I haven't received a ticket in probably 7 or 8 years. and that one I deserved. This one however, is unwarranted.
We were in Arkansas over the 4th of July weekend. They have a law that requires you to move over one lane or slow down if you can't move over if a cop is on the shoulder with his lights on writing a ticket, beating a prisoner or whatever.
I was on a 4 lane undivided road with shoulders. I was approaching a state trooper (about 100 yds away) who had his lights on and hd just let an 18 wheeler go. As I got closer the cop got back in his car and turned off his lights. I had slowed down and was in the process of preparing to change lanes (check the mirrors, shoulder check and signal) when he turned off his lights. No emergency and he was in his car on the shoulder, off of the road, I choose not to change lanes. He followed me and ticketed me. I even remarked to him that he was in the car and his lights were off when I passed him. I couldn't see his face but my rear seat passengers told me he kind of smirked and said "yes they were" while he happily continued to write the ticket.
I suspect that had I not had Texas plates in Arkansas I would not have been ticketed. Further I suspect he figured that being out of state and 500 miles away I won't be coming to court and will simply mail in the fine. He figured wrong. I'd planned on being in Arkansas fiddling with the house during the time of my scheduled court case anyway. I'll have a notarized statement from my back seat passengers stating they heard the officer state he had turned off his lights before I passed him.
I'm all for safety and giving cops a break when they are working traffic. However, as I stated above, this ticket is pure BS. Any tips from our resident police officers here?
Who is a judge going to believe? You and your passenger or some power-tripping copper? I'm glad that you're following through with this (and injustice fought against is always a good thing), but I wouldn't expect to get anything.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=22545.msg1364171#msg1364171 date=1279639517
Who is a judge going to believe? You and your passenger or some power-tripping copper? I'm glad that you're following through with this (and injustice fought against is always a good thing), but I wouldn't expect to get anything.
Actually 4 passengers, all relatives. My best hope is the officer won't show for the court date and I can get it dismissed. "Your honor I came all the way from Houston for this court date and the officer can't show? I respectfully ask that the ticket be dismissed".
If evidentiary rules apply, and I bet they do, then the passenger statements might be excluded as hearsay. You're going to want to get one of them to go with you to actually testify.
Not a fan of those laws at all. While I understand the need, I also recognize that in heavy traffic you likely won't be able to change lanes and slowing down drastically can be quite dangerous.
Ahhh John... Coulda woulda shoulda, yeah yeah yeah... But you still shoulda. Even though his lights were off, he was still on the side of the road.
They have that law here in California, as well. But I think it applies to not just emergency vehicles, but to anybody on the side of the road. I try to get over when possible for anybody. If I can't, then I pull as far to the left in the lane as I can.
Quote from: The Phantom on July 20, 2010, 03:27:20 PM
Ahhh John... Coulda woulda shoulda, yeah yeah yeah... But you still shoulda. Even though his lights were off, he was still on the side of the road.
They have that law here in California, as well. But I think it applies to not just emergency vehicles, but to anybody on the side of the road. I try to get over when possible for anybody. If I can't, then I pull as far to the left in the lane as I can.
That's what I do. And I slow down if I can, but in Texas I think the law is you're supposed to move over or slow to half the speed limit. 30 on Houston or Dallas freeway with a 55+ mph speed limit is dangerous.
This is another feel-good law that probably does more harm than good.
Quote from: dazzleman on July 20, 2010, 05:25:56 PM
This is another feel-good law that probably does more harm than good.
http://www.odmp.org/officer/15352-police-officer-gary-neil-priess
http://www.odmp.org/officer/15387-trooper-rick-lee-johnson
Their families may beg t o differ. It's a great law -and one we set up to enforce specifically about once a month along different parts of the county. Park a police car along the side of the road with the lights on and a few chase cars sitting in front of it. Folks who don't abide by the "move over law" get misdemeanor tickets. If the people get mouthy or nasty they get a ride to jail and get to bail out there. The law is there to protect road-side workers wether they be police or construction workers or firemen or wrecker drivers. In Ofc. Priess incident the truck driver was playing "Hat Off" a game truck drivers would play for points to see if they could knock off the officers hat. I can honestly and absolutely say that I have nearly been hit a number of times by people getting to close. It's not a game it's officer's lives at risk.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on July 20, 2010, 07:55:13 AM
I haven't received a ticket in probably 7 or 8 years. and that one I deserved. This one however, is unwarranted.
