Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Move Over, America, It's the Law"
71 percent of Americans (including your humble
correspondent) have never heard of
"move over" laws and cheerfully violate them all the time. In
effect in 40 states, the laws "require drivers approaching a police
vehicle with flashing lights activated either to make an immediate
lane change or to slow down at least 20 MPH under the posted speed
limit." In Virginia, failing to "move over" can earn you a $2,500
fine.
"Our nation's law enforcement professionals put their lives on the line to protect our citizens," said Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations. "Slowing down and changing lanes to give our first responders the space they need to stay safe is the least we can do in return. It's what we must do. Move Over, America. It's the law."
Consider yourself warned.
Via Fark
M|10.24.07 @ 6:56PM|#
and, if reasonable, with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, yield
Shouldn't that be enough to exonerate "violators"?
|10.24.07 @ 6:59PM|#
Ha! Moving over for a cop car cost me about 30 minutes of intimidation and scrutiny and almost earned me a ticket. I didn't use my turn signal when I moved over to give him so room, so he showed me some "gratitude".
|10.24.07 @ 7:00PM|#
The laws are heavy handed, yes.
But anyone who doesn't make way for first responders when the
sirens and flashing lights are on (yes, including cops) is a
jerk.
Dave T|10.24.07 @ 7:01PM|#
Weird.. I didn't even know that was the law in Virginia. I never see anyone else do it. I always do because I was brainwashed in Indiana where we all knew that it was the law.
|10.24.07 @ 7:05PM|#
71 percent of Americans (including your humble
correspondent) have never heard of "move over" laws and cheerfully
violate them all the time.
You don't pull over to let life saving ambulances and fire trucks
drive by?!?!
What sort of fucking animal are you?
Gimme Back My Dog|10.24.07 @ 7:08PM|#
Back when I was learning to drive the Oregon Drivers' Manual stated that if you were driving and heard sirens but could not see them, you should pull over to the side of the road and wait until an officer informs you that it is OK to proceed.
LibertyPlease|10.24.07 @ 7:09PM|#
You don't pull over to let life saving ambulances and fire trucks drive by?!?!
What sort of fucking animal are you?
Life Saving vehicles yes, cops, no.
LibertyPlease|10.24.07 @ 7:16PM|#
HPD harrass and ticket drivers on the (practically) shoulderless
Westpark tollway all the time. It is wildly dangerous for all
involved as the traffic slows and has to drive around the stopped
vehicle. Infuriates me every time some badged jackass impedes the
flow of traffic to write a useless speeding ticket.
Then on the 1st of this month this cop bought it while
citing another harmless driver (seriously, it's a freakin' safe
tollway except for the cop problems).
|10.24.07 @ 7:16PM|#
It's not an unreasonable courtesy to slow down or move over for anyone stopped on the road, but I can't imagine how this could be fairly enforced. Frankly, if there isn't enough room on the shoulder to safely pull someone over without affecting traffic, then the shoulder should needs to be bigger. I guess the police who has some control over where to pull someone over deserves more protection than the poor soul who has to change a tire on the side of traffic.
duster|10.24.07 @ 7:18PM|#
It seems a lot of people aren't getting the gist of this. We all
know to pull over when emergency responders are 'going somewhere'
near you.
Trying to move over into the next lane on the freeway because a cop
pulled someone over is dangerous.
I was in a line of 6 cars today on the way to work. We approached a
cop on the side of the road who was citing somebody. 1 car
frantically changed lanes, the rest of us stayed in our lane
because there was not enough time to change lanes safely.
5 of us broke the law. We were the safe drivers.
M|10.24.07 @ 7:18PM|#
Virginia Code 46.2-921.1
The driver of any motor vehicle, upon approaching a stationary emergency vehicle
Maybe I misread, but the photo (substituting a real police car and
activating the light on it) seems to illustrate tha law that will
earn the red car a citation as soon as it passes Mister Blue. I
took it not that this is about yielding to moving
emergency vehicles, but doing all that stuff when you see some guy
pulled over on the grass getting a ticket, ie, not an
emergency.
But since I'm typing this while driving, I may have missed
something.
LibertyPlease|10.24.07 @ 7:18PM|#
fixed link
HPD harrasses and ticket drivers on the (practically) shoulderless
Westpark tollway all the time. It is wildly dangerous for all
involved as the traffic slows and has to drive around the stopped
vehicle. Infuriates me every time some badged jackass impedes the
flow of traffic to write a useless speeding ticket.
Then on the 1st of this month this
cop bought it while citing another harmless driver (seriously,
it's a freakin' safe tollway except for the cop problems).
|10.24.07 @ 7:22PM|#
71 percent of Americans (including your humble
correspondent) have never heard of "move over" laws and cheerfully
violate them all the time.
Women drivers. Sheesh!
|10.24.07 @ 7:22PM|#
Ah, another insight into the nuanced mind of the average H&R poster. Some cops do bad things, therefore it's OK to risk hitting a cop standing at a pulled-over vehicle.
Paco|10.24.07 @ 7:22PM|#
I did not know about the law. Last week I had a serious WTF Heavy-braking brown-stain inducing moment when a trucker in right lane complied with it. I was on I64 east bound from Richmond to Norfolk when the truck jumped in front of me. I did not see the cop because the truck was obscuring my view of the right (state trooper with victim) shoulder.
|10.24.07 @ 7:24PM|#
M,
You may not be aware of this, but when a car is pulled over by a
cop, quite often the need arises for the cop to stand at the
driver's window and discuss various things. On narrow-shouldered
roads, this exposes the cop to getting pulverized by passing
traffic if they don't move over.
|10.24.07 @ 7:26PM|#
duster,
Yes, changing lanes is sometimes unsafe...which is why you have the
option of slowing down.
