What does your state law say about moving over and/or slowing down for stopped emergency vehicles with flashing lights?
Personally, I find it quite irksome when people do both - isn't it supposed to be one or the other?
If there's a pre-existing slowdown - which there wouldn't be, if people did it properly - I make a point of not moving over, as I've already slowed down. Hopefully, those behind me will follow suit, and I will have assisted in clearing up the backlog of traffic!
If there's no backlog, I will move over, and typically slow down slightly without hitting the brakes. If I do have to hit the brakes, however, then I have "slowed down", so no legal obligation to move over, but I'll still do it if I can without undue disruption to traffic.
Thoughts?
Your opinion of slowing down may be different than the law's version.
Either way, the whole purpose of the law is because people can't exercise common sense. A cop isn't superman. He's a human on the roadway, just a few feet from thousands of pounds of an object that, if hit, can easily kill or seriously injure. You, my friend, are more concerned with the nuances of the law than using common sense.
Whenever possible, move over. If you can't move over, slow down - Significantly if you can. I've often see 20 mph below the speed limit on a highway as a goal. If there's a traffic jam, so be it. Believe it or not, a speed limit isn't a minimum goal to be obtained at all times. The whole purpose of those flashing lights is to bring attention to an issue, and for motorists to exercise caution.
If you think you alone can clear a backlog of traffic, you are humbly mistaken. You can only control the guy behind you to an extent. A few more cars back and you probably have had no effect whatsoever. If you think one person can do something, put a camera out there, do what you think is the best thing possible, then review the recording later on. Your actions probably didn't make a difference.
And one final opinion: Let's say you get a flat tire and need to change it. You're a foot away from a travel lane. I have no legal obligation to move over or slow down, but I'm sure you'll be glad if there was no one driving a foot away at the speed limit from you.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2019, 07:33:00 PM
And one final opinion: Let's say you get a flat tire and need to change it. You're a foot away from a travel lane. I have no legal obligation to move over or slow down, but I'm sure you'll be glad if there was no one driving a foot away at the speed limit from you.
That depends on the state
Pretty sure the current version of Scott's Law in IL (the move over law name in IL) requires Moving Over and Slowing Down for ALL vehicles. Harsher penalties for Emergency Vehicle violations, tho
Earlier in 2019 IL had about a 2 month stretch where 3 or 4 State Troopers, on Highway duty, lost life in the line of duty by getting hit on the side of the road. And that was with Scott's Law firmly already on the books. I don't recall if the Legislature increased any penalties, tho
Quote from: webny99 on November 09, 2019, 07:04:15 PM
I make a point of not moving over, as I've already slowed down. Hopefully, those behind me will follow suit, and I will have assisted in clearing up the backlog of traffic!
As someone who works on the side of the road who benefits from these laws.
MOVE OVER!!!!!
If you can safely move over DO IT, Slow down ONLY IF YOU CANNOT move over safely.
If you choose to slow down after moving over you can do so as well, though not required and generally you should not be slowing down as much as you would if you were still in the lane adjacent.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2019, 07:33:00 PM
You, my friend, are more concerned with the nuances of the law than using common sense.
I am not sure who you are talking to, but I don't think it's me...
I know what the law is, what it's for, and have no objections to it. What I do have objection to, is people slowing down to a crawl AND moving over. Doing one of those two things is necessary. Doing both is absolutely not. There is a balance between respecting those on the side of the road, and maintaining some semblance of traffic flow.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2019, 07:33:00 PM
If you think you alone can clear a backlog of traffic, you are humbly mistaken. You can only control the guy behind you to an extent. A few more cars back and you probably have had no effect whatsoever. If you think one person can do something, put a camera out there, do what you think is the best thing possible, then review the recording later on. Your actions probably didn't make a difference.
What I can do, is use the available lane, and proceed (slowly) past whatever vehicles on the shoulder. My idea of slowly, is about 10-15 mph, which is often considerably faster than the lane that everyone is cramming into. My hope would be, that others would follow suit behind me, and also use the lane right next to the emergency vehicles. Obviously, I have no control over whether they do so or not, but the best I can do is set the proper example.
Quote from: Napsterbater on November 09, 2019, 08:33:21 PM
As someone who works on the side of the road who benefits from these laws.
MOVE OVER!!!!!
If you can safely move over DO IT, Slow down ONLY IF YOU CANNOT move over safely.
Well, that's just it. Where do you draw the line as to whether you can or cannot move over safely?