We were in Arkansas over the 4th of July weekend. They have a law that requires you to move over one lane or slow down if you can't move over if a cop is on the shoulder with his lights on writing a ticket, beating a prisoner or whatever.
I was on a 4 lane undivided road with shoulders. I was approaching a state trooper (about 100 yds away) who had his lights on and hd just let an 18 wheeler go. As I got closer the cop got back in his car and turned off his lights. I had slowed down and was in the process of preparing to change lanes (check the mirrors, shoulder check and signal) when he turned off his lights. No emergency and he was in his car on the shoulder, off of the road, I choose not to change lanes. He followed me and ticketed me. I even remarked to him that he was in the car and his lights were off when I passed him. I couldn't see his face but my rear seat passengers told me he kind of smirked and said "yes they were" while he happily continued to write the ticket.
I suspect that had I not had Texas plates in Arkansas I would not have been ticketed. Further I suspect he figured that being out of state and 500 miles away I won't be coming to court and will simply mail in the fine. He figured wrong. I'd planned on being in Arkansas fiddling with the house during the time of my scheduled court case anyway. I'll have a notarized statement from my back seat passengers stating they heard the officer state he had turned off his lights before I passed him.
I'm all for safety and giving cops a break when they are working traffic. However, as I stated above, this ticket is pure BS. Any tips from our resident police officers here?
You should get a copy of the state law before you decide it's unwarranted- you should have moved over out of nothing more than courtesy but that's my opinion nothing else. If someone can post the law from that state then one of us can layman-ize it for you if you want.
(an d for those of you tha like to grade my posts- I'm drinking tonight)
Four MA Troopers have been struck this past month, one killed. Should be common sense to move over. It's not just cops either, any emergency or highway worker is at risk on the highway. The reason it's law is because too many people lack common sense to do the right thing.
Quote from: rohan on July 20, 2010, 05:43:26 PM
If someone can post the law from that state then one of us can layman-ize it for you if you want.
'Cause I'm such a nice guy :lol:
A.C.A. ? 27-51-310
West's Arkansas Code Annotated Currentness
Title 27. Transportation
Subtitle 4. Motor Vehicular Traffic (Chapters 49 to 63) (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 51. Operation of Vehicles--Rules of the Road
Subchapter 3. Driving, Overtaking, and Passing
? 27-51-310. Passing emergency response vehicle or law enforcement vehicle stopped on highway
(a)(1) If an authorized emergency response vehicle or a law enforcement vehicle is parked or stopped at the scene of an emergency or other traffic stop and is displaying a flashing, revolving, or rotating blue, red, or amber and red light, an approaching motor vehicle operator shall move when possible into the farthest lane from the emergency response vehicle or law enforcement vehicle and remain in that lane until past the emergency response vehicle or law enforcement vehicle and any other vehicle involved in the emergency or other traffic stop.
(2) If changing lanes is not possible or is determined to be unsafe, an approaching motor vehicle operator shall reduce the motor vehicle's speed, proceed with caution, and maintain a reduced speed, appropriate to the road and the conditions, through the area where the authorized emergency response vehicle or law enforcement vehicle is stopped.
(b)(1)(A) Any party who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to or is found guilty of violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than thirty-five dollars ($35.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500), confined in the county jail not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both fined and imprisoned.
(B) In addition to the penalties prescribed in subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this section, the court may order community service for not more than seven (7) days and may suspend the person's driver's license for a period of not less than ninety (90) days nor more than six (6) months.
(2) There is created a rebuttable presumption that shall arise in any criminal action under this section to the effect that if it can be proven that a person is the registered owner of a vehicle that is driven in a manner that violates this section, the person is presumed to have been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation.