SxCx|10.24.07 @ 7:37PM|#
The overseer rode around the planta-TION
The officer is off patrollin' all de na-TION
The overseer could stop you watch'you doing
The officer will pull you over JUST WHEN HE'S PURSUING!
WOOP! WOOP!
M|10.24.07 @ 7:53PM|#
crimethink - okay. I guess I just mentally left it to motorists to avoid hazarding cops' safety in such situations, leaving it to their common-sense to get out of that lane when they safely could, and slow down when they couldn't, without being governed into doing so. Never thought about it before. Kinda like swerving for a squirrel, writ large, except that you'd choose to run over the squirrel if you couldn't safely spare it, whereas you might risk a collision if that was the only way to protect the cop. But I've always wondered why cops don't pull further off the road when they can.
JBinMO|10.24.07 @ 7:56PM|#
I see cops her in Missouri all the time driving down the raod they turn on their lights and sirens to get around a turn or throuh a stoplight and then turn them off and drive normal speeds.
Franklin Harris|10.24.07 @ 7:56PM|#
Yes, one of those "move over" laws recently went into effect where I live, but I hardly see the point. The only cop around is the one I didn't move over for, and since he's on the side of the road dealing with someone else, he's not going to hop in his car and come after me.
|10.24.07 @ 7:56PM|#
On narrow-shouldered roads, this exposes the cop to getting
pulverized by passing traffic if they don't move over.
Exactly - and the risk of pulverization is at least some
incentive not to pull over people. If it's not worth the risk of
getting pulverized, it's not worth pulling someone over.
I'm against anything that reduces the costs to cops of pulling
people over. They have enough incentive to get the really dangerous
people as it is and most the time they pull someone over it's about
revenue generation, not safety. We don't need to make that job any
easier for them to do.
iih|10.24.07 @ 8:00PM|#
Crap -- I must owe the PD thousands of dollars by now. I hope they're not keeping record :-)
|10.24.07 @ 8:14PM|#
Another modus operandi in MO is for speed traps to be double -teamed. Both prowlers will be pulled in behind the villanous perpetrator, but the one to the rear will stay in his car just in case he has to pursue another thoughtless individual who fails to jack her vehicle into the adjoining lane at 60 mph.
|10.24.07 @ 8:20PM|#
This is one of those things that should be considered common courtesy which people who clearly don't have enough to do have decided to codify into law. I was always raised to move (if safe) over as a courtesy, whether it's a police or someone changing a tire. It's just the right thing to do, because no one wants 2 tons of steel flying by at 65 mpg a couple of feet away.
iih|10.24.07 @ 8:26PM|#
dead_elvis:
I am now embarrassed. My comment @ 8 was meant as a joke. I always
do give courtesy to anything stopping in the emergency lane if it
is to do so. I do it, not of my awareness of the law, but out of
common sense and plain decency.
|10.24.07 @ 8:27PM|#
Sometimes it's necessary to turn the lights to beat the rush at Dunkin' Doughnuts. Please, the fuzz is people, too.
|10.24.07 @ 8:33PM|#
I've tried several times to formulate a coherent response, but
the fact that I am a first responder (EMT firefighter) and have had
several close calls because of drivers who couldn't be bothered to
pay attention interferes with my rationality. So I'll just say what
I really mean:
If you can't move over for a stopped emergency vehicle, or are too
incompetent to safely execute a lane change (here's a hint-look far
ahead and you'll have plenty of time to plan that lane change. If
you can't see around the 18 wheeler, You're too fucking
close) then you shouldn't be on the road.
|10.24.07 @ 8:39PM|#
Just what is the libertarian justification for opposing these
laws? Is not having to change lanes a natural right?
JB in MO-Interesting observation. And in no way relevant to the
discussion at hand.
Grignr the Ecordian|10.24.07 @ 8:39PM|#
Some cops do bad things, therefore it's ok to be an asshat on
the road.
- another ff here
|10.24.07 @ 8:39PM|#
Drew Carey has a bit about now having enough money and speeding
in the rain just to get cops out of their cars.
cop in the rain: "You know why I pulled you over?"
drew in the car: "Yep do you know why I was speeding?"
|10.24.07 @ 8:47PM|#
Grignr- Yeah, that seems to be the theme here. I hate speed laws more than about anyone I know, but it never occurred to me that stupid limits make it ok to endanger cops' lives.
|10.24.07 @ 8:51PM|#
Wonderful soundbite! Makes me want to puke.
"Our nation's law enforcement professionals put their lives on the
line to protect our citizens,"
They do, sometimes. But not when they pull someone over for 10 over
the limit on a mostly empty road. And the way they act, they're
bullies, not protectors.
dot|10.24.07 @ 8:51PM|#
In Wyoming, this state law is on the signs at all the state
borders. It doesn't mention changing lanes, but it clearly states
that you have to slow down to 20mph below the limit when passing a
policeman / policecar on the side of the road.
When driving on the Montana autobahn (in the 1990s before we
instituted speed limits here) I was once cited on an interstate for
reckless driving because I didn't change lanes for a cop on the
side of the road.
Apparently in police academy, they teach the recruits that it isn't
a matter of "if" they will get sideswiped in the line of duty, it's
"when".
iih|10.24.07 @ 8:53PM|#
They do, sometimes. But not when they pull someone over for
10 over the limit on a mostly empty road. And the way they act,
they're bullies, not protectors.
Ditto.
Jessica|10.24.07 @ 8:56PM|#
I'm not sure what the law is in Texas, but I do know people
usually slow down when they see a cop on the side of the road. I'm
not sure if it's a legal thing though. The Texas Highway Patrol
tends to travel in packs. If you see one car, there's probably two
more nearby....