My argument is that when there's a backlog of traffic, moving over is unnecessarily adding to the disruption being caused.
Of course, I would never go past in the adjacent lane at full speed. I would hope that would be obvious.
I will always move over as long as conditions are free-flowing. When conditions aren't free flowing, it will be a judgment call as to whether to cram into the next lane over, or stay put and go past slowly (at about 10-15 mph, as noted above).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2019, 07:33:00 PM
Whenever possible, move over. If you can't move over, slow down - Significantly if you can. I've often see 20 mph below the speed limit on a highway as a goal. If there's a traffic jam, so be it. Believe it or not, a speed limit isn't a minimum goal to be obtained at all times. The whole purpose of those flashing lights is to bring attention to an issue, and for motorists to exercise caution.
I've seen people come to a complete stop and wait for someone in the adjacent lane to come to a complete stop to let them in (bumper to bumper traffic) to move over when they could very well have gone past the cop at 15 (regular speed limit 55) easily enough. I'm pretty sure the definition of "move over if you can safely do so" doesn't involve people in that lane braking to let you in, but unfortunately with the media advertising the law as "slow down and move over" rather than "move over if possible or slow down if not", people sometimes try to move over no matter what.
Quote from: webny99 on November 09, 2019, 08:46:09 PM
Quote from: Napsterbater on November 09, 2019, 08:33:21 PM
As someone who works on the side of the road who benefits from these laws.
MOVE OVER!!!!!
If you can safely move over DO IT, Slow down ONLY IF YOU CANNOT move over safely.
Well, that's just it. Where do you draw the line as to whether you can or cannot move over safely?
My argument is that when there's a backlog of traffic, moving over is unnecessarily adding to the disruption being caused.
If you're talking about backlog and both/all lanes are moving say sub 20mph, then pay attention to what is going on and use your judgment, If any responding vehicle is even partially in the lane or you see workers or emergency personnel having to enter the lane then get out of it no matter the speed. Of course generally that won't be the case and the lane will be completely blocked with a vehicle.
But if traffic is moving at speed and by that I mean about 30 mile an hour or more past the incident then do your best to move over safely And again if you cannot feel free drive by at 10 miles an hour again talking about a backlog situation with left lane doing 30 or so And the biggest thing is always be prepared to Make an emergency stop no matter the speed if you're going to be In the lane adjacent.
Also pay attention and look for anyone directing traffic. If someone is waving you on to speed up then do it. Also look for variable message signs mounted on DOT/responding vehicles giving direction.
And again if traffic is moving at speed even if not at the speed limit move over. Just think to yourself how would you feel if you got hit at the speed you're driving In the adjacent to the scene.
And as a side note, the responders on the side of the road can understand if you cannot safely move over that's fine, we understand, we are drivers too we run into the same situation. But SLOW DOWN If you cannot move over that is the biggest issue we have.
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 09, 2019, 07:38:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2019, 07:33:00 PM
And one final opinion: Let's say you get a flat tire and need to change it. You're a foot away from a travel lane. I have no legal obligation to move over or slow down, but I'm sure you'll be glad if there was no one driving a foot away at the speed limit from you.
That depends on the state
Pretty sure the current version of Scott’s Law in IL (the move over law name in IL) requires Moving Over and Slowing Down for ALL vehicles. Harsher penalties for Emergency Vehicle violations, tho
Earlier in 2019 IL had about a 2 month stretch where 3 or 4 State Troopers, on Highway duty, lost life in the line of duty by getting hit on the side of the road. And that was with Scott’s Law firmly already on the books. I don’t recall if the Legislature increased any penalties, tho
Nope, the law is slow down
or move over, but for all vehicles (somehow the state police haven't gotten the message*). Scott's Law is a law that should've been vetoed as the guy in question was hit by a drunk driver, and we already have laws on the books for that. In fact, most of the drivers who hit these state troopers are impaired. The sober don't tend to hit them.
*I watched a state trooper, no lights, no siren, just cruising along I-88 in Warrenville, in the far left lane, pass a maintenance crew on the left shoulder changing out the lights to LEDs, at 80 mph. I really wished I had a dash cam that day as Scott's Law meant nothing to that trooper, but heaven forbid you should pass him the same way he did that maintenance crew.
Quote(625 ILCS 5/11-907) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-907)
(Text of Section before amendment by P.A. 101-173)
Sec. 11-907. Operation of vehicles and streetcars on approach of authorized emergency vehicles.
