they are usually aren't local, and aren't likely to be able to show up for a court date, even if they are inclined to fight the ticket.
Couple of things;
Only the smallest and poorest of municipalities get any significant revenue from traffic fines. In my town, is was less than half a percent of the total city budget.
The officers don't care how much the fines are. There is no bonus or toaster awarded for who writes the highest in fines.
Also most local officers don't pay extra attention to truckers. However, depending on the state, there are towns that have specialized commercial enforcement sections. Dallas County has one such division, as does DPS.
Given the number of truckers that are involved in fatal accidents and carnage, the ones driving with suspended licenses, on drugs, or having little sleep, perhaps they SHOULD get more attention.
I concur that local PD's don't pay extra attention unless they have separate dept. for that pupose,but trucks can be stopped and checked at any time for no apparant reason by DOT officials. I have no problem with that at all, it goes with my job. They might find something that I over looked and I'm very grateful to them to point it out. I do not want to have an accident anymore than anyone else.
As far as ANYONE driving with a suspended license,on drugs, or having little sleep SHOULD get more attention from the LEO's. Just might be me in the other lane trying to get out of the way.
My point was simply that my encounters have been good and I'm hoping they will continue to be good or better since I have the coveted CHL.
txinvestigator wrote:IMO, an officer should always tell the violator up front the reason for the stop. Many officers are not trained to do that, but they should be.
I have always trained my officers to use the seven step approach on traffic stops, as do most academies. It is the best way to avoid arguments and get the job done, unfortunately I cannot force people to use it.
The seven steps are:
1. Greeting ("good morning")
2. Identify yourself ("I am Off. Rothstein..")
3. Identify your authority ("of the TABC.")
4. Tell them the reason for the stop ("I stopped you today for exceeding the posted speed limit")
5. Identify them (May I see your driver's license and insurance please?")
6. Take whatever action you are going to take and explain it to the driver (this is a citation/warning.... whatever needs to be done).
7. Closing ("Please drive more carefully in the future.")
There are a few tricks in how you do this. For example, always use the phrase exceeding the posted speed limit instead of speeding. People always seem to argue when you say speeding, but they know they went faster than posted, it just sounds better. Also, never use the closing "Have a nice day", it seems to irritate them more than anything else.
It is not lawful for an officer to stop a vehicle simply to check for license or insurance.
It may be soon. There are bills allowing for roadblocks already filed in the legislature, supposedly just to check for DWI's. We really need to fight these bills to preserve our civil rights.
txinvestigator wrote:IMO, an officer should always tell the violator up front the reason for the stop. Many officers are not trained to do that, but they should be.
I have always trained my officers to use the seven step approach on traffic stops, as do most academies. It is the best way to avoid arguments and get the job done, unfortunately I cannot force people to use it.
The seven steps are:
1. Greeting ("good morning")
2. Identify yourself ("I am Off. Rothstein..")
3. Identify your authority ("of the TABC.")
4. Tell them the reason for the stop ("I stopped you today for exceeding the posted speed limit")
5. Identify them (May I see your driver's license and insurance please?")
6. Take whatever action you are going to take and explain it to the driver (this is a citation/warning.... whatever needs to be done).
7. Closing ("Please drive more carefully in the future.")
There are a few tricks in how you do this. For example, always use the phrase exceeding the posted speed limit instead of speeding. People always seem to argue when you say speeding, but they know they went faster than posted, it just sounds better. Also, never use the closing "Have a nice day", it seems to irritate them more than anything else.
It is not lawful for an officer to stop a vehicle simply to check for license or insurance.
It may be soon. There are bills allowing for roadblocks already filed in the legislature, supposedly just to check for DWI's. We really need to fight these bills to preserve our civil rights.
That is what I preach also. DPS actually began using that many years ago. I was not taught that in my academy, but learned it when I went on a ride with a trooper after DPS got the first Mustangs.
I would add a couple of things to your information. When identifying the reason for the stop, don't say, "The reason I stopped you". This puts the officer and violator in the parent/child relationship, and causes most adults to become agitated. Instead, say something along the lines of, "The reason YOU were stopped was exceeding the speed limit." This takes the responsibility for the stop off of the officer and ONTO the violator. It was the violator's behavior that caused the stop, not the officer singling out the driver.
Use the same technique when issuing the citation.
This maintains the adult/adult ego states, and reduces violator stress and complaints. I know THAT for a fact.
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
I've often wondered what I would encounter if I was stopped by LEO.
I have had my CHL for 3 yrs. and haven't been stopped yet but it will
happen one day I'm sure. Haven't had a ticket in 42 yrs. not that I didn't deserve a few.