So, as per (a)(1), it seems that your obligation to move over ended when he turned of his lights. Of course, the law just says "an approaching motor vehicle". So you were approaching when you first saw the lights, and maybe should have moved over then? Isn't this fun! :lol:
If someone is paying enough attention to move over then they are also paying enough attention to stay in their lane while passing the pulled over vehicles. I understand it's a problem, but legally requiring safe drivers to drive unsafely (as significantly slowing down or changing lanes can be under the right set of circumstances) does not address the issue.
Gods - a misdemeanor crime, and jail if they get "mouthy?" I can understand it being a citation but making it a crime is BS law and BS enforcement tactics. A classic example of foxes watching the chicken coop on that one.
But yeah, it's a complete "feel good" law as Dazzle says. People drifting out of their lane and striking something on the side of the road are doing so because they are drunk, drowsy, distracted, reckless, et al., not because they didn't move over to the next lane.
I'll try to get over but that's for my safety; don't want to be a struck by the LE and/or the quarry as they merge with traffic. Sometimes I simply don't because there's a lot of traffic.
Pulling people over is extremely dangerous - so dangerous LE should be FAR FAR FAR more selective in who and where they pull people over. That right there would solve a lot of the problems - lower frequency of pulling people over = lower frequency of being struck by a drunk, drowsy, distracted, reckless, et al., driver.
Quote from: J86 on July 20, 2010, 06:16:03 PM
'Cause I'm such a nice guy :lol:
A.C.A. ? 27-51-310
Thanks! I'm too lazy to look it up tonight. It looks alot like ours and it really comes down to when each party thought the lights were turned off. If you're close and he turns off th elights then I guess it's 50/50 who's right. I'ld say go in since you already are and see what the magistrate/judge is willing to work out wiht you. Also- does it even get reported to your state of license? if not is it even worth fighting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact
Quote from: Catman on July 20, 2010, 06:12:22 PM
Four MA Troopers have been struck this past month, one killed. Should be common sense to move over. It's not just cops either, any emergency or highway worker is at risk on the highway. The reason it's law is because too many people lack common sense to do the right thing.
Four in one month? That's awful. Maybe you're right. I didn't realize it was such a problem. People out there are such idiots.
Quote from: rohan on July 20, 2010, 06:32:04 PM
Also- does it even get reported to your state of license? if not is it even worth fighting?
Principle!!!
Quote from: GoCougs on July 20, 2010, 06:24:58 PM
Gods - a misdemeanor crime, and jail if they get "mouthy?" I can understand it being a citation but making it a crime is BS law and BS enforcement tactics. A classic example of foxes watching the chicken coop on that one.
It's a misdemeanor ticket so it's automatically an arrest if issued- the location for bond is up to the officer. Give him shit and you bond at the jail- have a decent demeanor and you can bond on the road. As for the other part of your post it's based on faulty lack of knowledge and zero experience. People hit road workers- police officers- wrecker drivers all the time because they're where they don't belong when something bad happens. People trip- they get into fights- they take a wrong step- etc. They're supposed to die for that? Sure it's a dangerous job- we all know and accept that but that doesn't mean we should do our jobs- it means that others need to be careful around us doing our jobs. And the reason you give for not moving over could well net you a ticket here in Michigan- especially if you run across a wolfpack running Move Over enforcement. Might even land you in jail. Bond is the same either way- $100.
(again I'm drinking a bit tonight so my thoughts may not flow real well)
Quote from: dazzleman on July 20, 2010, 06:33:16 PM
Four in one month? That's awful. Maybe you're right. I didn't realize it was such a problem. People out there are such idiots.
This law isn't for the driver who's careful and doesn't have many accidents it's for the ones that aren't careful and drive like idiots- like Chicago drivers or Quebec drivers. ID-10T drivers.
Quote from: rohan on July 20, 2010, 06:41:51 PM
This law isn't for the driver who's careful and doesn't have many accidents it's for the ones that aren't careful and drive like idiots- like Chicago drivers or Quebec drivers. ID-10T drivers.
