Move Over And/Or Slow Down Laws

[jeffandnicole]

In NJ you have to stop behind an ice cream truck and then proceed past it at no more than 5mph.

Why? It's not an emergency vehicle.

Neither are school buses.

In reality, it shouldn't have even been brought up in this thread because it's a totally different subject.  But since it was: The reasoning is kids tend to run towards the ice cream truck without due regard for their safety before crossing the road.  The law is simply to have motorists stop, look, then slowly pass by when safe.

[jakeroot]

I didn't even see his post until after I made my post. Attacking someone for this is pretty childish. I knew what the law was without reading his post.

But by not reading his post, you were duplicating information. This isn't strictly prohibited, but what's the point? If I were you, I would have just apologized and moved on. But instead, you've gone on this massive tirade, and I don't really know why.

[vdeane]

I really don't care what you've said. You aren't the only member from Michigan in here and you aren't the official spokesperson for the state in here. You seem to enjoy being an ignorant person.

But you were ignorant to his first post, no?

What I usually do, when someone from my state has already given important information, is to quote them, and then add-on. Repeating information that has already been posted should be avoided, but adding on is not a bad idea at all. For example, talking about why you don't like Michigan's law, or why you think it's better than a neighbouring state, etc.

I didn't even see his post until after I made my post. Attacking someone for this is pretty childish. I knew what the law was without reading his post.

So you didn't even bother to read the rest of the thread.  Some of us take the view that forum threads represent a conversation, not a bunch of email-like replies to one OP.  And posting the exact same thing after someone else has makes that person feel ignored, like they don't matter, and that their point didn't matter until someone of higher status posted it (trust me, as a woman, I've dealt with similar things at work and in extracurricular activities in college far too many times; at my last job, there was one time where people once even went so far as to claim that my idea was stupid while an identical idea voiced by a male colleague two days later who literally joined the team that very day was highly praised).  I've even had it happen with respect to people who clearly were following threads, so one can assume nothing.

[roadman]

Like others on here, I've posted things in threads that others have previously posted.  When I'm called out on it, I simply apologize and/or edit my post to add an "Oops, didn't see X's comment before posting" note.  No need to make a Federal case out of it.

[renegade]

Thanks, everyone.

[Flint1979]

I didn't even see his post until after I made my post. Attacking someone for this is pretty childish. I knew what the law was without reading his post.

But by not reading his post, you were duplicating information. This isn't strictly prohibited, but what's the point? If I were you, I would have just apologized and moved on. But instead, you've gone on this massive tirade, and I don't really know why.

Well it sounds like this guy has it out for me based on the reaction in his post. I would have just moved on but it's looking like he wanted to be an asshole about it. Ok I posted information that had already been posted, so what? There wasn't a need to make a big deal about it.

[J N Winkler]

Answering for Kansas (since I didn't see that anyone had supplied chapter and verse when I skimmed the three thread pages just now):

Kansas move-over law (codified at KSA § 8-1530)

KDOT press release issued shortly before effective date of July 1, 2006

FHWA summary of state move-over laws, their specific provisions, and their likely effectiveness

Personally, I have serious reservations about move-over laws in general.

*  I see that they have the potential to cause as many accidents as they prevent.

*  There was a rush among US states to introduce move-over laws in the mid-noughties.  We went from zero to fifty states with move-over laws in less time than other highway-related innovations, such as flashing yellow arrow, putting plans online, etc., which makes me suspicious of concerted lobbying by first-responder unions that may have pre-empted a shaking-out of emergency response doctrine that is more likely to save lives.  (Higher fines for workzone violations, introduced beginning circa 1990, are AFAIK still not universal; $10,000 fines for injuring/killing workers are still specific to the Old Northwest.)

*  If move-over laws are such a good idea, why don't other First World countries have them?  I am not aware of even one Canadian province that has a move-over law.

[webny99]

*  If move-over laws are such a good idea, why don't other First World countries have them?  I am not aware of even one Canadian province that has a move-over law.