(c) Upon approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle, when the authorized emergency vehicle is giving a signal by displaying alternately flashing red, red and white, blue, or red and blue lights or amber or yellow warning lights, a person who drives an approaching vehicle shall:
(1) proceeding with due caution, yield the
right-of-way by making a lane change into a lane not adjacent to that of the authorized emergency vehicle, if possible with due regard to safety and traffic conditions, if on a highway having at least 4 lanes with not less than 2 lanes proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle; or
(2) proceeding with due caution, reduce the speed of
the vehicle, maintaining a safe speed for road conditions, if changing lanes would be impossible or unsafe.
As used in this subsection (c), "authorized emergency vehicle" includes any vehicle authorized by law to be equipped with oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights under Section 12-215 of this Code, while the owner or operator of the vehicle is engaged in his or her official duties.
http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-907.htm
Note the "or" in there. However, this law is ambiguous (and why I hate the law) as to what "slow down" actually means. Slow down can be anything from 1 mph upward slower.
After reading Scott's Law's actual text, it is only officially for the protection of Emergency and Maintenance Vehicles. I thought there was a general provision for any vehicle, but that is not in this law's text, anyway
It should be Common Sense...if someone is stopped or working in a Lane or the Shoulder, move over and/or slow down as is appropriate...especially when its a Police, Fire, or Medical vehicle
I've seen instances on a 4-lane freeway (2 lanes each way) where there will be a truck / bus (only seen with large vehicles, yet into encounter a passenger vehicle doing this) that will move into the center of both lanes, and slow considerably under the speed limit for any vehicles pulled over (I got stuck behind a truck on a 70 mph rural freeway before slow down to 45 mph doing this maneuver), whether it be a car, large vehicle, or emergency vehicle.
I get the point, but please either stay in the right lane and slow way down, or fully get over to the left and maintain your speed. This centering stuff gets annoying especially when it's not necessary. There needs to be a fine line between slow down / move over and blocking both lanes of traffic at 45 mph on a rural freeway just for a stopped car. It can get dangerous too, because if you leave enough room to your left, somebody could easily recklessly squeeze in and fly by.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 09, 2019, 09:39:31 PM
I've seen instances on a 4-lane freeway (2 lanes each way) where there will be a truck / bus (only seen with large vehicles, yet into encounter a passenger vehicle doing this) that will move into the center of both lanes, and slow considerably under the speed limit for any vehicles pulled over (I got stuck behind a truck on a 70 mph rural freeway before slow down to 45 mph doing this maneuver), whether it be a car, large vehicle, or emergency vehicle.
I get the point, but please either stay in the right lane and slow way down, or fully get over to the left and maintain your speed. This centering stuff gets annoying especially when it's not necessary. There needs to be a fine line between slow down / move over and blocking both lanes of traffic at 45 mph on a rural freeway just for a stopped car. It can get dangerous too, because if you leave enough room to your left, somebody could easily recklessly squeeze in and fly by.
Also most(some?) Of the move over laws say 1 Lane, not a half of lane, not move over a little.
I see a lot of drivers with nobody around them only move over half lane. If they move over at all of course..
There is no reason not to at the very minimum move over one entire lane if there is nobody around you. And if you can move half ablane that means you can move over one whole lane.
Look...you can't fix stupid, so there's always going to be people doing odd things that the laws never intended, or do things that they believe are for the good of everyone else. Someone straddling 2 lanes probably also do the same thing approaching a lane ending situation where they don't want people continuing in the lane that ends.
Consider other ambiguous laws...like stopping at a stop sign. Most states only say you must come to a complete stop. They don't say how long you must remain stopped. But if you only stop for a second and pull out hitting someone, you won't be able to use your 1 second stop as much of a defense...if anything, it's gonna go against you when you're cited for causing the accident by failing to yield.
Here's the thing which I tried pointing out...the shoulder of the highway is a dangerous place. If you can move over, do so. If you think slowing down by 1 mph satisfies the law, then that's your opinion. But if something unexpected were to happen and you accidentally hit someone, would you think telling a judge, when you're spending thousands of dollars in legal fees, looking at 2 years of jail...that slowing down 1 mph was acceptable, you may want to reconsider your obligation to keep you and others safe
Michigan's law says you must do both:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_Vehicle_Caution_Law_116834_7.pdf
Florida's rest areas have the most detailed signage I've ever seen about a "Move Over Law":
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3605/3466963794_23e6fa2782_b.jpg)
(Obviously, that sign is too detailed for use on the open highway. There's a much simpler version used there.)
