New traffic/road laws in effect

[froggie]

A smattering of new/changed laws related to driving went into effect yesterday or today.  Amongst those I'm familliar with or have heard of:

- "Texting while driving", or even reading cell phone text messages while driving, is now illegal in Virginia and Tennessee.

- Not wearing your seat belt is now a "primary offense" in Arkansas and Florida, which means they can pull you over just for that.

- Split speed limits (65 for cars, 55 for trucks) are eliminated on most stretches of Ohio Interstate.  Trucks can now go 65 MPH as with the rest of traffic.  This only applies to Interstates...it doesn't apply to the 4-lane state or US highways in Ohio.


I'm sure many of you know of other laws that took effect...

[mightyace]

- "Texting while driving", or even reading cell phone text messages while driving, is now illegal in Virginia and Tennessee.

Thanks for the heads up!  I didn't know that.

While I don't text and drive, I occasionally have looked at the screen while driving and IMHO a lot of cops won't notice or care about why your looking at your device.

So, I'll try to avoid that from now on.

[Tarkus]

There's also supposed to be a ban on talking/texting on cellphones going into effect here in Oregon soon as well.  It just narrowly passed the Senate as I recall.  Personally, I think it's about time--one less excuse for ODOT, and our idiot governor(s) not to eliminate all the arcane NMSL holdover crap.

And kudos to Ohio getting rid of split truck limits.

-Alex (Tarkus)

[SSOWorld]

Wisconsin also went primary in Seat Belt laws

Seems that states are switching not for safety reasons, but for financial - to get more federal funding.

[Ian]

The last time I went through Rhode Island, I saw this message on every VMS:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324325970673785906
The Rhode Island "move over" law. I didn't get a chance to tune in and see what it was, but I think it probably has to do with moving over a lane for emergency vehicles.

Ian

[thenetwork]

The last time I went through Rhode Island, I saw this message on every VMS:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324325970673785906
The Rhode Island "move over" law. I didn't get a chance to tune in and see what it was, but I think it probably has to do with moving over a lane for emergency vehicles.

Ian

More than likely, the RI law is requiring drivers to change lanes when approaching (or being approached by) emergency vehicles, or stopped vehicles on the shoulder.  If you cannot switch lanes when approaching stopped vehicles, then they probably require you to slow down when passing.

Ohio has a similar law in place.

As far as the texting when driving law, Colorado has that on the books, but will officially become law later in the year.

What I don't understand is that isn't DIALING the phone or going through voice mail menus/options while driving pretty much the same principle? 

All the texting-while-driving law is designed for is that "we know that using a cell phone without a hands-free device is distracting and dangerous, but since too many cell phone users would not support the bill, and thus would not support our re-election, we compromised, and we probably won't enforce the law either."

It would be so easy to tell the officer that I was "placing a call" or punching in a menu option or extension if I was pulled over and accused of texting. No pun indented, but it's just a law-making cop-out.

[Sykotyk]

I wonder when they'll outlaw looking at a map, notebook, etc when driving. Or using the radio, or using a Navigation System, etc.

If the sheer act of looking away from the road is that much a detriment, how can you single out exactly one item in the car?

Why not ban passengers, radios, guages, etc.

Here's an idea? If somebody gets involved in a wreck due to their negligence, why not throw the book at them? Rather than preemptively punishing everyone for what MAY happen.

As for Ohio, the law was written so strictly, that anywhere cars CAN'T go 65, the split speed limit stays. So, in Columbus, Cleveland, etc if cars are going 60, the split for trucks at 55 still applies.

OH-2, OH-11, OH-7, US 23, US, 30, US 33, US 35, etc (as mentioned) still have a split.

I would assume US-30 and OH-2 will keep it as they compete with the Turnpike for truck traffic through the state as free roads. Raising the speed limit might be the deciding factor whether to take I-80 or the other.

Sykotyk

[mightyace]

Tennessee has had a "move over" law for stopped emergency and support vehicles (including tow trucks) for a couple of years now.

[Alex]

Florida enacted this somewhat recently and still is installing signs on freeways mentioning it. One such sign went up along Interstate 10 west between Exits 22 and 17 just this spring. Two signs (one is not enough!) are now in place along Interstate 10 eastbound from the Welcome center to Exit 5. The Welcome Center sign was installed awhile ago, but the median-installed sign at Exit 5 went up in the spring as well.

The problem with this law is that people rush to get into the left lane, causing near rear-end collisions when clumped with other traffic. People need to realize that you are able to remain in the right-hand lane if there is an emergency vehicle present as long as you slow down.

Last December in South Carolina along I-95 just north of the border, we witnessed people dramatically slow from 70 to 15 mph in a very short distance. Almost saw two collisions with that. Every driver shifted to the left, leaving the right lane open while the left lane oozed at 15...

There needs to be better education of this law. Signs only indicate "MOVE OVER", but they should also display "OR SLOW DOWN"...

[signalman]

New Jersey has had a ban on hand held cell phone usage for a while.  They later added texting to it.  Now, it has been proposed to add pushing buttons on GPS units into the mix.  That has yet to be voted on.

NJ also has the move over or slow down law.  People will most likely move over and cause a near accident rather than slowing down.  Far too many people are in a hurry and take unnecessary chances 

[deathtopumpkins]

I'm not sure on the specific law, but I was always taught that on any public road in Virginia you had to do whatever possible to clear the path of an emergency vehicle, by at least pulling over and slowing down or stopping. I've never noticed any confusion or drivers rushing into one lane almost hitting each other before though... 