Don't Lose Your Head , Your Brains Are In It !!
At my age the only thing thats getting better is my FORGETTER.
txinvestigator wrote:
I would add a couple of things to your information. When identifying the reason for the stop, don't say, "The reason I stopped you". This puts the officer and violator in the parent/child relationship, and causes most adults to become agitated. Instead, say something along the lines of, "The reason YOU were stopped was exceeding the speed limit." This takes the responsibility for the stop off of the officer and ONTO the violator. It was the violator's behavior that caused the stop, not the officer singling out the driver.
Use the same technique when issuing the citation.
This maintains the adult/adult ego states, and reduces violator stress and complaints. I know THAT for a fact.
You are correct and I actually do teach that but wrote it incorrectly here. One of the classes I taught for all of our 2006 In Service training was on how to keep conversations in the adult/adult ego states and exactly how it avoids confrontations and complaints. Some simple role playing helped drive it home during the class. For 2007, we are reinforcing it with another class where the same thing gets mentioned and demonstrated.
The officers don't care how much the fines are. There is no bonus or toaster awarded for who writes the highest in fines.
You're just jealous because your department doesn't give out toasters.
Given the number of truckers that are involved in fatal accidents and carnage, the ones driving with suspended licenses, on drugs, or having little sleep, perhaps they SHOULD get more attention.
I'd like to see a lot more attention given to anyone driving recklessly. I get tired of hearing things like "verbal warning, he was just trying to dial a cell phone." Well, if it caused the same kind of bad driving as being drunk, it should carry the same penalty; then folks might learn to pull over if they can't dial/read a map/shave/put on makeup/eat chili/whatever without driving like they're drunk regardless of their vehicle.
Speaking of small "poor" municipalities using their force to generate revenue...
Texas Transportation Code Section 545.410
TOWING SAFETY CHAINS.
(a) An operator of apassenger car or light truck may not draw a trailer, semitrailer,house trailer, or another motor vehicle unless safety chains of atype approved by the department are attached in a manner approved bythe department from the trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, ordrawn motor vehicle to the drawing vehicle. This subsection does not apply to the drawing of a trailer or semitrailer used for agricultural purposes.
(b) The department shall adopt rules prescribing the type of safety chains required to be used according to the weight of thetrailer, semitrailer, house trailer, or motor vehicle being drawn. The rules shall:
(1) require safety chains to be strong enough tomaintain the connection between the trailer, semitrailer, housetrailer, or drawn motor vehicle and the drawing vehicle; and
(2) show the proper method to attach safety chainsbetween the trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, or drawn motorvehicle and the drawing vehicle.
(c) Subsection (b) does not apply to trailers,semitrailers, or house trailers that are equipped with safetychains installed by the original manufacturer before the effectivedate of the rules.
(d) This section does not apply to a trailer, semitrailer,house trailer, or drawn motor vehicle that is operated incompliance with the federal motor carrier safety regulations.
(e) In this section, "safety chains" means flexible tensionmembers connected from the front of a drawn vehicle to the rear ofthe drawing vehicle to maintain connection between the vehicles ifthe primary connecting system fails.Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amendedby Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.113(a), eff. Sept. 1,1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1357, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
This is in reference to an incident that came up late last year in a small town to the south of Houston, where an individual had an older (but very safe and reliable and in good operating condition) 4 horse trailer, that had never had "chains" when it was bought by the original owner...
Of course it would be prudent and safety concious to install some chains (after-market) but that was never even thought of because the issue never came up in "any" state inspection to upgrade the trailer to a current regulation...
So the person loaded up livestock for agricultural purposes, was on the way to conduct their business, stopped safely across from the street where his kids both went to school, and proceeded to be on his way, but...
A small town officer proceeded to write a citation for the lack of trailer chains on this particular situation...Photographs were taken by the officer of the trailer, livestock and other items "in" (not in plain view) and around the truck/trailer combination...
Needless to say I provided the above mentioned Code, and recommended they lawyer up and fight this one...Even if it was only a $20 fine...There's a line I do not like that doesn't get crossed most of the time...But this was one time that it was...
It is though, a $120 fine plus some other costs...
But since this small, "poor" town thing came up, I thought it would be pertinant to bring up this little incident...
Their court date is Feb. 1...
I'm all for the job getting done, but in this case I do not think this was a correct enforcement of the law, and given that this town is notorious for using its law enforcement mainly for generating revenue...
I believe this one is worth fighting...
Anyway, I expect the flames to get hotter I suppose...But a button of mine got pushed...And I regurgitated this...
Sorry...
