Florida sued for ticketing motorists who warn others of speed traps

[GoCougs]

Just this weekend, driving on an extremely busy two-way highway over a mountain pass, I'm cooking along with ~10 other drivers at about 70 in a 60. A LEO on our shoulder hits his lights and cuts across our lane to get a driver coming the other direction. We all have to hit our brakes to make room for this BS. As I get up to the LEO just as he's pulling over the driver I give him the horn and the finger.

[TurboDan]

You headlight-flashers should come to NJ:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/01/nyregion/drivers-allowed-to-flash-speed-trap-alerts.html

[Byteme]

An officer enforcing the law is now a "road hazard?" Nice try, but I think not.

Yes, they are unfortunately.  Rubberneckers slow down to check out the action, which creates a hazardous situation.  I'm sure you are familiar with cases where accidents occured when a ticket was being issued just because everybody was so eager to get a look at the cop and customer the forgot their primary objective which is "drive the damn car".

[Raza]

Just this weekend, driving on an extremely busy two-way highway over a mountain pass, I'm cooking along with ~10 other drivers at about 70 in a 60. A LEO on our shoulder hits his lights and cuts across our lane to get a driver coming the other direction. We all have to hit our brakes to make room for this BS. As I get up to the LEO just as he's pulling over the driver I give him the horn and the finger.

I've seen that multiple times...sometimes when the cop wasn't even pulling anyone over. 

[Tave]

The mere fact of forcing hundreds of swiftly moving 5,000 pound vehicles to make drastic changes in speed and cram into a single lane, by definition, adds risk to the system.

The theory behind the law is that society accepts that risk and agrees to watch out for it on the understanding that it will contribute greatly to the safety of the officers and motorists on the side of the road.

Personally, I understand the urge to write a move over law, because I've worked highway construction and I know how it feels to be on the shoulder with traffic running. It scares the shit out of you.

Realistically, I think there are some kinks to work out before we settle on a solution. As scared as I am to sit on the side of the highway, I'm more afraid to drive in heavy, swiftly moving traffic when all the cars start diving into the passing lane and slamming on their brakes en masse. I'd much prefer that traffic simply slow down as prudently as possible and pay attention to their lane discipline, moving over only when appropriate.


Now, I know our officers will say, "But, feasibility is written into the law." I understand that, but what I see out on the road is motorists making a lot of dumb moves in order to get a spot in the left lane, and from what I can tell, they're doing it to avoid a ticket.

[Byteme]

The mere fact of forcing hundreds of swiftly moving 5,000 pound vehicles to make drastic changes in speed and cram into a single lane, by definition, adds risk to the system.

The theory behind the law is that society accepts that risk and agrees to watch out for it on the understanding that it will contribute greatly to the safety of the officers and motorists on the side of the road.

Personally, I understand the urge to write a move over law, because I've worked highway construction and I know how it feels to be on the shoulder with traffic running. It scares the shit out of you.

Realistically, I think there are some kinks to work out before we settle on a solution. As scared as I am to sit on the side of the highway, I'm more afraid to drive in heavy, swiftly moving traffic when all the cars start diving into the passing lane and slamming on their brakes en masse. I'd much prefer that traffic simply slow down as prudently as possible and pay attention to their lane discipline, moving over only when appropriate.
Now, I know our officers will say, "But, feasibility is written into the law." I understand that, but what I see out on the road is motorists making a lot of dumb moves in order to get a spot in the left lane, and from what I can tell, they're doing it to avoid a ticket.

In Texas, and probably elsewhere, you are to either move over 1 lane from the cop or slow down to 20 under the speed limit.

[bing_oh]

Yes, they are unfortunately.  Rubberneckers slow down to check out the action, which creates a hazardous situation.  I'm sure you are familiar with cases where accidents occured when a ticket was being issued just because everybody was so eager to get a look at the cop and customer the forgot their primary objective which is "drive the damn car".

That would make the stupid drivers, not the officer doing his/her job, the road hazard.

[bing_oh]

In Texas, and probably elsewhere, you are to either move over 1 lane from the cop or slow down to 20 under the speed limit.

Ohio law is written that, if a driver is unable to move over, he/she must slow down while passing the officer. I imagine the wording is very similar across the country where similar laws are in place.

[ChrisV]

That would make the stupid drivers, not the officer doing his/her job, the road hazard.

If it's a known result of an action, then the one that takes the action is still the cause.

[ChrisV]

Its so interesting that there is no "quota".  Its so interesting that (in especially small municipalities) the police forces receive no pressure from the city to make their department less of a money pit to tax payers...