Also, I've noticed around here (Houston to San Antonio corridor)
people slow down and/or change lanes for ANY car on the side of the
road. This is especially true if they are changing a tire or have
their hood up and in bad weather.
|10.24.07 @ 8:56PM|#
They do, sometimes. But not when they pull someone over for
10 over the limit on a mostly empty road. And the way they act,
they're bullies, not protectors.
Granted. Now, why does that make it ok to place thier lives in
jeopary by refusing to change lanes?
|10.24.07 @ 9:03PM|#
Jessica - is IS the law in Texas, passed in 2003 or 2004, IIRC. Question I was asking at that time - will the fuzz get a pay reduction proportional to the reduction of risk?
iih|10.24.07 @ 9:05PM|#
Granted. Now, why does that make it ok to place thier lives
in jeopary by refusing to change lanes?
It is not ok, neither ir police bullying.
|10.24.07 @ 9:06PM|#
I never knew it was a law, either, but I thought that was just common sense when there's something by the side of the road.
Paco|10.24.07 @ 9:07PM|#
#6 "If you can't see around the 18 wheeler, You're too fucking
close)"
I was in the left lane passing a truck that was in the right lane.
Passing requires 1. approching 2. passing. How can you avoid
getting close? Slowest vehicle sets the speed limit?
|10.24.07 @ 9:12PM|#
Some cops do bad things, therefore it's OK to risk hitting a
cop standing at a pulled-over vehicle.
Some cops do bad things, therefore it's ok to be an asshat on
the road.
Grignr- Yeah, that seems to be the theme here. I hate speed
laws more than about anyone I know, but it never occurred to me
that stupid limits make it ok to endanger cops' lives.
crimething, Grignr or Number 6,
Nice rants, but how about, you know, actually citing a comment that
said it's ok to endanger a cop's life. That would make it easier
for us to distinguish the real from the imagined views you've made
up in order to justify your desired indignation.
|10.24.07 @ 9:27PM|#
Brian- This is simple: when you stay in the inside lane and
continue to travel at speed, you make the situation more
dangerous.
Now, if people were saying that while people should move over, but
there doesn't need to be a law, that would be one thing. But that's
not the majority opinion here, is it? While no one has made the
statement, "It's ok to endanger a cop's life" the anti-cop
sentiment and snarky comments about discouraging them from writing
tickets come pretty close, don't they? Let's not pretend the
sentiment isn't there.
The dangerous lane change argument is almost sensible-almost. The
only problem is that as a driver, it's your responsibility to look
ahead and be aware of the vehicles around you.
Again, I'll ask: what's the libertarian reason for opposing these
laws?
Paco-How about situation awareness? Were you passing on a hill? If
not, how did you not see the cop?
|10.24.07 @ 9:30PM|#
It is not ok, neither ir police bullying..
Sure, but these are two separate issues. Unless, of course, some
folks here think the fact that some cops are dicks makes it ok to
endanger them. But no one is saying that, are they?
iih|10.24.07 @ 9:32PM|#
joe:
In our police ;-) state (MA), there are police at every corner and
construction site. We have no option but to always slow down.
Sox doing well, though!
iih|10.24.07 @ 9:34PM|#
But no one is saying that, are they?
I can't speak for others, but I know I do not.
|10.24.07 @ 9:39PM|#
Brian Courts -
Nice rants, but how about, you know, actually citing a comment
that said it's ok to endanger a cop's life.
Earlier Brian Courts -
Exactly - and the risk of pulverization is at least some
incentive not to pull over people. If it's not worth the risk of
getting pulverized, it's not worth pulling someone over.
I'm against anything that reduces the costs to cops of pulling
people over.
|10.24.07 @ 9:40PM|#
because no one wants 2 tons of steel flying by at 65 mpg a
couple of feet away.
Actually, that (65 mpg for 2 ton cars) appears to be the top agenda
of the new Democratic majority in Congress (overriding more trivial
things like getting the eff out of Iraq).
OTOH, going 65 MPH (not MPG) appears to be the fondest dream of the
knee-jerk cop-haters here at H&R (where the Hit and Run thing
is sometimes not a metaphor).
Standard libertarian boilerplate -- overbearing cops in WoD, yadda
yadda, but sometimes the civilians driving recklessly are the
asshats in question.
|10.24.07 @ 9:47PM|#
While no one has made the statement, "It's ok to endanger a
cop's life" the anti-cop sentiment and snarky comments about
discouraging them from writing tickets come pretty close, don't
they?
No they don't. Of course there is anti-cop sentiment and of course
there is snark, but what there is not, despite your, and others,
statements is any implication that it is ok to intentionally risk a
cop's life.
As for snarky comments about discouraging them from writing
tickets, if you're referring to what I said, I in no way
stated or implied that it is ok to risk a cop's life. It is just a
fact that there is a risk in pulling someone over and I don't think
we need a law to try to reduce that risk since I don't want to
encourage them (too many people are pulled over as it is and the
danger involved in such is caused primarily by the cops themselves
as the vast majority of those pulled over were not for anything
particularly unsafe to begin with).
That most certainly does not mean I think anyone should
intentionally do something risky like drive too close to a cop when
he has someone pulled over. I always change lanes and move
as far away as I safely can when I see a cop with someone pulled
over on the side of the road.
Let's not pretend the sentiment isn't there.
The anti-cop sentiment? Of course. The "it's ok to risk a cop's
life" sentiment? It would be "pretending" to claim anyone expressed
that sentiment.
|10.24.07 @ 10:00PM|#
But seriously Jannia, since I know you were trying to catch me,
let's actually look at what I said:
Exactly - and the risk of pulverization is at least some
incentive not to pull over people.