Quote from: renegade on November 10, 2019, 03:17:58 PM
Michigan's law says you must do both:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_Vehicle_Caution_Law_116834_7.pdf
Seems like a traffic hazard IMO. Should be either or. It's pointless to slow down once you're in the other lane away from the stopped vehicle.
https://wmmlegal.com/virginia-strengthens-highway-move-over-law-now-reckless-driving
Virginia recently made the Move Over / Slow Down law a reckless driving offense if violated.
Any other states do this?
IMO, it's absurd to punishable as reckless driving. Seems like a money grab if anything.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 10, 2019, 03:48:47 PM
https://wmmlegal.com/virginia-strengthens-highway-move-over-law-now-reckless-driving
Virginia recently made the Move Over / Slow Down law a reckless driving offense if violated.
Any other states do this?
IMO, it's absurd to punishable as reckless driving. Seems like a money grab if anything.
Good! With how many people continue to fail to move over even when there's absolutely nobody around them and then you still have the idiots who won't even slow down a touch if they cannot get over.
Maybe the threat of reckless driving charge will get people to comply. And if they don't they get what they deserve.
Quote from: Napsterbater on November 10, 2019, 04:30:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 10, 2019, 03:48:47 PM
https://wmmlegal.com/virginia-strengthens-highway-move-over-law-now-reckless-driving
Virginia recently made the Move Over / Slow Down law a reckless driving offense if violated.
Any other states do this?
IMO, it's absurd to punishable as reckless driving. Seems like a money grab if anything.
Good! With how many people continue to fail to move over even when there's absolutely nobody around them and then you still have the idiots who won't even slow down a touch if they cannot get over.
Maybe the threat of reckless driving charge will get people to comply. And if they don't they get what they deserve.
I understand the reasoning of it, but my issue is with this state, it almost seems like it's more of a money grab in reality rather than in the name of safety.
If it's used properly, understandable. There have been an uptick in the amount of worker / emergency vehicle crashes, a couple of weekends ago here in Hampton Roads, I believe there was 2-3 shoulder crashes within a 24 hour period, all at different locations. Idiots who A) won't move over or slow down, and B) don't know how to maintain their lane and think they can veer on/off the shoulder.
I just don't like how the law just pertained to emergency vehicles and not the average driver. Does that mean the average driver isn't as important? I take the same amount of care no matter who I see on the shoulder.
I have noticed the media call it the "move over" law so now people think they have to move over no matter what even if somebody is in that lane. If if there isn't any room, people move over, which causes vehicles to slow down more than they probably need to and creates a bigger traffic jam.
I did see a cop with his lights on in the shoulder (no other vehicle there), the car ahead of me didn't move over (b/c he couldn't as there was a car in the left lane next to him) and he was pulled over. I'm guessing b/c he violated the move over law. He was going the speed limit and did slow down and there was no other vehicle with the cop on the shoulder.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2019, 08:22:45 PM
I did see a cop with his lights on in the shoulder (no other vehicle there), the car ahead of me didn't move over (b/c he couldn't as there was a car in the left lane next to him) and he was pulled over. I'm guessing b/c he violated the move over law. He was going the speed limit and did slow down and there was no other vehicle with the cop on the shoulder.
$$$$! Absurd.
I will move over in all situations unless physically impossible (including during heavy traffic, even if no one else does). It makes me uncomfortable to drive directly adjacent to someone under any circumstances. Even on urban roadways, there's usually a buffer between the travel lane and sidewalk. No such buffer between the outside lane and the shoulder. Main reasoning: if someone stumbled over, and I hit them, I wouldn't sleep for weeks, probably months. Even if I was "in the right", I wouldn't be able to mentally handle it.
I will move over for pretty much anyone on the side of the road, unless it's clear that no one is in the vehicle. Primary reasoning being that someone who has broken down, might not be thinking straight. They could randomly swing their door out into the outside lane, which wouldn't end well. Or if they opened the door successfully, but then climbed out and stumbled into traffic, I could very well hit them (not much reaction time at freeway speeds).
WA has not had move over laws for a super long time, but Washington State Patrol now enforces that law, and the mobile phone laws, far more than any other law (including speeding). WA law requires slowing down to 10 below the limit if you choose not to move over, for the record.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2019, 08:22:45 PM
I just don't like how the law just pertained to emergency vehicles and not the average driver. Does that mean the average driver isn't as important? I take the same amount of care no matter who I see on the shoulder.