That's exactly why the law doesn't make sense. The safe drivers are already moving over or reducing speed when safe to do so. The unsafe drivers do not know about the law and probably aren't going to notice an emergency vehicle on the side of the road anyway. The best solution, imho, is to encourage drivers to pull off the road altogether, into a parking lot or something similar, when pulled over.
Reckless driving- drunk driving- drug impaired driving- speeding- defective tires- fail to maintain vehicle- driving too fast for conditions- improper lane usage- improper overtaking- expired plates- improper use of plates- no insurance- following too closely- passing uphill- passing on a curve- etc etc etc. They aren't meant for the wide majority of people who try to do what's right and safe on the road their meant for those assholes who can't drive a mile without intentionally being unsafe.
Quote from: rohan on July 20, 2010, 06:50:36 PM
Reckless driving- drunk driving- drug impaired driving- speeding- defective tires- fail to maintain vehicle- driving too fast for conditions- improper lane usage- improper overtaking- expired plates- improper use of plates- no insurance- following too closely- passing uphill- passing on a curve- etc etc etc. They aren't meant for the wide majority of people who try to do what's right and safe on the road their meant for those assholes who can't drive a mile without intentionally being unsafe.
The problem, as I have stated numerous times, is that the safe drivers who are aware of the law are tempted to move over or significantly reduce speed when it is not safe to do so in order to comply with said law. Rush hour in a certain cities mean bumper to bumper traffic at 70+. Slowing down to 35 in such conditions would clearly not be safe. The other laws you mention do not require safe drivers to decide between doing what's safe and doing what's required of them by the law. I would also note that speeding does not automatically make you an unsafe driver. If that was the case, there are far more LEOs that are unsafe drivers than there are LEOs that are safe drivers (I can't recall the last time I came across a LEO that was not speeding, even in a clearly non-emergency situation).
Quote from: TBR on July 20, 2010, 06:58:38 PM
The problem, as I have stated numerous times, is that the safe drivers who are aware of the law are tempted to move over or significantly reduce speed when it is not safe to do so in order to comply with said law. Rush hour in a certain cities mean bumper to bumper traffic at 70+. Slowing down to 35 in such conditions would clearly not be safe. The other laws you mention do not require safe drivers to decide between doing what's safe and doing what's required of them by the law. I would also note that speeding does not automatically make you an unsafe driver. If that was the case, there are far more LEOs that are unsafe drivers than there are LEOs that are safe drivers (I can't recall the last time I came across a LEO that was not speeding, even in a clearly non-emergency situation).
Well in the law's defense, subsection two does mention that if you can't change lanes, reduce to a speed "appropriate to the road and the conditions" :lol:
Quote from: J86 on July 20, 2010, 07:01:30 PM
Well in the law's defense, subsection two does mention that if you can't change lanes, reduce to a speed "appropriate to the road and the conditions" :lol:
So what happens if I think that the appropriate speed is the one I am already going? Additionally, the Texas law, from what I can tell, requires you to go at least 20 mph less than the speed limit with no discretion allowed (though I haven't looked up the actual law). While I think most LEOs would be understanding (or wouldn't enforce the law at all) given the circumstances I described, I do not like being forced to choose between what is safe and what is legal.
Quote from: TBR on July 20, 2010, 06:58:38 PM
The problem, as I have stated numerous times, is that the safe drivers who are aware of the law are tempted to move over or significantly reduce speed when it is not safe to do so in order to comply with said law. Rush hour in a certain cities mean bumper to bumper traffic at 70+. Slowing down to 35 in such conditions would clearly not be safe. The other laws you mention do not require safe drivers to decide between doing what's safe and doing what's required of them by the law. I would also note that speeding does not automatically make you an unsafe driver. If that was the case, there are far more LEOs that are unsafe drivers than there are LEOs that are safe drivers (I can't recall the last time I came across a LEO that was not speeding, even in a clearly non-emergency situation).