[Bryant5493]

Georgia has yellow and white signs that read, "Move over or slow down for stopped emergency vehicles," or something of the like.


Be well,

Bryant

[SSOWorld]

maybe its a subject of another topic - but what the hell is up with the "piecemealing" of laws together?  someone's bored 

[andytom]

I'm not sure on the specific law, but I was always taught that on any public road in Virginia you had to do whatever possible to clear the path of an emergency vehicle, by at least pulling over and slowing down or stopping. I've never noticed any confusion or drivers rushing into one lane almost hitting each other before though... 

Not talking about emergency vehicles on the run.  We're talking about the new law that has cropped up in various states concerning emergency vehicles that are stopped but still have their lights flashing (i.e. an LEO performing a traffic stop).  That law says to move out of the closest lane or slow down.

--Andy

[deathtopumpkins]

Oh hmm... Did not know that was a law. I've always just moved over/slowed down for anyone on the shoulder out of courtesy and to ensure that no one steps out in front of me. 

[US71]

Wisconsin also went primary in Seat Belt laws

Seems that states are switching not for safety reasons, but for financial - to get more federal funding.

Arkansas is receiving something like $95 Million in federal money for passing the seatbelt law.

[mightyace]

Oh hmm... Did not know that was a law. I've always just moved over/slowed down for anyone on the shoulder out of courtesy and to ensure that no one steps out in front of me.

It's been a courtesy for awhile.  But after some high-profile incidents, several states codified it into law.  Minnesota passed their law after an incident that killed a state trooper on I-90 east of Rochester.

Tennessee codified it after a policeman/trooper was killed near Mt. Juliet, TN.

[agentsteel53]

I believe Oregon has had a "move over" law on the books for a while now.  I can't remember whether it says to move over *and* slow down to 20mph below the speed limit, or to just do one *or* the other.  I tend to do both where it is safe to do so; if there's no room for me to clear the right lane, though, I'll just slow down to about 20-30 below the limit.  I do so in every state, because I can never remember where it's a good idea, and where it's just the law.

I certainly don't slam the brakes or do a panic merge as though I'd just spotted an elk in my lane, though!  That's just silly.

[Bickendan]

It's only 'move over' or 'slow down' (if in right lane) in Oregon. It's generally easier to move over.

[agentsteel53]

I'd say it depends on the traffic level.  I was driving in southern California the other day, doing about 75 in moderately heavy traffic. 

There on the right shoulder there was the highway patrol, busy writing a ticket (leaning against the *passenger* side roof, of course).

I didn't have room to merge over without causing a diplomatic crisis, so I just slowed down to about 45-50 and went by.  I'm pretty sure that would be legal in all 50 states, even the "move over" ones.   

[SidS1045]

Massachusetts now has the "move over or slow down" law as well.  They also passed another law which, frankly, has me up in arms.  Here's the e-mail I got from the National Motorists Association:

Massachusetts Hits New Low

It was just recently that we discovered that Massachusetts authorities were maintaining driver license records that not only listed convictions for traffic law violations but they are also including all citations issued, including those the driver challenged in court and that were subsequently dismissed. The result is the police can target motorists who offend the "enforcers" by challenging them in court.

Not happy with just ripping off motorists to the tune of many millions of dollars in fines, fees, and surcharges, the Massachusetts' Legislature has gone one better and passed a law levying $25 and $50 fees on anyone who attempts to defend themselves in traffic court. Even if the defendant is successful, the court keeps the fee! It is absolutely incredible that none of the sterling state legislators could recognize the potential abuse this can unleash on the citizenry.

Now the cops don't even have to go through the pretense of observing a violation, they can just issue a ticket, not even bother showing up for court, and the system nets $25 to $75 in the 30 seconds it takes the pretend judge to say "not responsible." That's not a lot of money, but if the 250,000 defendants that challenged tickets last year are equaled this year that means something in the vicinity of $10 million dollars (rough numbers) just for the price of admission, regardless of innocence or guilt.

This is a recipe for profiling "trouble makers" (people who exercise their rights), abuse of authority, conflict of interest, and distorting any sense of justice that still hangs on in the Massachusetts court system. It's being highlighted here in case your state legislators think this is a great idea that they should emulate, under the theory that the "bad people" should pay for the justice system.

[Bickendan]

That law's constitutional?!

[SidS1045]

That law's constitutional?!

Since when does that matter to a legislator? 

[mightyace]

That law's constitutional?!

Since when does that matter to a legislator? 

Event if it isn't, it takes someone with the will, time and money to challenge the law in court.

[route56]

In Kansas, two new laws were passed....

• On multi-lane highways, the left lane is to be used only for passing, left turns, or to comply with the "move over" law.
  
• Persons involved in an accident that doesn't involve hazardous materials or injuries are now required to move the vehicles off to the shoulder or the nearest exit.
  

Also, efforts to make seat belt infractions a primary offense failed. Many of the legislatures who killed the bill did so on grounds that such a move would result in increased racial profiling. The Wichita NAACP added legitimacy to this argument by opposing the bill. However, I suspect that there were many legislators who come from areas with a strong anti-seat belt bias.