And I also looked high and low, if anyone finds the applicable code regarding issues related to towing requirements in the Texas Transportation Code, please feel free to let me know...I really wanted to find one that would negate what I found, and legitimize the citation, but I honestly couldn't find anything...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
stevie_d_64 wrote:And I also looked high and low, if anyone finds the applicable code regarding issues related to towing requirements in the Texas Transportation Code, please feel free to let me know...I really wanted to find one that would negate what I found, and legitimize the citation, but I honestly couldn't find anything...
First, I think this is more an example of a law enforcement officer who has a lack of common sense than a city looking for revenue. Nothing to show that this is a common practice in the city, and when your friend disputes it, the prosecutor could very well agree that this should never have been written.
But to be more specific, there is a glaring loophole in the law. The law does not apply to a trailer used for agricultural purposes. You said your friend had loaded it up with livestock for agricultural purposes, but how do we know that his purpose is what is meant by the law, since it never defines what an agricultural purpose is. Of course, if the trailer does not have farm trailer plates, it is even more arguable that it was not for what was meant by the term.
I suggest that you look into what is meant by agricultural purpose. This would be critical to your case.
Both vehicle and trailer are registered as "Farm Truck" and "Farm Trailer" respectfully...So their actual usage is very defined through that registration process...Everyone knows you go tootling around on a Friday or Saturday night cruising around town with yer date around yer arm, you stand a good chance of being pulled over and asked if you are commuting around under the auspices of agricultural purposes...I don't really think there is a big problem with that much with folks who legitimately farm or need the "farm tags"...
More details...The officer in that town has pulled him over before for generally the same thing, and seeings how the town is notoriously broke as a joke, its not hard to put the facts together on this...
But...I will never make a big deal out of something at that point...I'll definetely take the ride, and have the court figure this out...
I know my brother-in-law can be a pill sometimes, but in this case after he told me, we took a look at the big picture, did a little research, I asked him if he did get a little huffy with the officer (which he did), and took the citation...
I recommended an attorney, they looked at all the particulars and hopefully this can be nipped in the bud at the first of next month...
Whether you are cited correctly or incorrectly, its just better to take it, then fight it in court...Which is what I highly recommended...
We did look at everything we could look at to find some definition or guidelines for vehicles falling into the "agricultural purposes" usage...Came up blank...Local municiple, county and state...
I want to take a look at that link you posted before I go on further...I appreciate the reference...Maybe it'll reviel something we are missing, and if we are in the wrong, better to find out now...
Be back in a while...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
I just took a look at that link, and it amazes me why there are not any specifics in regard to towing operations for agricultural purposes...You'd think there would be, but I have found nothing but exceptions to both the Texas transportation Code, and this one you provided which is the Texas Administrative Code, which both are almost identical in wording...
TxDOT doesn't have a clear answer...But maybe a call to the state Agriculture office may give us some legs to run on to find out something...
Its actually kinda fun researching this, but at the same time I am concerned about the enforcement of something that doesn't appear to be enforcable...If it turns out to be, its about the vaguest/obscure thing I have seen in any law, code or ordinance I have ever found...
But to bring in the topical part of the discussion, I am kinda glad he (B-I-L) doesn't carry or have a CHL at that time...Somebody may have had to break out a tape measure or something...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
Searched every code on the list...Even Charles' favorite...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
stevie_d_64 wrote:
Anyway, I expect the flames to get hotter I suppose...But a button of mine got pushed...And I regurgitated this...
Sorry...
And I also looked high and low, if anyone finds the applicable code regarding issues related to towing requirements in the Texas Transportation Code, please feel free to let me know...I really wanted to find one that would negate what I found, and legitimize the citation, but I honestly couldn't find anything...
Look up Agriculture in the dictionary: it includes livestock.
I believe you simply have a case of an officer who did not know there was an exemption for that.
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
What are you going to do with horses, cattle, sheep, goats or even buffalo that are loaded into a trailer that isn't considered a part of an agricultural endeavor?
You could be taking them to a sale, or returning from a sale; that is considered an agricultural endeavor.
You could be taking them to another pasture; again that would be considered an agricultural endeavor.
You could be either taking them to or returning from the vet, once again that would be considered an agricultural endeavor.
What if the trailer was empty after taking a load to the sale and you didn’t buy more, it’s still an agricultural endeavor.
Same would go if the trailer was empty and you were again on the way home from the vet.
Farm tags on both truck and trailer and you gain the benefit of the doubt, just like the new traveling law, it’s up to the law enforcement officer to prove, beyond any doubt, that you were not engaged in an agricultural endeavor, even if you were stopped at a McDonalds for a Big Mac ® while on the way to or from said stop.
Russ
Russ
kw5kw
Retired DPS Communications Operator PCO III January 2014.
