Is flashing the highbeams to warn other driver Illegal in Texas?

[Rainman]

I would like to know if a driver could be given a ticket for flashing the highbeams to warn other driver of a speedtrap.

Depends on how big her rack is, and if children are present. I always slow down when I get flashed.....

 

[TxDad]

I dont buy the "speed trap" theory. Dont speed and you should have nothing to worry about. Cops have the right to ticket you for 1 mph over. So dont expect leniency when you go 5 to 10 over.


As far as the original topic, I have no idea. I was always told that it was obstructing justice. Thats just word of mouth and never bothered to look it up. My luck would be I flash someone to worn of the radar and the person I flashed would be a cop. lol

 

[just jk]

speed trap is just a phrase -when somebody uses it - most people know what it means......but for those not playing, its a cop sitting 5 feet behind a speed limit sign that is lower than the one you just came from (i.e., dropping from 60 to 45)

yes i'm aware you can be cited for 1 over - thanks for that BFO (blinding flash of the obvious)

 

[bagged02]

speed trap, Volume 2.

One motorcycle LEO Radaring with 8 LEO cars behind him, locate speeder, dispatch car 1. so on and so on. Seen it happen a few times.

 

[TxDad]

speed trap is just a phrase -when somebody uses it - most people know what it means......but for those not playing, its a cop sitting 5 feet behind a speed limit sign that is lower than the one you just came from (i.e., dropping from 60 to 45)

yes i'm aware you can be cited for 1 over - thanks for that BFO (blinding flash of the obvious)

I wasnt specifically talking to you but if you want to take credit for it, go for it. It was in ref to bagged02

I agree with catching speeders but nothing under 5mph(just my opinion) most people say 10. What I do not agree with is speed traps. I also think it is against the law for a LEO to sit in someones driveway and radar. I have passed police in burleson Tx where they are sitting in the middle of the turning lane right up against the curb where a car could still make the turn easily and radar. He was a sittin duck for getting rear ended and causing a accident. That pissed me off. I honked at his butt. Should have taken a video also. They no longer do it in here but anyone remember when LEO would sit on top of a bridge and radar down onto the oncoming traffic on the highway? They no longer do this and if they do I have not seen it in over 15 years. I remember when that was the place to look at......Im all for catching speeders again, but do it in a safe manner and get off the gas with speed traps. I also dont know how they get away with sitting in the emergency lane on the highways. That being the side of the road next to the fast lane? As a LEO, that has to be scary sometimes especially the ones on Bikes. I loved that show C.H.I.P.S.

 

[willygene]

In my experience the state troopers are the most forgiving and lenient.

sounds like you have too much experience at being stopped. would bet several of the officers thought you were an ass if you spoke to them in the tone you use about them on here. i am now a retired leo and your implications that we are d- bags because you got stopped offends me.

 

[just jk]

I wasnt specifically talking to you but if you want to take credit for it, go for it. It was in ref to bagged02

it was right after my speed trap comment - you didnt quote what you were referring to - so easy to confuse

 

[Mic]

I'll throw in my answer to question of when a cop is being a d-bag for doing their job.....
let me preface by saying I don't have problem with LEOs and think most of them are good people doing a good job. My many warnings attest to the fact that I believe in showing them respect. I have always been treated that way in return.

That said, I think in most cases, it is a d-bag move to try to find a reason to pull someone over. If you see me speeding, fine. If you see me driving with my lights off, fine. But if you are just randomly following somebody looking to "find a reason" to pull me over, you are skirting the whole concept of our probable cause clause.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

1st, please don't think this is directed at you in any way, shape or form.

That's the problem today with the law. There are too many rules and this leads to arbitrary exercise of power. Laws should be simple enough were a normal person could drive without breaking laws that they aren't aware of after a reasonable drivers ed class.

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” – Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

I understand what you're saying, I agree.....although, it really isn't hard to drive without violating the law. In my opinion, it's the complacency of people which has caused the violations. People in a hurry, speeding, not signalling, etc.....just like old laws of wearing ties, socks, etc in some areas of the country which are still on the books, but not enforced through officer discretion. I also agree that more officers could use that discretion more. At least 50% of my traffic stops walk away with warnings. Because, I'm looking for other things. I'm a self appointed drug hound. Traffic violations don't make you a bad person, but the bad guys forget the simplest things.....guy making a left turn where prohibited, 4oz of weed, 4k in cash, and he just finished delivering more.....I don't mind people warning others, hell, that makes it better. When I find weed or other narcotics in a vehicle, I'll tell the offender why I stopped him and how I know certain things, this way he'll make it harder for me to catch him next time. I live a challenge....

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

I'll throw in my answer to question of when a cop is being a d-bag for doing their job.....
let me preface by saying I don't have problem with LEOs and think most of them are good people doing a good job. My many warnings attest to the fact that I believe in showing them respect. I have always been treated that way in return.

That said, I think in most cases, it is a d-bag move to try to find a reason to pull someone over. If you see me speeding, fine. If you see me driving with my lights off, fine. But if you are just randomly following somebody looking to "find a reason" to pull me over, you are skirting the whole concept of our probable cause clause.