I'd like to ask Mr Bing if his department receives money grants for "safety blitzs".  I know a few of our local municipalities do this (I happened to get my BS ticket out of it) and the officer himself confessed that the department had a quota for the grant.  It seems like a perfect mix of departments getting more money, police officers getting more OT, and taxpayers getting screwed.

You'll never get an honest answer to that question from any LEO. Even the good ones.

[bing_oh]

If it's a known result of an action, then the one that takes the action is still the cause.

Nice way to shift blame from the real source of the danger...ie, drivers who are so totally oblivious of thier surroundings that they don't notice a cruiser with a billion candlepower of flashing strobes and LEDs along the side of the roadway in enough time to take approprate action...to the people who are out there trying to do their jobs and make the roadways a little safer for those same oblivious drivers.

[bing_oh]

Its so interesting that there is no "quota".  Its so interesting that (in especially small municipalities) the police forces receive no pressure from the city to make their department less of a money pit to tax payers...

I'd like to ask Mr Bing if his department receives money grants for "safety blitzs".  I know a few of our local municipalities do this (I happened to get my BS ticket out of it) and the officer himself confessed that the department had a quota for the grant.  It seems like a perfect mix of departments getting more money, police officers getting more OT, and taxpayers getting screwed.

You'll never get an honest answer to that question from any LEO. Even the good ones.

I'd like for you to quote me in ever saying that quotas don't exist, r0tor.

Let me help you out...I never said it. I've worked for a department that had a form of quotas.

As I already said, quotas are not as common as is commonly believed and their purpose is rarely if ever financial. And, as I've already said, the quotas I've experienced are poor excuses at judging "officer productivity" by adminsitrators who have an unhealthy love of numbers and publishable statistics.

As for "safety blitzes," my department does (rarely) get grant money for things like Click It or Ticket and DUI enforcement (whatever the latest catch phrase is for that right now). Unfortunately for your argument, we don't have a quota for officers working those details. Our only guidelines are officers working those details are restricted to only the scope of the assignment are cannot respond to calls for service or other tasks unless it's an emergency. Also interesting is that I've never seen one of those assignments for a controversial enforcement like speed. In fact, the two that I've worked have been seatbelt and DUI enforcement, either of which it could be argued are clearly safety-based. Oh, and they always seem to be centered around driving holidays where there's a spike in fatal crashes.

[Byteme]

That would make the stupid drivers, not the officer doing his/her job, the road hazard.

Can't really argue with that, but the fact remains the officer writing the ticket on the side of the road may be doing more to create an unsafe driving environment than writing the ticket would create a safer one. 

[bing_oh]

Can't really argue with that, but the fact remains the officer writing the ticket on the side of the road may be doing more to create an unsafe driving environment than writing the ticket would create a safer one.

If you follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, they you get a Cougsism...

One of the most dangerous road hazards extant is LE pulling over drivers onto the side of the road . It is extraordinarily dangerous, especially on freeways, and should be used ONLY in instances of grave circumstances (which is NOT for the vast majority of traffic infractions).

Yet, the idea that traffic stops should only be used "in instances of grave circumstances" defies logic. For example, the VAST majority of intoxicated drivers I arrest are stopped for minor traffic violations...most commonly, equipment violations. Obviously, a minor equipment violation isn't a "grave circumstance," but stops for those simple violations result in the arrest of countless dangerous impared drivers. Likewise, it's not the least bit uncommon to get serious criminal violations from simple traffic stops.

[Byteme]

If you follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, they you get a Cougsism...

Please, no personal insults.  

[Eye of the Tiger]

If you follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, they you get a Cougsism...

Yet, the idea that traffic stops should only be used "in instances of grave circumstances" defies logic. For example, the VAST majority of intoxicated drivers I arrest are stopped for minor traffic violations...most commonly, equipment violations. Obviously, a minor equipment violation isn't a "grave circumstance," but stops for those simple violations result in the arrest of countless dangerous impared drivers. Likewise, it's not the least bit uncommon to get serious criminal violations from simple traffic stops.

What defies logic is stopping "dangerous impaired" drivers who are not doing anything dangerous. That's actual logic. And I disagree with the whole idea of using random hardass traffic enforcement as a means to weed out criminals. It's just an easy target because nobody in a motor vehicle has any rights. Go raid a crack house.

[bing_oh]

What defies logic is stopping "dangerous impaired" drivers who are not doing anything dangerous. That's actual logic. And I disagree with the whole idea of using random hardass traffic enforcement as a means to weed out criminals. It's just an easy target because nobody in a motor vehicle has any rights. Go raid a crack house.

Your lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of law enforcement in the real world is monumental...but, unfortunately, not surprising. Like most people, you take the people who protect you for granted, but never understand the difficult realities of the job we do.