I have noticed the media call it the "move over" law so now people think they have to move over no matter what even if somebody is in that lane. If if there isn't any room, people move over, which causes vehicles to slow down more than they probably need to and creates a bigger traffic jam.
I did see a cop with his lights on in the shoulder (no other vehicle there), the car ahead of me didn't move over (b/c he couldn't as there was a car in the left lane next to him) and he was pulled over. I'm guessing b/c he violated the move over law. He was going the speed limit and did slow down and there was no other vehicle with the cop on the shoulder.
Ohio's law says public safety, emergency, road service, waste collection, motor vehicle inspection, and highway maintenance vehicles, but the actual signage says "move over for stopped vehicle with flashing lights" . That leaves a little ambiguity in my brain regarding the general public, but common sense tells me to do it no matter what.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 10, 2019, 03:45:37 PM
Quote from: renegade on November 10, 2019, 03:17:58 PM
Michigan's law says you must do both:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_Vehicle_Caution_Law_116834_7.pdf
Seems like a traffic hazard IMO. Should be either or. It's pointless to slow down once you're in the other lane away from the stopped vehicle.
I would agree with you, but we've buried tow truck operators and police officers here a few times and in the interest of their safety, this was the solution that was offered up.
In Michigan you are suppose to move over and slow down to 5 mph under the speed limit.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 12, 2019, 11:28:48 AM
In Michigan you are suppose to move over and slow down to 5 mph under the speed limit.
Thanks for mansplaining that one for me. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough in post #12 by stating, "you must do both" and citing state law to back it up. We need more fine, upstanding citizens like you who are more than willing to help out those who don't need any.
:bigass:
The 'block' function is totally useless.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2019, 08:22:45 PM
I did see a cop with his lights on in the shoulder (no other vehicle there), the car ahead of me didn't move over (b/c he couldn't as there was a car in the left lane next to him) and he was pulled over. I'm guessing b/c he violated the move over law. He was going the speed limit and did slow down and there was no other vehicle with the cop on the shoulder.
This is what they would term 'conjuncture'. We've had many threads like this, where we're talking about a subject, someone thinks back to an incident that they observed, and immediately corollate the two. For something like this, you stated he was going the speed limit and did slow down. At which point was he going the speed limit? Could it have been a registration violation, a headlight was burned out, a windshield cracked, or maybe he did something somewhere else and a cop was waiting for him.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 10, 2019, 03:48:47 PM
https://wmmlegal.com/virginia-strengthens-highway-move-over-law-now-reckless-driving
Virginia recently made the Move Over / Slow Down law a reckless driving offense if violated.
Any other states do this?
IMO, it's absurd to punishable as reckless driving. Seems like a money grab if anything.
I'm from NJ, where we have a very high threshold of what constitutes reckless driving. You generally need to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol for it to be considered. In VA, they lump routine traffic violations as reckless driving, which shouldn't be.
Is it a money grab? Not necessarily. While the possible fine can be high, and the jail time extensive, and even a possible loss of license, I think the real deterrent is the points on one's license. Most people will want to steer clear of a 6 point violation. The potential jail time costs the state money, and even the mandatory court visit costs the state money. A simple traffic ticket with a generally low fine is usually just paid without a court visit, so that's nearly all profit there.
Quote from: webny99 on November 09, 2019, 07:04:15 PM
What does your state law say about moving over and/or slowing down for stopped emergency vehicles with flashing lights?
Personally, I find it quite irksome when people do both - isn't it supposed to be one or the other?
Quote from: webny99 on November 09, 2019, 08:46:09 PM
What I do have objection to, is people slowing down to a crawl AND moving over. Doing one of those two things is necessary. Doing both is absolutely not.
You moved the target. You said nothing about "a crawl" at first. Of course I'm not in favor of people moving over and slowing down "to a crawl". But moving over and slowing down a little bit is simply being cautious.
If people would drive defensively and stay off the phone that would help immensely, maybe not follow so close. Some things come up out of nowhere, like a deer or animal crossing the road. A vehicle on the shoulder, especially one with emergency lights flashing should not come as a surprise.
Slowing down and moving over is not an inconvenience unless you are a complete dick.
Quote from: rarnold on November 12, 2019, 08:51:18 PM
If people would drive defensively and stay off the phone that would help immensely, maybe not follow so close. Some things come up out of nowhere, like a deer or animal crossing the road. A vehicle on the shoulder, especially one with emergency lights flashing should not come as a surprise.