Agreed.....I could only see a officer targeting a vehicle if there were other circumstances present, such as other reasons like suspicious vehicle or a traffic complaint. Some other things like a confidential informant too. Now if the officer is just "lookin" then he could be teetering on that edge of profiling. Now if hes using that in totality of circumstances, okay...but if he's just fishing, I'm not a fan. I guess just based on the officers situation and intent leave me on the fence.

 

[winchster]

Agreed.....I could only see a officer targeting a vehicle if there were other circumstances present, such as other reasons like suspicious vehicle or a traffic complaint. Some other things like a confidential informant too. Now if the officer is just "lookin" then he could be teetering on that edge of profiling. Now if hes using that in totality of circumstances, okay...but if he's just fishing, I'm not a fan. I guess just based on the officers situation and intent leave me on the fence.

That pretty much sums up what my friends have said. They "could" find PC on just about anybody if they looked hard enough. They don't, because they don't have to. Violations are everywhere, they don't have to go looking for 'em.

 

[Charlie]

Another Pho King great thread!!!

 

[bagged02]

Honestly, almost everyday I flash lights at someone just to get them to slow down. Flying around a curve, things like that. They slow down about 75% of the time.

 

[bagged02]

If you see me driving with my lights off, fine. But if you are just randomly following somebody looking to "find a reason" to pull me over, you are skirting the whole concept of our probable cause clause.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Had a professor one time ask for a show of hands of everyone who had never broken the law. Probably 20 to 25% raised their hands. Then he started asking them things like; have ever driven over the speed liimit?, have you ever NOT used a turn signal when turning?, have you ever driven without your license with you?, etc., etc. Then those folks started telling him why they broke the law.............you get the picture, right?


Edit:

Yep. When you have too many trivial laws it diminishes respect for the law in general. Just like when 90% of the politicians have BS spewing out both sides of their mouths, the few that actually aren't worthless and try to make a difference are ignored.

I understand what you're saying, I agree.....although, it really isn't hard to drive without violating the law. In my opinion, it's the complacency of people which has caused the violations. People in a hurry, speeding, not signalling, etc.....just like old laws of wearing ties, socks, etc in some areas of the country which are still on the books, but not enforced through officer discretion. I also agree that more officers could use that discretion more. At least 50% of my traffic stops walk away with warnings. Because, I'm looking for other things. I'm a self appointed drug hound. Traffic violations don't make you a bad person, but the bad guys forget the simplest things.....guy making a left turn where prohibited, 4oz of weed, 4k in cash, and he just finished delivering more.....I don't mind people warning others, hell, that makes it better. When I find weed or other narcotics in a vehicle, I'll tell the offender why I stopped him and how I know certain things, this way he'll make it harder for me to catch him next time. I live a challenge....

I prefer removing some of the trivial laws over officer discretion / selective enforcement. Makes it more concrete.

Also, weed isn't a narcotic (Not sure if I just read that sentence wrong)

 

[Charlie]

Honestly, almost everyday I flash lights at someone just to get them to slow down. Flying around a curve, things like that. They slow down about 75% of the time.

Better watch it! Homeboys will getcha' if you flash at them!!!

 

[bagged02]

Better watch it! Homeboys will getcha' if you flash at them!!!

Thats what I hear

 

[midnightyell]

I dont buy the "speed trap" theory.

At 8:45am every Tuesday for the last 12 months or so, my colleagues gather in the cube with a window here on the 26th floor so we can watch TxDPS on the feeder road of I-10.
At this spot the access road is 4 lanes wide in the westbound direction, flat, newish concrete and the speed limit drops from 55mph to 45mph. The land is rural on that side with no improved entrances or exits. It's a drag strip.

The troopers park both cruisers on a certain gravel driveway behind a thicket or windscreen of trees, hop out on foot, then proceed to laser cars then step out into the right lane and wave speeders over two at a time onto a second driveway.
I'm told by some who've been stopped that they are instructed to pull far enough off the road that other motorists can't see them.

They're there every Tues like clockwork for about 2-3 hours. They always hide their cruisers and they always stay in the trees before they just step out 400-500 feet in front of cars doing 50-70 mph. It's the ballsiest thing I've seen. I keep praying no one accelerates instead of pulling over!

That said, I think it TOTALLY qualifies as a speed trap. I'm not saying they're unfairly entrapping motorists, but it's shooting fish in a barrel and it's obvious that they return on that schedule and operate in that furtive manner because they're so successful at it.




It's all Tapatalk or the iPhone's fault.

 

[Charlie]

So are you sayin' they shouldn't be stopping the drag strip racers?

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Yep. When you have too many trivial laws it diminishes respect for the law in general. Just like when 90% of the politicians have BS spewing out both sides of their mouths, the few that actually aren't worthless and try to make a difference are ignored.



I prefer removing some of the trivial laws over officer discretion / selective enforcement. Makes it more concrete.

Also, weed isn't a narcotic (Not sure if I just read that sentence wrong)

Yeah, aware of weed classificarion, bad wording on my part. Should have been weed and narcotics.....