The law is aimed ( in Michigan at least) at those who don't do anything to attempt to do somthing safe it's not aimed at people who are honestly trying to do what's right. Slowing down to a little below the posted limit works- moving over is almost always an option but not always and we know that- we're out looking for the guy who's going 85/70 and never flinches at the flashing lights. You can "what if" anything to death I'm talking about obvious and intentional violations. We're not looking for the guy who's hemmed in by traffic and slows a bit and tries to be careful - and I think you know that. And the other laws may not require "what you said" but they do require intent just like the Move over laws. And no one including the the writers of the law are requiring anyone to do anyting unsafe to move over or slow down- sorry. They're asking for honest attempts not stomping the breaks and you know it. As for the "unsafe police drivers" you squawk about the wide majority of cops are safer drivers because of training at breakneck speeds then the average commuter at posted limits.
I wouldn't classify this as a feel good law. There's just too many things that can happen where it makes perfect sense for people to move over. Doesn't matter if you stay in your lane or not, an officer can be pushed, a tow guy can fall, a tool or part can jump into the lane, lots of stuff can happen while people are doing things on the shoulder.
Quote from: rohan on July 20, 2010, 07:15:25 PM
The law is aimed ( in Michigan at least) at those who don't do anything to attempt to do somthing safe it's not aimed at people who are honestly trying to do what's right. Slowing down to a little below the posted limit works- moving over is almost always an option but not always and we know that- we're out looking for the guy who's going 85/70 and never flinches at the flashing lights. You can "what if" anything to death I'm talking about obvious and intentional violations. We're not looking for the guy who's hemmed in by traffic and slows a bit and tries to be careful - and I think you know that. And the other laws may not require "what you said" but they do require intent just like the Move over laws. And no one including the the writers of the law are requiring anyone to do anyting unsafe to move over or slow down- sorry. They're asking for honest attempts not stomping the breaks and you know it. As for the "unsafe police drivers" you squawk about the wide majority of cops are safer drivers because of training at breakneck speeds then the average commuter at posted limits.
I am not really sure what you mean by this, but I never said police drivers were unsafe. What I did say was that speeding does not make you an unsafe driver. As proof of this I cited my anecdotal experience of rarely seeing a LEO that is not speeding.
Yes, if the law requires you to either slow down drastically or change lanes (ie: Texas requires you either move over or slow to at least 20mph below the speed limit), both of those options can be unsafe given the proper circumstances. As I noted, most LEOs probably won't pull you over under those circumstances, but if a law requires you to break it in order to drive safely then that hardly seems like a good law at all to me. Laws that allow discretion are much better in my book, but again can't be particularly effective as they are not widely advertised nor are they widely enforced.
Quote from: TBR on July 20, 2010, 07:29:25 PM
I am not really sure what you mean by this, but I never said police drivers were unsafe. What I did say was that speeding does not make you an unsafe driver. As proof of this I cited my anecdotal experience of rarely seeing a LEO that is not speeding.
Yes, if the law requires you to either slow down drastically or change lanes (ie: Texas requires you either move over or slow to at least 20mph below the speed limit), both of those options can be unsafe given the proper circumstances. As I noted, most LEOs probably won't pull you over under those circumstances, but if a law requires you to break it in order to drive safely then that hardly seems like a good law at all to me. Laws that allow discretion are much better in my book, but again can't be particularly effective as they are not widely advertised nor are they widely enforced.
I see. My comprehension is abbrebiated tonight a bit with Seagrams Whiskey and Coke! :lol: My big pet peeve is more about cops driving around with phones tatooed to their ears but that's another topic for another day. I think aI agree that you have to really violate this law in a real obvious fashion to get nailed by it most times but there are guys out there (usually younger) who are more easily bothered by it. Most of my career people whizzed by me without any type of recourse - but - now it's different. All we ask if people pay attention and make an honest effort to be safe around people working on the side of the road.
Quote from: rohan on July 20, 2010, 07:33:24 PM
I see. My comprehension is abbrebiated tonight a bit with Seagrams Whiskey and Coke! :lol: My big pet peeve is more about cops driving around with phones tatooed to their ears but that's another topic for another day. I think aI agree that you have to really violate this law in a real obvious fashion to get nailed by it most times but there are guys out there (usually younger) who are more easily bothered by it. Most of my career people whizzed by me without any type of recourse - but - now it's different. All we ask if people pay attention and make an honest effort to be safe around people working on the side of the road.