An observation about the risk/cost, from a cop's point of view, of
pulling someone over - does not say or imply that it's ok for
someone to intentionally choose to risk a cops life.
If it's not worth the risk of getting pulverized, it's not
worth pulling someone over.
Simply my opinion about how serious a violation ought to be before
a cop uses his authority to pull someone over. Again, it in no way
says or implies that it is ok for anyone to risk his life or to be
an "asshat."
I'm against anything that reduces the costs to cops of pulling
people over.
Yep. My general opinion based on my belief that too many people are
pulled over and most of the time it is not for something truly
unsafe (which makes the risk to both cop and motorist in a
pull-over unjustified). This statement does not say or imply that
it is ok to risk a cops life.
|10.24.07 @ 10:06PM|#
"(where the Hit and Run thing is sometimes not a
metaphor)"
Now that's a thread winner.
|10.24.07 @ 10:12PM|#
Brian Courts,
You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you're saying you
don't think it's OK to risk a cop's life, but on the other you're
saying that you oppose this law because it reduces the risk to
cops' lives. You can't have it both ways.
|10.24.07 @ 10:19PM|#
Also, Brian, I assume you agree there are at least some instances where a cop should be pulling someone over (reckless driving, stolen vehicle, fraudulent plates, etc). Do you really think that cops deserve to have their lives put at substantial risk during such stops, just so drivers don't have to slow down for five seconds?
|10.24.07 @ 10:29PM|#
On the one hand, you're saying you don't think it's OK to
risk a cop's life, but on the other you're saying that you oppose
this law because it reduces the risk to cops' lives. You can't have
it both ways.
No I'm not. Look, let's say someone proposes banning homeowners
from owning guns because cops face a risk of being shot by a
homeowner when they do drug raids. I can oppose that law, and
oppose lessening that risk to cops lives because I think having
that risk might in some small way help reduce the number of raids
as any cost tends to reduce a particular behavior, in
general, without saying it is ok to intentionally use that
gun to risk a cops life when they come to your house
accidentally.
In other words, it's the difference between a general principle -
there is risk there and I don't want a law to reduce it - with a
specific circumstance - it is not ok to intentionally threaten
someone's life. Those are not contradictory. I can certainly oppose
a law aimed at lessening a risk to cops without advocating an
individual choose to pose such a risk.
Another non-law enforcement example might be student loans. Let's
say someone proposes not allowing people to discharge them through
bankruptcy (actually the law now) to reduce the risk to lenders of
losing money. I can oppose that law because the natural risk of
losing some loans to bankruptcy is part of the costs which help
keep lenders from making larger and larger loans feeding the
tuition spiral. That does not mean I would encourage any individual
to intentionally default on his loan. That is still wrong even
though I don't want a law which shields lenders from that
risk.
Likewise, it is wrong to endanger a cops life, but I don't need to
support a law which seeks to lessen the risk to his life inherent
in his duties.
|10.24.07 @ 10:37PM|#
crimethink,
I never said that I won't change lanes and/or slow down in the
future. I just wanted to point out that some of them will screw you
even when you are courteous enough to obey this rarely enforced
law.
|10.24.07 @ 10:46PM|#
I can certainly oppose a law aimed at lessening a risk to
cops without advocating an individual choose to pose such a
risk.
You've talked yourself into a pretzel, Brian. If individuals don't
choose to pose the risk, there won't be a risk, and your intended
behavior modification won't occur. If you want cops to be worried
about pulling too many cars over, you need a few roadkilled
cops...and you aren't going to get that unless people intentionally
put cops at risk. So, while you may not explicitly say you want
cops to get hit by cars, your argument implicitly requires this to
happen.
As for your analogies, they are inapposite. There are many, many
negative side-effects that would be created by home handgun bans.
That is not the case with "move over or slow down" laws.
|10.24.07 @ 11:03PM|#
To make one thing clear right up front, even though it's so
normal, I should not have to: I always change lanes when I can for
anybody on the side of the road.
Here is the problem as I see it, borne out quite obviously by that
NAPO idiot's grandstanding quote:
0.00001% of motorists are apparently so totally asleep at the
switch that they slam full speed into something out of the travel
line with a lit X-mas tree blazing blindingly. In doing that they
kill or injure often not only the cop, but also the occupants of
the car pulled over. The cop is doing his job, knows the risk and
has every opportunity to change jobs. The motorist is sitting there
because he has been foced to. What is the solution to the problem?
Why, enact a law making it illegal not to change lanes in the above
situation. Now the cops can get more motorists that don't do just
that, endangering more of them and themselves even though they had
not been endangered by the infraction. Problem solved?
Of course. Because that law is certainly going to make the 0.00001%
stay awake, trembling in fear of getting a ticket.
And to that NAPO idiot it's obviously only the cops that count. Not
the citizens put into danger against their will. Because, I guess,
they have broken the law anyway or they would not have been pulled
over, right?
Jeeeez!
Windypundit has first hand experience.
|10.24.07 @ 11:09PM|#
martin,
Speaking of being asleep at the wheel, you seem to have missed a
vital part of the story:
In effect in 40 states, the laws "require drivers approaching a
police vehicle with flashing lights activated either to make an
immediate lane change or to slow down at least 20 MPH under
the posted speed limit."
You don't have to change lanes. Please stop throwing that red
herring out there.
|10.24.07 @ 11:17PM|#
That explains it -- all this time I just thought most drivers were assholes, but now I see they're just ignorant.
|10.24.07 @ 11:17PM|#
All right crimethink. Whatever.
