Do you have a "move over" law in your state?

[SaucyJack]

I tend to slow down when I see flashing lights ahead anyway.

Ever pull over when an emergency vehicle is approaching and the guy behind you takes it as an opportunity to pass you before pulling over too?

 

[Josh]

I tend to slow down when I see flashing lights ahead anyway.

Ever pull over when an emergency vehicle is approaching and the guy behind you takes it as an opportunity to pass you before pulling over too?

That makes me really mad, especially when opposing traffic does that on a two lane road.

 

[Naramie]

In California, we have this policy where you must slow down as much as possible and then stare at what's going on as you drive by.

 

[jefferz]

North Dakota has a pull over and stop law. I work on a couple of ambulances at work and I've always wanted to rig it up so when they hit the lights ludacris comes over the louder speaker and sings "move bitch, get out the way, get out the way bitch".

 

[AdamL]

dense. every state has the law but Hawaii and D.C.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=hP1lv1HmrHf62YRprm6BRA&bvm=bv.61965928,d.b2I

if you cant move over its a slow down, much in the same way people give that courtesy to people on the side of the road changing a tire. lets see your statistics where its causing issues for motorists. if you cant change lanes, turn in your license.

Any time a motorist is forced to take action with little notice it increases the risk of accidents. Do I really need to go data mining for something that is common sense? Do you lack an imagination and critical thinking skills which should easily give you the ammo to construct a few scenarios that would play out with undesirable consequences?

 

[equus]

In California, we have this policy where you must slow down as much as possible and then stare at what's going on as you drive by.

we also have this law in Kansas/Missouri as well. its absolutely wonderful how 1 fender bender that is legit all the way over into the median and off the road or all the way into the open shoulder area not impeding traffic in any way shape or form many minutes after the initial accident, can still make every fucking lookie loo slow down to 5 miles an hour to rubberneck the shit out of the accident.

 

[equus]

Any time a motorist is forced to take action with little notice it increases the risk of accidents. Do I really need to go data mining for something that is common sense? Do you lack an imagination and critical thinking skills which should easily give you the ammo to construct a few scenarios that would play out with undesirable consequences?

seems to me you might be the one lacking critical thinking skills if you lack the ability to slow or merge safely when you see an emergency vehicle with its lights activated. what do you do when an ambulance or poilce car approaches you from behind? man, i wish i had the actual number of how many vehicles i approached from the rear that swerved uncontrollably and flew through guardrails and into rivers and off of highways. it was sickening. people flying everywhere.

 

[gocubsgo]

Yes.
(625 ILCS 5/11-907) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-907)
Sec. 11-907. Operation of vehicles and streetcars on approach of authorized emergency vehicles.
(a) Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle making use of audible and visual signals meeting the requirements of this Code or a police vehicle properly and lawfully making use of an audible or visual signal,
(1) the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right-hand edge or curb of the highway clear of any intersection and shall, if necessary to permit the safe passage of the emergency vehicle, stop and remain in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by a police officer and
(2) the operator of every streetcar shall immediately stop such car clear of any intersection and keep it in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by a police officer.
(b) This Section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(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.

 

[AdamL]

seems to me you might be the one lacking critical thinking skills if you lack the ability to slow or merge safely when you see an emergency vehicle with its lights activated. what do you do when an ambulance or poilce car approaches you from behind? man, i wish i had the actual number of how many vehicles i approached from the rear that swerved uncontrollably and flew through guardrails and into rivers and off of highways. it was sickening. people flying everywhere.

You're assuming I'm incapable of reacting, which is a bad assumption on your part.

The issue here is creating an environment which facilitates a higher risk of an accident occurring due to a law which requires split-second reactions from motorists traveling at a high rate of speed, with little to no warning.

During high concentrations of traffic traveling at reasonable speeds (60 MPH), it's not a stretch to envision one or two vehicles following a large semi not seeing a LEO on the side of the road until they are only a few hundred feet away due to line of sight being obstructed by the truck. In order to comply, the drivers must merge rapidly which would require them to decelerate and steer into the next lane, all before they've reached the patrol car.

Now factor in the number of vehicles this solitary stop is affecting, then multiply that by the number of stops in a day and maybe you can see why this short-sighted law is a problem. Typical liberal knee-jerk reactionary laws where "something must be done", despite the repercussions.

 

[Archie Goodwin]

I doubt it. One cop dies, and they have to memorialize him, and pass a law. That's how it happened in NY. Please don't act like the police put their lives on the line every day, and are heros. They are vultures who spend most of their time nickel and diming the common man.

No boy grows up wanting to be a cop to write tickets, but I generally agree with the above statement - they need to go solve murders, rapes, robberies, etc., and stop being dog-catcher revenue-generators. Leave me alone, so I can get to where I need to be quickly and in peace.

 

[Nonsense]

No boy grows up wanting to be a cop to write tickets, but I generally agree with the above statement - they need to go solve murders, rapes, robberies, etc., and stop being dog-catcher revenue-generators. Leave me alone, so I can get to where I need to be quickly and in peace.

You want the opportunity to break whichever laws are convenient for you to break at the time, with impunity?