Slowing down and moving over is not an inconvenience unless you are a complete dick.
Getting into the left lane and then slowing down from 70 mph to 45 mph is in itself being a d*ck.
Quote from: rarnold on November 12, 2019, 08:51:18 PM
If people would drive defensively and stay off the phone that would help immensely, maybe not follow so close. Some things come up out of nowhere, like a deer or animal crossing the road. A vehicle on the shoulder, especially one with emergency lights flashing should not come as a surprise.
Slowing down and moving over is not an inconvenience unless you are a complete dick.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This 1000x.
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2019, 03:02:36 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 09, 2019, 07:04:15 PM
What does your state law say about moving over and/or slowing down for stopped emergency vehicles with flashing lights?
Personally, I find it quite irksome when people do both - isn't it supposed to be one or the other?
Quote from: webny99 on November 09, 2019, 08:46:09 PM
What I do have objection to, is people slowing down to a crawl AND moving over. Doing one of those two things is necessary. Doing both is absolutely not.
You moved the target. You said nothing about "a crawl" at first. Of course I'm not in favor of people moving over and slowing down "to a crawl". But moving over and slowing down a little bit is simply being cautious.
As I often do, I started very generally and vague on details, with the intention of getting more specific as warranted.
Of course, slowing down from 65 to 55, or whatever, is fine; encouraged, even. However, I would say anything less than 10 below the speed limit is "crawl" territory. My personal emphasis is on
not braking: take the cruise off, sure, let off on the accelerator a little, lose 5-10 mph, switch lanes if at all possible, great. The problems are with abrupt braking / speed changes of 10+ mph, which invites a chain reaction of braking, and ultimately a major slowdown. You can often see flashing lights miles in advance; attentiveness and preparation are key, but so often seem to be lacking!
If I see someone with his back to traffic, standing in the vehicle doorway, and I think there's the slightest chance he's getting ready to step backward and close the door–you can bet I'm willing to brake in order to not clip the guy.
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2019, 10:03:55 PM
If I see someone with his back to traffic, standing in the vehicle doorway, and I think there's the slightest chance he's getting ready to step backward and close the door–you can bet I'm willing to brake in order to not clip the guy.
I'm also ready with the horn. He's obviously not doing the first thing someone should do on a roadway - pay attention to traffic, even when on the side of the road.
Quote from: renegade on November 12, 2019, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 12, 2019, 11:28:48 AM
In Michigan you are suppose to move over and slow down to 5 mph under the speed limit.
Thanks for mansplaining that one for me. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough in post #12 by stating, "you must do both" and citing state law to back it up. We need more fine, upstanding citizens like you who are more than willing to help out those who don't need any.
:bigass:
The 'block' function is totally useless.
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. Don't like my posts then keep on moving this isn't a place to act the way you do. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you either. This is childish.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2019, 06:19:09 AM
Quote from: renegade on November 12, 2019, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 12, 2019, 11:28:48 AM
In Michigan you are suppose to move over and slow down to 5 mph under the speed limit.
Thanks for mansplaining that one for me. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough in post #12 by stating, "you must do both" and citing state law to back it up. We need more fine, upstanding citizens like you who are more than willing to help out those who don't need any.
:bigass:
The 'block' function is totally useless.
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. Don't like my posts then keep on moving this isn't a place to act the way you do. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you either. This is childish.
He did say those things first, so there was no reason for you to say them again except to take credit. I've had this happen to me a few times, and while I haven't called people out on it,
it's really annoying.
Quote from: Brandon on November 13, 2019, 05:52:28 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2019, 10:03:55 PM
If I see someone with his back to traffic, standing in the vehicle doorway, and I think there's the slightest chance he's getting ready to step backward and close the door–you can bet I'm willing to brake in order to not clip the guy.
I'm also ready with the horn. He's obviously not doing the first thing someone should do on a roadway - pay attention to traffic, even when on the side of the road.
Yeah, but people on the side of the road may not be thinking straight. They may have run out of fuel, had an accident, whatever...their mind is likely elsewhere. Give them the benefit of the doubt, and just move over. I like to honk too, but it's not particularly effective when you're coming up on someone at 70+, while they're standing still (or barely moving). Virtually no reaction time on their part.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 12, 2019, 12:29:28 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2019, 08:22:45 PM
I did see a cop with his lights on in the shoulder (no other vehicle there), the car ahead of me didn't move over (b/c he couldn't as there was a car in the left lane next to him) and he was pulled over. I'm guessing b/c he violated the move over law. He was going the speed limit and did slow down and there was no other vehicle with the cop on the shoulder.