Now the asleep ath the switch crowd, instead of hitting the cop and
the citzen at 65, they hit them at 45. And I'm sure the difference
between a lane change and a speed reduction makes a huge difference
to those asleep at the switch. Which was the main point of my
previous post. Got that??
|10.24.07 @ 11:30PM|#
The idea is, martin, that if you slow down you'll have more time
to react to car doors opening, the cop moving slightly, etc, than
you would if you were going the speed limit (or 15 mph above, as
most people drive normally).
And if we're going to throw out every traffic law that won't be
obeyed by drunk or sleeping drivers, we're going to have to get rid
of all of them. Good luck on the roadways when that happens.
LibertyPlease|10.24.07 @ 11:36PM|#
And if we're going to throw out every traffic law that won't be
obeyed by drunk or sleeping drivers, we're going to have to get rid
of all of them. Good luck on the roadways when that happens.
Crimethink, I think the gist of the resistance is that we have some
remaining common sense and many of our laws should
be tossed. And that many of those enforcing the useless laws are
equally appreciated.
Now, I see you have a good grasp of where we're headed, so if you'd
kindly point out the law of which beer I should grab next.....
LibertyPlease|10.24.07 @ 11:38PM|#
perhaps I've had too many beers.... still more reasonable
than you though...
And if we're going to throw out every traffic law that won't be obeyed by drunk or sleeping drivers, we're going to have to get rid of all of them. Good luck on the roadways when that happens.
Crimethink, I think the gist of the resistance is that we have some
remaining common sense and many of our laws should be tossed. And
that many of those enforcing the useless laws are equally
appreciated.
Now, I see you have a good grasp of where we're headed, so if you'd
kindly point out the law of which beer I should grab next.....
|10.24.07 @ 11:44PM|#
LP,
A quick perusal of the thread so far would reveal that there are a
few people who either don't have the common sense to move over or
slow down, or are simply unwilling to do so because any cop with
the audacity to pull someone over deserves to become a red streak
on the pavement.
|10.24.07 @ 11:47PM|#
In short, there are two distinct arguments being made against
this law: first, it's common sense, so there's no need to encode it
into the law; and second, cops deserve to have multi-ton hunks of
steel zipping by at 65+ MPH, 20 inches from their buttocks, even if
they're involved in a legitimate traffic stop.
The fact that the second argument is being made kind of contradicts
the first one, doesn't it?
|10.24.07 @ 11:52PM|#
Ok, I'll humour you. Even though you still don't address my
original points: That the law doesn't solve the problem, that it
leads to more problems and that it declares one small group of
people, the police, more worthy of protection than the large group
supposedly employing the small one, namely the general
public.
If I park my vehicle by the side of an Interstate, open the door
and a car driving in the travel lane, rips it off, whose fault is
that? The moving car's driver's fault, because he didn't get out of
the way or my fault for stopping and opening the door
improperly?
What keeps a cop to park himself safely and/or make the guy he's
pulled over do the same?
That ought to maximize everyone's safety, except from those asleep
at the switch, who are beyond all that. Right?
LibertyPlease|10.24.07 @ 11:53PM|#
...even if they're involved in a legitimate traffic stop.
....and there's the crux of the issue. In my neck of the woods HPD
will assault you for anything and everything and, and they expect
deference in the process.
Fuck 'em.
|10.25.07 @ 12:01AM|#
Crimethink, I tell you what. It's late, I'm calling it a day. I have no expectation to convince you of anything and, besides, it won't change the fact that we are saddled with yet another feel-good do-nothing law.I wonder how many of those we can absorb before we will all be feloniously breaking some useless statute on a daily basis. And get prosecuted for it.
|10.25.07 @ 12:01AM|#
Do emergency response vehicles actually get to the scene of an
incident any sooner with flashers and sirens than they would
without them ?
My observation is that drivers respond to this in arbitrary ways.
Some pull over, some slow down, some just stop. Like most drivers
though, I use common sense and do whatever is required to get out
of the way, with little or no regard to traffic laws.
My guess is that some drivers, who are sticklers for traffic laws,
search their memories for what does or does not constitute a
divided road, for example, rather than paying attention to the
problem at hand.
Heavy fines would seem to encourage this brain-freezing.
|10.25.07 @ 12:07AM|#
martin,
The law doesn't work? Perhaps, but I think it probably makes some
people move out of the lane or slow down. You've got no evidence
for this, at least.
The law causes problems? What problems? Again, you don't have to
change lanes, you only have to slow down.
As for the law protecting cops but not other citizens, well, maybe
you should be pushing for a law protecting everyone instead of
opposing the law protecting cops.
LibertyPlease|10.25.07 @ 12:28AM|#
I wonder how many of those we can absorb before we will all be feloniously breaking some useless statute on a daily basis. And get prosecuted for it.
We're already there, check out
this book from the Cato Institute
lunchstealer|10.25.07 @ 12:28AM|#
I generally refer to this as the mandatory rubbernecking law. On
most of the freeways in Texas, there's too much traffic to be able
to safely change lanes, and it's only marginally safer to suddenly
slow down by 20 MPH. I'm worried that people complying with this
law (especially unevenly, as it's not really common knowledge) will
lead to more accidents than just leaving it to driver
discretion.
I've also heard of cops parked by the side of the road waiting for
out-of-state cars (lights off, mind you) who then whip out and pull
them over to give them a massive ticket for failing to change lanes
or slow down for an emergency vehicle. It doesn't matter that the
cop didn't have his lights on because the guy's from out of state,
so he's unlikely to contest it, even if he knows the law.
I understand the concept behind the law, but don't much like the
real-world implementation thereof. I'd be happier if it applied
only to fire/ambulance responders, and not cops. We don't need them
creating a traffic snarl every time they write somebody a ticket,
which many cops will admit is more about municipal revenue than
actual traffic safety.