Ontario does; it's pretty recent relative to most state laws though.

[RobbieL2415]

FWIW I've never seen my state's M/O law actively enforced.

[Napsterbater]

Personally, I have serious reservations about move-over laws in general.

*  I see that they have the potential to cause as many accidents as they prevent.

Though generally It will be car vs car instead of car vs person, though that is also not always the case.

At least car vs car is less likely to have injuries, sure not a zero chance but again less likely.

[Brandon]

FWIW I've never seen my state's M/O law actively enforced.

The Illinois State Police like to set up traps for it from time to time.

[renegade]

I didn't even see his post until after I made my post. Attacking someone for this is pretty childish. I knew what the law was without reading his post.

But by not reading his post, you were duplicating information. This isn't strictly prohibited, but what's the point? If I were you, I would have just apologized and moved on. But instead, you've gone on this massive tirade, and I don't really know why.

Well it sounds like this guy has it out for me based on the reaction in his post. I would have just moved on but it's looking like he wanted to be an asshole about it. Ok I posted information that had already been posted, so what? There wasn't a need to make a big deal about it.

Wow.  Five days in and still playing the passive-aggressive martyr.

You win.  If you want to take all the credit for your post regarding Michigan's move-over law, go right ahead.

I don't "have it in for you."  I also didn't "attack" you.  I don't even know you, and I've come to the conclusion that I don't want to, because you are simply not a nice person.  You just won't admit that you were wrong, be a man and apologize, even though others have asked that you do.   

So I will.  I am sorry if I have offended you or your sensibilities, and I will just move on.  Life's just too short for me to dwell upon every little snowflake that falls, and my only suggestions for you are to move on yourself, and stop drinking the water in Flint. 

I got off Facebook because I didn't want this drama.  I guess I didn't expect to find so much of it here.

In the end, I suppose it's all my fault for attempting to contribute.  Apparently, the line between adult discourse and  "attacking" is less visible around this forum than I expected it to be.  You have a lot of nerve calling me an asshole.  Look in a mirror.

Have a nice life.   

[Tarkus]

Oregon has one, and it's move over OR slow down, and certain jurisdictions actually conduct sting operations on a regular basis.  My observation is that in anything heavier than light-to-moderate traffic, BOTH end up happening regardless, and the result is usually a near-miss for a massive pileup--the trajectory of which could potentially put the people it's designed to protect right in harms way. 

A few years ago, I came across one of those sting operations on US-26 EB, right before the Cornelius Pass Rd exit . . . had to slam on my brakes almost instantly because some semi decided to merge into the left lane going 20mph.

I get why the laws exist, but lack the education on the "OR" bit is completely terrible, and ends up putting even more people in danger.

[kphoger]

How do you guys know it's a sting?

The only time I've gotten a warning for this sort of law, the officer was just parked on the side of the road finishing up paperwork before pulling out into traffic.  Before he was finished, I blew by him and then got pulled over.

[Brandon]

How do you guys know it's a sting?

The only time I've gotten a warning for this sort of law, the officer was just parked on the side of the road finishing up paperwork before pulling out into traffic.  Before he was finished, I blew by him and then got pulled over.

Because the ISP publicizes it as a sting.

[Brandon]

Personally, I have serious reservations about move-over laws in general.

*  I see that they have the potential to cause as many accidents as they prevent.

*  There was a rush among US states to introduce move-over laws in the mid-noughties.  We went from zero to fifty states with move-over laws in less time than other highway-related innovations, such as flashing yellow arrow, putting plans online, etc., which makes me suspicious of concerted lobbying by first-responder unions that may have pre-empted a shaking-out of emergency response doctrine that is more likely to save lives.  (Higher fines for workzone violations, introduced beginning circa 1990, are AFAIK still not universal; $10,000 fines for injuring/killing workers are still specific to the Old Northwest.)