This is what they would term 'conjuncture'. We've had many threads like this, where we're talking about a subject, someone thinks back to an incident that they observed, and immediately corollate the two. For something like this, you stated he was going the speed limit and did slow down. At which point was he going the speed limit? Could it have been a registration violation, a headlight was burned out, a windshield cracked, or maybe he did something somewhere else and a cop was waiting for him.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 10, 2019, 03:48:47 PM
https://wmmlegal.com/virginia-strengthens-highway-move-over-law-now-reckless-driving
Virginia recently made the Move Over / Slow Down law a reckless driving offense if violated.
Any other states do this?
IMO, it's absurd to punishable as reckless driving. Seems like a money grab if anything.
I'm from NJ, where we have a very high threshold of what constitutes reckless driving. You generally need to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol for it to be considered. In VA, they lump routine traffic violations as reckless driving, which shouldn't be.
Is it a money grab? Not necessarily. While the possible fine can be high, and the jail time extensive, and even a possible loss of license, I think the real deterrent is the points on one's license. Most people will want to steer clear of a 6 point violation. The potential jail time costs the state money, and even the mandatory court visit costs the state money. A simple traffic ticket with a generally low fine is usually just paid without a court visit, so that's nearly all profit there.
In NJ you have to stop behind an ice cream truck and then proceed past it at no more than 5mph.
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2019, 10:03:55 PM
If I see someone with his back to traffic, standing in the vehicle doorway, and I think there's the slightest chance he's getting ready to step backward and close the door–you can bet I'm willing to brake in order to not clip the guy.
Well, of course, but I would hope your first choice would be to move over, thus avoiding the close proximity.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 13, 2019, 02:53:51 PM
In NJ you have to stop behind an ice cream truck and then proceed past it at no more than 5mph.
15 mph, actually.
Quote from: New Jersey Statutes Title 39
Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation
39 § 4-128.4
a. The driver of a vehicle approaching or overtaking from either direction a frozen dessert truck stopped on the highway shall stop before reaching the truck when the flashing red lights and stop signal arm described in section 3 are in use. After stopping, a driver may proceed past such truck at a reasonable and prudent speed, not exceeding 15 miles per hour, and shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian who crosses the roadway to or from the frozen dessert truck.
b. The driver of a vehicle on a highway having dual or multiple roadways separated by safety islands or physical traffic separation installations need not stop upon meeting or passing a frozen dessert truck on another roadway.
In Utah, the law requires you to slow down and "provide as much space as practical". A lane change is only required if it is practical and safe,
and the vehicle in question is an emergency vehicle - that provision does not apply to the section for tow trucks and maintenance vehicles. It also contains wording allowing drivers to make a lane change out of an HOV lane, even if it involves crossing a double-white line and would be illegal otherwise.
Quote from: 41-6a-904. Approaching emergency vehicle -- Necessary signals -- Stationary emergency vehicle -- Duties of respective operators.
(2)
(a) The operator of a vehicle, upon approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying alternately flashing red, red and white, or red and blue lights, shall:
(i) reduce the speed of the vehicle;
(ii) provide as much space as practical to the stationary authorized emergency vehicle; and
(iii) if traveling in a lane adjacent to the stationary authorized emergency vehicle and if practical, with due regard to safety and traffic conditions, make a lane change into a lane not adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle.
(b)
(i) If the operator of a vehicle is traveling in an HOV lane, upon approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying alternately flashing red, red and white, or red and blue lights, the requirements in Subsection (2)(a) apply.
(ii) The operator of a vehicle traveling in an HOV lane, upon approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying alternately flashing red, red and white, or red and blue lights, shall, if practical, with due regard to safety and traffic conditions, make a lane change out of the HOV lane into a lane not adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle.
(3)
(a) The operator of a vehicle, upon approaching a stationary tow truck or highway maintenance vehicle that is displaying flashing amber lights, shall:
(i) reduce the speed of the vehicle; and
(ii) provide as much space as practical to the stationary tow truck or highway maintenance vehicle.