LibertyPlease|10.25.07 @ 12:36AM|#
Before I go to bed, I'd like to express a heartfelt FUCK YOU to all the ATF, police, FBI, DEA, ICE, TSA, CIA, NSA, and affiliates. Fuck you all.
Windypundit|10.25.07 @ 2:11AM|#
As martin so kindly pointed out, I have had experience with this
kind of law, so I have a few thoughts.
First of all, this law isn't about people who recklessly injure or
kill emergency workers---that's always been a crime---it's about
people who drive too close to an emergency worker. Some of the
punishments---$1000 fines and license suspensions---seem out of
proportion for a crime that doesn't actually hurt anyone or damage
any property.
Second, here in Illinois, the law covers construction vehicles,
which is clearly a stretch. Construction is a planned activity, not
an emergency, and it's the responsibility of construction crews to
operate in a safe manner, that's why they have all those barricades
and traffic cones. I think this is a revenue-raising tactic
combined with legislative grandstanding ("Look what I did to
protect construction workers!").
Third, every single vehicle on a piece of road increases the risk
for every other vehicle. We all accept these risks when we drive,
and merely being on the road does not make you responsible for an
accident.
Fourth, a vehicle on the shoulder of the road is a danger to other
vehicles on the road. That's why there are laws against parking on
the shoulder except for emergencies. So, if I park my car on the
shoulder to make phone call, the law says I'm in the wrong, but if
a rescue worker stops on the side of the road to handle an
emergency, the law says drivers in the adjacent lane are in the
wrong.
That's almost certainly exactly the way it should be, but here's
the key point: The reason for being on the side of the road matters
when we're considering the ethics of the situation.
Before you say that I'm arguing it's okay to endanger cops, keep in
mind that I'm not a cop, so if I stop on the shoulder, no one has
to change lanes or slow down when they pass me. If I were arguing
for the complete repeal of these laws (which I'm not), I would only
be asking cops to accept the same risks that I do.
SA Miller|10.25.07 @ 3:24AM|#
How the fuck can 71% of Americans not know this?
That could be your loved one in that ambulance. Get the fuck out of
the way.
|10.25.07 @ 3:44AM|#
My favorite is when police put on their flashers about 10 feet away from a red light, just to speed through a red light, and almost run into me ( as I have a green light with no warning or time to respond). Then as soon as they are through the red light they turn the flashers off. This used to happen several times on my way to work in the morning. I will give a shit when I plow through one of the bastards.
|10.25.07 @ 8:50AM|#
I hate to get in so late but i think the only argument against such laws is the arbitrary nature of "if it's safe to do so". I can see citing someone who's creating a dangerous situation by whipping past the shoulder with no one behind him or to his left, but giving a $2500.00 ticket to a person who isn't sure if he can jam on the brakes or changes lanes in heavy traffic seems foolish.
lunchstealer|10.25.07 @ 8:50AM|#
SA Miller. This isn't about getting out of the way of an ambulance behind you. That's a different law. This law is about vehicles stopped on the side of the road with their lights on. Most often this is police writing tickets, not ambulances or fire trucks.
|10.25.07 @ 8:52AM|#
Congratulations to the last 2 commenters for continuing to not get the point of the article.
|10.25.07 @ 8:52AM|#
Shit, two people got in posts before I did. SA Miller and johncjaxons the 3rd were the posters in question.
Jennifer|10.25.07 @ 9:02AM|#
In short, there are two distinct arguments being made
against this law
Here's a third argument: anytime a cop decides to pull someone
over, this law effectively closes down an entire lane of the
highway. That, especially during high-traffic hours, will actually
increase the chance of another accident, as everyone tries to
switch lanes at the last minute.
cynical bastard|10.25.07 @ 9:04AM|#
Crimethink sez: "cops deserve to have multi-ton hunks of steel
zipping by at 65+ MPH, 20 inches from their buttocks"
You damn right they do. That's what I am paying them for.
Russ 2000|10.25.07 @ 9:08AM|#
There is logic to pulling over to the side for emergency
vehicles - on high-speed roads with multiple lanes and staying OFF
the shoulders so the emergency vehiclescan use them. But I've seen
people slow down and pull over which only winds up slowing down or
blocking the emergency vehicles thereby causing precious seconds
for the life they're trying to save.
In most situations the smarter thing to do is speed up. But we're
talking police logic here, you must not be helping if you aren't
personally inconvenienced.
Brian Ewart|10.25.07 @ 9:13AM|#
Ironically, it was exactly this action that lead to Jon Corzine's high-speed highway crash. Had a driver not moved out of the way, and cut someone off on his way back into traffic, Corzine would've made it to the Imus meeting and NJ wouldn't have gone crazy on seatbelt laws last summer.
ed|10.25.07 @ 9:13AM|#
I believe the point of the law is to reinforce the concept that cops are more important humans than civilians. This is demonstrated quite easily by noting that there is no "move over" law for ordinary motorists with flat tires, engine problems, etc. Because if there was, it would create a hazardous situation for all the other motorists. And that would be intolerable. Wouldn't it.
Episiarch|10.25.07 @ 9:47AM|#
ed may have put a late post up, but he's the only one who seems
to get the point of this law.