[hounddog]

In Texas, and probably elsewhere, you are to either move over 1 lane from the cop or slow down to 20 under the speed limit.

Failure to comply in Michigan is an arrest able offense.

This is one law I completely and absolutely agree with,  as I have had friends run over on traffic stops.

[hounddog]

Can't really argue with that, but the fact remains the officer writing the ticket on the side of the road may be doing more to create an unsafe driving environment than writing the ticket would create a safer one. 

This is the anarchists fallacy.

The truth is that people are responsible for themselves, and placing blame on others is the easy, less resistant path to take.

[hounddog]

Your lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of law enforcement in the real world is monumental...but, unfortunately, not surprising. Like most people, you take the people who protect you for granted, but never understand the difficult realities of the job we do.

The fact that you are still willing to entertain the notion that an anti-law enforcement personality can be logically engaged interests me.

[Soup DeVille]

Ohio law is written that, if a driver is unable to move over, he/she must slow down while passing the officer. I imagine the wording is very similar across the country where similar laws are in place.

I've read that, but no where have I ever read how much I should slow down. Is it up to the officer's discretion whether or not I slowed down enough?

[bing_oh]

The fact that you are still willing to entertain the notion that an anti-law enforcement personality can be logically engaged interests me.

I have a very thick skull. Just ask my girlfriend.

[bing_oh]

I've read that, but no where have I ever read how much I should slow down. Is it up to the officer's discretion whether or not I slowed down enough?

4511.213 Approaching stationary public safety vehicle displaying emergency light.
(A) The driver of a motor vehicle, upon approaching a stationary public safety vehicle, an emergency vehicle, or a road service vehicle that is displaying the appropriate visual signals by means of flashing , oscillating, or rotating lights, as prescribed in section 4513.17 of the Revised Code, shall do either of the following:

(1) If the driver of the motor vehicle is traveling on a highway that consists of at least two lanes that carry traffic in the same direction of travel as that of the driver?s motor vehicle, the driver shall proceed with due caution and, if possible and with due regard to the road, weather, and traffic conditions, shall change lanes into a lane that is not adjacent to that of the stationary public safety vehicle, an emergency vehicle, or a road service vehicle.

(2) If the driver is not traveling on a highway of a type described in division (A)(1) of this section, or if the driver is traveling on a highway of that type but it is not possible to change lanes or if to do so would be unsafe, the driver shall proceed with due caution, reduce the speed of the motor vehicle, and maintain a safe speed for the road, weather, and traffic conditions.

(B) This section does not relieve the driver of a public safety vehicle, an emergency vehicle, or a road service vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and property upon the highway.

(C) No person shall fail to drive a motor vehicle in compliance with division (A)(1) or (2) of this section when so required by division (A) of this section.

(D)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

(2) Notwithstanding section 2929.28 of the Revised Code, upon a finding that a person operated a motor vehicle in violation of division (C) of this section, the court, in addition to all other penalties provided by law, shall impose a fine of two times the usual amount imposed for the violation.

[Soup DeVille]

That still pretty much leaves it to the officer's discretion as to what constitutes due caution, though, correct?

[bing_oh]

That still pretty much leaves it to the officer's discretion as to what constitutes due caution, though, correct?

For issuing the citation, yes. In the end, it's more the judgement of the court...as it frequently is in criminal justice.

[Tave]

For issuing the citation, yes. In the end, it's more the judgement of the court...as it frequently is in criminal justice.

The court will show great deference to the judgement and expertise of the police officer.

[bing_oh]

The court will show great deference to the judgement and expertise of the police officer. A minimal amount of tickets will even be challenged, let alone make it to the point where judges are giving opinions about what constitutes due caution or safe speed.

Speaking in generalities or theoretically, yes. In actuality, that depends greatly upon the court and even the individual officer's standing in that court.

[Soup DeVille]

The court will show great deference to the judgement and expertise of the police officer.

In my experience, that's hit or miss.

[Tave]

Speaking in generalities or theoretically, yes. In actuality, that depends greatly upon the court and even the individual officer's standing in that court.

If courts generally defer to officers, then it should be quite common, across most courts, in front of all types of officers, to see a court...defer to the officer. And indeed it is, at least from what I've seen and what people have told me.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Your lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of law enforcement in the real world is monumental...but, unfortunately, not surprising. Like most people, you take the people who protect you for granted, but never understand the difficult realities of the job we do.

None of that is true, or relevent to the fact that normal people suddenly become major targets for law enforcement every time they get behind the wheel.

The fact that you are still willing to entertain the notion that an anti-law enforcement personality can be logically engaged interests me.

The illogicalness of law enforcement is the only reason this thread exists. Don't go there, girlfriend.