(b) The operator of a vehicle traveling in an HOV lane, upon approaching a stationary tow truck or highway maintenance vehicle that is displaying flashing amber lights, shall, if practical, with due regard to safety and traffic conditions, make a lane change out of the HOV lane into a lane not adjacent to the tow truck or highway maintenance vehicle.
Here's how it's typically signed:
(https://i.imgur.com/fcB2iy2.jpg)
In Virginia, driving above 80 mph on a 70 mph rural interstate highway is considered "reckless" .
Come to CT, where it's the only state in the nation where you have to move over even for vehicles parked on the shoulder!
Quote from: vdeane on November 13, 2019, 01:21:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2019, 06:19:09 AM
Quote from: renegade on November 12, 2019, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 12, 2019, 11:28:48 AM
In Michigan you are suppose to move over and slow down to 5 mph under the speed limit.
Thanks for mansplaining that one for me. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough in post #12 by stating, "you must do both" and citing state law to back it up. We need more fine, upstanding citizens like you who are more than willing to help out those who don't need any.
:bigass:
The 'block' function is totally useless.
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. Don't like my posts then keep on moving this isn't a place to act the way you do. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you either. This is childish.
He did say those things first, so there was no reason for you to say them again except to take credit. I've had this happen to me a few times, and while I haven't called people out on it, it's really annoying.
Who cares?
Quote from: renegade on November 12, 2019, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 12, 2019, 11:28:48 AM
In Michigan you are suppose to move over and slow down to 5 mph under the speed limit.
Thanks for mansplaining that one for me. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough in post #12 by stating, "you must do both" and citing state law to back it up. We need more fine, upstanding citizens like you who are more than willing to help out those who don't need any.
:bigass:
The 'block' function is totally useless.
BTW, the question here asks what YOUR states laws are regarding moving over and slowing down so with that, Michigan is my home state and I can make a post in any topic in the forum. Which means your whinning here is pointless.
Omg someone else from Michigan also answered the question let's jump all over that poster because it makes me feel better. Get real dude.
:popcorn:
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 13, 2019, 09:12:48 PM
:popcorn:
The irony is just dripping off this post...
Quote from: US 89 on November 13, 2019, 11:09:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 13, 2019, 09:12:48 PM
:popcorn:
The irony is just dripping off this post...
But the butter is just dripping off of that popcorn. It looks delicious.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2019, 06:19:09 AM
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.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 13, 2019, 02:53:51 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 14, 2019, 03:11:05 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2019, 06:19:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Verlanka on November 14, 2019, 05:27:17 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 13, 2019, 02:53:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 14, 2019, 08:54:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 14, 2019, 08:54:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 14, 2019, 03:11:05 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2019, 06:19:09 AM
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.
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.
Thanks, everyone.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 14, 2019, 12:27:39 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 14, 2019, 08:54:11 AM
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.
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) (http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/008_000_0000_chapter/008_015_0000_article/008_015_0030_section/008_015_0030_k/)
KDOT press release issued shortly before effective date of July 1, 2006 (http://www.ksdot.org/burtrafficsaf/psa/pdf/06MoveOver.pdf)
FHWA summary of state move-over laws, their specific provisions, and their likely effectiveness (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09005/move_over.htm)
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 15, 2019, 03:24:57 PM
* 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 (https://www.thinkinsure.ca/insurance-help-centre/move-over-law-ontario-and-emergency-vehicles.html); it's pretty recent relative to most state laws though.
FWIW I've never seen my state's M/O law actively enforced.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 15, 2019, 03:24:57 PM
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.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 15, 2019, 03:32:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 15, 2019, 10:11:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 14, 2019, 12:27:39 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 14, 2019, 08:54:11 AM
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. :wave:
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.
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.
Quote from: kphoger on November 18, 2019, 01:51:53 PM
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 15, 2019, 03:24:57 PM
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).
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 15, 2019, 03:24:57 PM
* 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 (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/road-safety-rules-and-consequences/slow-down-move-over), 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:
(https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/driving/-images/slow_down_move_over.jpg)
Quote from: Brandon on November 18, 2019, 03:55:16 PM
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?
Quote from: kphoger on November 18, 2019, 04:13:47 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 18, 2019, 03:55:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on November 18, 2019, 04:18:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 18, 2019, 04:13:47 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 18, 2019, 03:55:16 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: kphoger on November 18, 2019, 04:33:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on November 15, 2019, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 15, 2019, 03:32:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Super Mateo on November 18, 2019, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 15, 2019, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 15, 2019, 03:32:58 PM
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.