We are just peons. The cops are more important than us. Once you
understand that, the rationale behind all laws like this becomes
crystal clear.
|10.25.07 @ 9:53AM|#
In high traffic areas, an already saturated road instantly becomes a traffic jam when a lane is unexpectedly evacuated or when people on a 55 mph road slow down to 35 mph (35! wtf?). A traffic jam on a high use road can easily cost 200,000 people 30 minutes. At a total of 100,000 minutes, with a $30/hr rate, that's $50,000. Even if the cop doesn't cause any additional accidents, is it worth $50,000 for that cop to pull someone over for an improper lane change, speeding, etc., thereby paralyzing the road? And don't tell me that wouldn't happen -- I've seen it on countless ocassions driving into work on 66, 495, and 395 in VA-DC. Some dumb ass cop invariably causes or worsens a traffic jam on one of those roads almost every other day.
robc|10.25.07 @ 9:57AM|#
My aunt lost her license for 90 days in Illinois because of this. The cop had someone pulled over right before her exit. She was in the 2nd lane over but pulled over to the right lane in order to exit.
|10.25.07 @ 10:38AM|#
Some fair points being made about proportionality here. $1000
fines are, of course, silly. However, the junior-high "I hate the
pigs!" mentality on display is unbecoming at best. While I'll be
the first to criticize speed laws (and have been), they are a
separate issue.
Also, I'd ask folks here to keep in mind that cops are not the only
folks on the side of the road. EMS and fire folks have to work
there, too. Usually, they're there because someone has done
something stupid, btw.
This whole, You can't make me move over, I DON'T WANNA"
perspective baffles me. Is it really that big a problem?
And spare me the "it's dangerous to move over" crap. If you are
paying attention, and positioned properly, changing lanes is not an
issue. If all else fails, one can always just slow down.
This is the sort of thing that makes people think libertarians are
nothing but a bunch of foot-stomping toddlers screaming 'No!.' Some
of them, as it turns out, are.
|10.25.07 @ 11:19AM|#
And spare me the "it's dangerous to move over" crap. If you
are paying attention, and positioned properly, changing lanes is
not an issue. If all else fails, one can always just slow
down.
Shutting down or seriously slowing down one lane in a highway
causes traffic jams. Traffic jams cause accidents. Crap, you say? I
guess I would have used the phrase "common sense," but each to his
own.
ed|10.25.07 @ 11:39AM|#
I move over when I can out of common sense and courtesy. But when there's a solid wall of semi-trailers to my left, moving over is not an option. Sorry, but my life is more important to me than risking it for a cop's comfort margin.
ed|10.25.07 @ 11:49AM|#
One more thing: slowing down abruptly from 75 to 20 in rush-hour traffic is inherently dangerous, especially when the cop is not easily or quickly noticed (around a curve or at the bottom of an overpass). Add to that scenario bumper-to-bumper traffic and nowhere to go and it's a recipe for a pileup. I'm thinking a few recent incidents have created incentive for fewer road-cop pullovers here in congested South Florida. I'm not seeing nearly as many these days. So maybe Smokey isn't so stupid after all.
|10.25.07 @ 11:54AM|#
slow down at least 20 MPH under the posted speed
limit.
What an excellent way to set off a massive chain reaction accident
on busy freeways everywhere.
|10.25.07 @ 11:55AM|#
If you are paying attention, and positioned properly,
changing lanes is not an issue. If all else fails, one can always
just slow down.
Comments like this make me think Captain Chaos has never been on an
urban high-speed road network.
|10.25.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Again, I'll ask: what's the libertarian reason for opposing
these laws?
The best reason I can think of is that they seem to contain enough
ambiguities that allow traffic cops to become even more efficient
"revenue generators." In principle, sure I agree with the idea
behind the laws, and getting out of the way of a pullover is common
sense. But ambiguous laws are the surest path to tyranny, whether
large or small.
Windypundit|10.25.07 @ 12:14PM|#
The cop had someone pulled over right before her exit. She
was in the 2nd lane over but pulled over to the right lane in order
to exit.
That's almost what happened to me. It's kind of a crazy situation,
because in theory if you want to change from the second lane to the
first one, you're now supposed to check both the lane you're moving
into and the shoulder, but seeing that far ahead on the shoulder
can be impossible when you're a lane over, especially if the road
curves to put the shoulder in front of you. The law effectively
discourages people from using the outside lanes at all. It's just
poor lawmaking.
|10.25.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Then on the 1st of this month this cop bought it while
citing another harmless driver (seriously, it's a freakin' safe
tollway except for the cop problems).
You may not be aware of this, but when a car is pulled over by
a cop, quite often the need arises for the cop to stand at the
driver's window and discuss various things. On narrow-shouldered
roads, this exposes the cop to getting pulverized by passing
traffic if they don't move over.
A)In PA, I had the opportunity to learn that the cops are being
trained to go to the passenger side door to speak with the driver.
Which makes sense to me. From there, you can see if the driver has
anything in their lap or seat, and you aren't going to be a 'red
smear' if the driver opens his door and pushes you into traffic,
which would be my biggest fear if I was trying to bully someone on
a busy interstate.
B)I understand that giving way to prevent injury sounds like a
great idea, but ed had it right. If I am changing a tire on the
side of the road, I get NO special protections.
Whereas, a Cop has:
1)Flashing Lights, which civilians do not have.
2)Distinctive, often reflective markings, which increase and
enhance visibility
3)The opportunity to pick and choose where and when he is on the
side of the road. I have had plenty of cops tell me "move further
off" or "move around this corner so we can 'talk'."
So, given all these advantages, the cops still need a law to
protect THEM, but not a regular civilian citizen? I would barely
have any reason to oppose this set of laws if they applied to
everyone, not just the (OH HE'S GONNA SAY IT!) pigs.
Excitable H&R poster|10.25.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Whassamattah wit' you people? You don't want cops to have sireens? That could be your bank robber he's chasin'! Jeez!
Humanitarian H&R poster|10.25.07 @ 1:21PM|#
I spoze you guys'd be against a law stopping people fum drivin' by an' screamin' cusses at de cop while he's writin' a ticket! That could make him dead if he skumbled into da lane fum distraction! Jeez!
