Myth Busted: Getting out of a speeding ticket

I found out I couldn’t get out of a speeding ticket the way I hoped. Apparently the law concerning delaying a trial has changed in favor of the courts.

The plan was to keep delaying the court date until both officers involved in clocking and catching me didn’t show up. I asked several employees of the court, a lawyer and a judge how the process worked, and I got the same conclusion.

What makes it hard now is:

1.) You may ask for a continuance of the trial on a later date, but it’s at the discretion of the judge to grant it. I was told by the judge herself that she RARELY grants continuances on the same day unless for a VERY VERY good reason, which I most likely didn’t have.

2.) If the officer(s) provide an excuse for now showing up (basically they just have to say they’re on duty), the trial may still proceed even without them. This is probably better for society as a whole, because while I’m just trying to circumvent a ticket, I’m effectively taking a law enforcer off the street.

The court clerk told me they’ve basically shut down that particular loophole in the system.

So $160 later, I’m taking deferred adjudication. Now I must take defensive driving again and avoid a ticket for the next three months.

Blog posted on: August 31, 2006

21 comments on “Myth Busted: Getting out of a speeding ticket

  1. Anonymous

    This may be late, but maybe it will work for your next ticket. One way I have heard to get out of a ticket was to change venue. In California anyways, you have the option to have the court date in the city where you received the ticket or the county seat. If the county seat is far away from where the original ticket was issued then the officer is less likely to show up. If the officer does not show up then you get out of the ticket.

    I have not tried it, but learned about while I was in traffic school myself…

  2. Anonymous


    You gotta tell us what kind of vehicle you drive, what type of insurance you have, and HOW MUCH YOUR PREMIUM MUST BE!

  3. Anonymous

    Nev, how can you count “change jar” money as “money made”. Isn’t that just money that you are saving, i.e., it is not income at all. Similarly, selling your stocks is not “making money” but is converting an asset into cash. Didn’t you take any business classes at UT….or do you practice ENRON accounting?

    I have to say, as well, that it is hilarious that you advocate picking up pennies, but blow hundreds of $s on traffic tickets.

  4. Anonymous

    The previous post has summarized my exact sentiment. Long time ago, Nev’s blog had been mentioned as a “financial-how-to-blog” by some media outfits. Nev’s income accounting is a joke. No expenses are accounted for and we all know by now that he HAS expenses given his reported wanna-be-rich lifestyle. Nev must be cashing lots of checks on the Bank of Mom & Pop or something as things do not add up on the bottom line.
    He does not remember that his lease is up, confuses leasing a car with owning it, collects used pens on campus but wastes a lot of time and money on speeding tickets and the list goes on. You would think the guy was still in high school.

  5. Anonymous

    Is it true you collect used pens on campus???

    I hope not, you can buy a pack of 10 at Staples for about 2 bucks. Why go through the hassle of picking up a dirty used pen.

  6. Neville

    3rd TO LAST ANON,
    Posting ALL of my expenses and income here would be tedious, rather unneccessary and quite boring. Come hang out with me in person, and I’ll explain it all.

    2nd TO LAST ANON,
    I don’t spend hundreds a year on traffic violations, I spend thousands.

    Yes I pick up used pens on campus…Especially ones that have been chewed on.

  7. Anonymous

    This is an excerpt from a post Everett Newton, a Dallas Lawyer, put online. He is a partner in Berlof & Newton, P.C.

    This may help you with your ticket problem.

    Explanations of the statutes (both of which can be found in the Texas Transportation Code)…

    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 follow 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?

    Thus, there are no “speed limits” in Texas, in that you can (in certain situations) lawfully drive at a rate of speed greater than what is indicated by the posted “speed limit” sign. 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 under the circumstances.

    Okay, enough chatter. Here are the statutes:

    (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
    (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

  8. Anonymous

    Sounds like a lot to go through. Sometimes it’s more conveninet to just go to traffic school. They let you take it online now. It couldn’t be more convenient. Way less hassle than fighting it. I highly recommend the traffic school course I took:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>