Do you understand that most laws exist to reduce the potential for harm to individuals in society? Maybe if you don't like those laws you should challenge them some meaningful way, and not in the "waaah waaah I want to be left alone" way.

 

[Nonsense]

Any time a motorist is forced to take action with little notice it increases the risk of accidents. Do I really need to go data mining for something that is common sense? Do you lack an imagination and critical thinking skills which should easily give you the ammo to construct a few scenarios that would play out with undesirable consequences?

What exactly do you think constitutes "little notice"?

It's not hard to see a police car with its lights on from a distance. Geesh. It's not like the cop cars are dropping from the sky five metres in front of motorists.

 

[Archie Goodwin]

You want the opportunity to break whichever laws are convenient for you to break at the time, with impunity?

Do you understand that most laws exist to reduce the potential for harm to individuals in society? Maybe if you don't like those laws you should challenge them some meaningful way, and not in the "waaah waaah I want to be left alone" way.

lol okay

 

[Nonsense]

lol okay

Well, can you explain how you disagree with me?

Speeding, jaywalking, lane dividers, making way for ambulances and fire trucks...those rules all serve a purpose, and if everyone ignored them like you want to, for your own convenience, can you see how counter productive that would be?

 

[equus]

You're assuming I'm incapable of reacting, which is a bad assumption on your part.

The issue here is creating an environment which facilitates a higher risk of an accident occurring due to a law which requires split-second reactions from motorists traveling at a high rate of speed, with little to no warning.

During high concentrations of traffic traveling at reasonable speeds (60 MPH), it's not a stretch to envision one or two vehicles following a large semi not seeing a LEO on the side of the road until they are only a few hundred feet away due to line of sight being obstructed by the truck. In order to comply, the drivers must merge rapidly which would require them to decelerate and steer into the next lane, all before they've reached the patrol car.

Now factor in the number of vehicles this solitary stop is affecting, then multiply that by the number of stops in a day and maybe you can see why this short-sighted law is a problem. Typical liberal knee-jerk reactionary laws where "something must be done", despite the repercussions.

but you are arguing and speaking in a very wide sweeping generalization FOR the motorist, making assumptions that more will not be able to react, while in the same breath saying "youre assuming i lack the ability to react in time and thats foolish of you" which basically provesthe point im trying to make. you are assuming that people everywhere across the United States lack the split second reactionary reflexes required to react if they encountered a police vehicle (and this is all emergency vehicles, to be fair) or lets say ambulance (then we take away the people screaming its for revenue) if it were on the right side of the road and obstructed by a semi. in my experience the reality is, people WILL have more than a half second to react. most often its ahead, where, at the very least, a person can slow significantly in an effort to check their surroundings.

i guess you and i will just need to agree to disagree. lets try this. since this law is destined to cause so many vehicular deaths (which is still less than dead emergency personnel who have died from failure to yield) which would cause more accidents and death? this law which requires people to yield to emergency vehicles, or a law that would outlaw cell phones being used by a driver, while the driver is operating their vehicle? this law is certainly not going to cause the accidents that cell phones have caused most likely in the first 2 full months of this year.

 

[Zookeeper Gabe]

Here in NC it's move over or slow down.

Same here in MA. It's really not a big deal.

 

[Archie Goodwin]

Well, can you explain how you disagree with me?

Speeding, jaywalking, lane dividers, making way for ambulances and fire trucks...those rules all serve a purpose, and if everyone ignored them like you want to, for your own convenience, can you see how counter productive that would be?

I'm not looking for anarchy, duh.

I want cops to focus on stopping criminals - REAL criminals. And please do not be a troll on this - there is an order of magnitude difference between someone driving 10-20 MPH over the speed limit and a killer or rapist. I pay plenty of taxes that are misspent - they don't need to collect any more revenue from me or anyone else to squander.

 

[AdamL]

Do you understand that most laws exist to reduce the potential for harm to individuals in society?

When was the last time you've taken a peek at current laws? The majority of them are there to create revenue and protect business. They have little to do with keeping people safe.

 

[equus]

No boy grows up wanting to be a cop to write tickets, but I generally agree with the above statement - they need to go solve murders, rapes, robberies, etc., and stop being dog-catcher revenue-generators. Leave me alone, so I can get to where I need to be quickly and in peace.

this is the comment i took issue with.

They are vultures who spend most of their time nickel and diming the common man.

its an ignorant statement made about the whole of a profession. not directed at the bad that are the 99% of those who recieve media attention.

that same statement can and has been made about Lawyers as a whole and i think you can agree that that isnt the case correct?

ive said this before and i'll have to say it again. in my personal experience after being a state certified officer for 10 years, the vast majority of people who have issue with Law enforcement are those who have no qualms with breaking the laws those officers are trying to enforce. are there shit officers out there? absolutely. and they should be dealt with harshly by their governing superiors. but there are also good, decent officers who do or have done their best to make sure people are treated fairly.

i never once gave a failure to yield ticket. i did give many warnings for them though.

 

[Archie Goodwin]

When was the last time you've taken a peek at current laws? The majority of them are there to create revenue and protect business. They have little to do with keeping people safe.

This.