*  If move-over laws are such a good idea, why don't other First World countries have them?  I am not aware of even one Canadian province that has a move-over law.

I'm inclined to agree.  I think the way through this is education, yet we're relying far too on enforcement without the proper education.  And that education should also be for our emergency responders on how to avoid such situations in the first place (i.e. pulling over someone on a ramp or parking area instead of the just the freeway shoulder).

[jakeroot]

*  If move-over laws are such a good idea, why don't other First World countries have them?  I am not aware of even one Canadian province that has a move-over law.

British Columbia has a "move over" law, and it's actually quite comprehensive compared to neighboring Washington virtually every US state: notice that slowing to 70 km/h (~45mph) is required when the limit is more than 80 km/h (50mph), even in areas with a 120 limit:

[kphoger]

And that education should also be for our emergency responders on how to avoid such situations in the first place (i.e. pulling over someone on a ramp or parking area instead of the just the freeway shoulder).

How does that work, exactly?  If a cop puts his lights and siren on, I as the driver pull over where I deem appropriate, and then the cop parks behind me.  How do you expect the cop to decide where I pull over?

[Brandon]

And that education should also be for our emergency responders on how to avoid such situations in the first place (i.e. pulling over someone on a ramp or parking area instead of the just the freeway shoulder).

How does that work, exactly?  If a cop puts his lights and siren on, I as the driver pull over where I deem appropriate, and then the cop parks behind me.  How do you expect the cop to decide where I pull over?

The cop can tell someone to move to a different location.  That is possible to do.

[jeffandnicole]

And that education should also be for our emergency responders on how to avoid such situations in the first place (i.e. pulling over someone on a ramp or parking area instead of the just the freeway shoulder).

How does that work, exactly?  If a cop puts his lights and siren on, I as the driver pull over where I deem appropriate, and then the cop parks behind me.  How do you expect the cop to decide where I pull over?

The cop can tell someone to move to a different location.  That is possible to do.

Much harder to do in real life when someone is very nervous after getting pulled over. Also, telling someone to pull Into a parking lot would cause quite a bit of hesitation, especially for female drivers.

[kphoger]

I also see little advantage for police officer in now having to pull over and get out of the vehicle in two different locations, rather than just one location.

[jakeroot]

I also see little advantage for police officer in now having to pull over and get out of the vehicle in two different locations, rather than just one location.

No, they use the loudspeaker. I see it in CA especially often: "CONTINUE TO THE NEXT EXIT AND THEN STOP", etc.

[Super Mateo]

FWIW I've never seen my state's M/O law actively enforced.

The Illinois State Police like to set up traps for it from time to time.

And yet the ISP still can't be bothered to ticket the trucks moving in lanes they're not legally allowed to be in.  They're leaving tons of money on the table, which is VERY out of character for IL.

Anyway, I learned the skill from watching truckers in downstate IL.  They do an excellent job of moving over when necessary for ALL vehicles (which is the law, mentioned by several others on the first two pages).  When a vehicle is stopped on the right shoulder, the right lane is virtually closed.  In Chicagoland, though, it's bad.  Not only do about half of the people not move over, even when possible, some see the opening and make a break for it, going even faster in that lane than usual.

It's a terrible practice.  Move over.  Human life and avoiding injuries are top priority, but other things can happen, like a door swinging open, the car starts moving again and gets in the way, debris flying, etc.  There is no good reason to stay there.

[jeffandnicole]

FWIW I've never seen my state's M/O law actively enforced.

The Illinois State Police like to set up traps for it from time to time.

And yet the ISP still can't be bothered to ticket the trucks moving in lanes they're not legally allowed to be in.  They're leaving tons of money on the table, which is VERY out of character for IL.

I think for minor infractions, the police would prefer not to stop them. With the laws as they are now, 2 or 3 tickets can cause a CDL driver to lose their license for a year. Many cops actually are sensitive and don't mean to see someone lose their job, so it results in fewer stops for left lane and other minor violations.