The rare, consistently liberta|10.25.07 @ 1:22PM|#
If you don't like the law, you can always walk. It's a free country.
lunchstealer|10.25.07 @ 2:37PM|#
If you don't like the law, you can always walk. It's a free
country.
There are certain freeways in Dallas I would advise you not to walk
down.
Bopo|10.25.07 @ 3:55PM|#
I can't understand what your problem is here. What is the big deal with having to move over when some lights are flashing? This post once again demonstrates how juvenile the authors on this blog are.
|10.25.07 @ 4:27PM|#
One more thing: slowing down abruptly from 75 to 20 in
rush-hour traffic is inherently dangerous,
WTF are you talking about? You're going 75mph in bumper to bumper
traffic, in a 40mph speed zone?
Also, there are plenty of other reasons you'd have to slow down
very quickly on a highway, besides a pulled-over emergency vehicle.
If that's going to cause an accident, people are following WAY too
close.
|10.25.07 @ 4:40PM|#
""""Our nation's law enforcement professionals put their lives
on the line to protect our citizens,""""
That was the slogan at one time. But, it's slowly changing to
putting "your life on the line to protect their own." Besides
hasn't everyone figured out that they are far more important to
society than you. Jezzz get with the program already, this is
Ammerika damn it!!
;-)
Ventifact|10.25.07 @ 5:13PM|#
This thread is surreal.
People don't know to offer space to people on the side of the road?
I hate to invoke common sense, but geez... the only alternative is
to invoke courtesy or compassion...
Slowing down 20 mph by the time your car arrives at the most
distant point on the shoulder you can see from the edge lane (i.e.
spotting a cop and slowing down if a lane change isn't appealing)
rarely even requires using your brakes! If the traffic's
bumper-to-bumper, surely you're not blazing along at 80 anyway? No
one's asking you to slam your brakes. 20-mph reductions in speed
commonly occur over the course of a few hundred feet on congested
freeways anyway, due to interchange backups.
What's with the outrageous punishments associated with the law
though? Running a stop sign/light is easily lethal, but what
happens then? And why special protection for gov't only?
I can't believe this thread went to so many posts as it did.
|10.25.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Well said, Ventifact.
Of course, if you hang around here long enough, you'll read posts
explaining that it's perfectly ok to drive drunk as long as you
don't wreck.
Alan|10.25.07 @ 9:25PM|#
this is absolutely senseless:
As for the law protecting cops but not other citizens, well,
maybe you should be pushing for a law protecting everyone instead
of opposing the law protecting cops.
You exercise caution when passing a motorist be it a cop or a
citizen because hitting that person will create a tort against you.
That is impetus enough to exercise caution for most people, but
regardless, neither the common law nor your Authoritarian impulses
written triplicate in code will create a perfect society where
carelessness doesn't occur.
This law is unnecessary and unnecessary laws create cynicism
against the system. What we object to is the special treatment of
cops that is now being routinely codified. Jeez, some of you who
obviously, and amazingly enough, have never had a personal run in
with a corrupt cop will excuse anything. I suspect when the time
comes that Officer Fido is allowed to drive, you will excuse that
as well.
|10.25.07 @ 9:43PM|#
Ah, another person who simultaneously thinks (a) there's no need for this law since common courtesy dictates that you should move over, and (b) those durn corrupt cops deserve to get hit.
alan|10.25.07 @ 9:57PM|#
Ah, another person who simultaneously thinks (a) there's no
need for this law since common courtesy dictates that you should
move over, and (b) those durn corrupt cops deserve to get
hit.
Don't try to bait me with asinine stupidity. Don't pretend that you
do not comprehend the common law of these United States that have
been the means to deal with problems such as these and do so
effectively.
What you are not admitting is your preference for an authoritarian,
strong handed, version of a lawful society instead of the one
granted to us by our forefathers. All I can say is be careful what
you ask for because you just might get it.
|10.25.07 @ 11:59PM|#
Wow, alan, you really got me there.
Authoritarian, strong handed, not granted to us by our
forefathers...my nipples are getting hard!
Anyway, do you care to show how the two points you made above are
not mutually contradictory?
M|10.26.07 @ 7:23AM|#
For a thinker called "crime-"... (Drink!) ;-)
(a) there's no need for this law since common courtesy dictates
that you should move over
: (a prime) there's no need for a law prohibiting strangers from
overreacting to the obnoxious behavior of other people's children
(OPC) on supermarket checkout lines by making ugly faces at them,
since common courtesy dictates that you should to at least some
degree indulge the immaturity of even obnoxious children
and
b) those durn corrupt cops deserve to get hit
: (b prime) those durn obnoxious children deserve to be made
uncomfortable as a consequence of provoking strangers in public,
and since their parents are neglecting their duty, I guess it falls
to me
Actually, I just wanted a reason, as it were, to invoke your name
in the drinking game. I will probably leave this discussion to my
betters.
|10.26.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Making ugly faces at children does not result in their entrails being spread out across 50 ft of pavement, M. Other than that, the analogy is totally appropriate.
dr.xnlb|11.2.07 @ 1:46PM|#
I thought everyone knew this? Its like one of the few traffic laws I follow religiously. And its not just cops - but ambulances and other lighted emergency vehicles too - but tow trucks can f-off.
Joe|11.3.07 @ 3:33PM|#
I just got pulled over today in IN. There was a cop on the left (standing outside with radar gun) of a two lane HWY and one on the right with his lights on, but no other car... no one pulled over, etc. Still wondering what his emergency was to be sitting alone with lights on! Can we say T-R-A-P?? Needless to say, I'm FURIOUS!!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245