First, let me start by noting I am with you 100% on the cell phone thing. It's convenient, especially considering how much time LEOs spend on the road, but it's hardly necessary. I avoid it entirely when I am in a town or city and keep calls brief and rare when on the interstate.
Second, I don't really have a problem with laws that allow discretion as I always try to be cognoscente of what's going on around which includes acting appropriately to vehicles on the shoulder. I don't think they really address the problem though, and I do have a problem with laws like Texas's that don't recognize that there are some cases when the safest thing you can do is maintain speed and move as far over to the left side of your lane as possible.
I also think John kind of got screwed on this one (though given the situation I probably would have went ahead and moved over myself), but I think I'd probably just pay-up since he's out of state.
I can't disagree with one thing you wrote TBR. My only thing would be is John's state and the issuing state had reciprocity agreement that would be the only reason I'ld fithgt it if they did.
Well, I've been hit by mirrors twice. On one occasion a gas pump assembly came off a truck and missed my head by a couple inches. Lucky.
Quote from: Catman on July 20, 2010, 08:17:17 PM
Well, I've been hit by mirrors twice. On one occasion a gas pump assembly came off a truck and missed my head by a couple inches. Lucky.
What do you do in that situation? Thank your lucky stars and continue what you were doing, or hop in the cruiser and beat the guy to a bloody pulp?
Quote from: J86 on July 20, 2010, 08:19:48 PM
What do you do in that situation? Thank your lucky stars and continue what you were doing, or hop in the cruiser and beat the guy to a bloody pulp?
I was on details at the time. Was a long time ago. The truck one we made come back. Can't remember what the deal was but it was just an accident. The ones with the mirrors weren't bad just got grazed.
I always move over for anyone - cop, robber, tow truck driver, drunk guy, dude chasing escaped chickens - because you never know.
In these parts, our fine state troopers use the borderline-suicidal strategy of parking diagonally, halfway in the right lane, during traffic stops to attempt to get the traffic to move over. Another boneheaded move by a boneheaded organization run by a bunch of boneheads. :devil: I can see the use of this tactic on local roads, but on a highway with a 65mph limit where traffic regularly moves 80-85? I'd hate to see the shitshow that would ensue if someone wasn't paying attention and rammed into the back of one of those CVs sticking out in the middle of traffic.
All in all, I think this is a good law. But like too many laws, it seems like it was being used in this case in a technical sense to make a traffic stop rather than to actually correct someone who made an obviously-dangerous move on the highway. Plus, if the guy really did mouth off while cracking a shitty grin, that's especially contemptuous, given the fact that he's essentially making a mockery of the law that's there to protect his ass.
As someone who's done a lot of survey work for our highway department, I appreciate laws like this. I came within an inch of death one year when some douchebag brushed me @ 80 mph while I was running level loops.
That said, I think they can be taken too far. When the Wyoming law first came out, it required you to move to the left and reduce your speed by half (I don't know if it's still like that). All our interstate limits are 75 mph, so this law requires you to swerve into the other lane, slam on the brakes, and take the car down to 37.5 mph. Now granted, our roads have a lot less traffic (except I-80), so there is more room for error, but that big of a speed discrepancy--between the person slowing down and the drivers approaching from behind--cannot be safe.
Quote from: Tave on July 21, 2010, 06:37:37 AM
As someone who's done a lot of survey work for our highway department, I appreciate laws like this. I came within an inch of death one year when some douchebag brushed me @ 80 mph while I was running level loops.
That said, I think they can be taken too far. When the Wyoming law first came out, it required you to move to the left and reduce your speed by half (I don't know if it's still like that). All our interstate limits are 75 mph, so this law requires you to swerve into the other lane, slam on the brakes, and take the car down to 37.5 mph. Now granted, our roads have a lot less traffic (except I-80), so there is more room for error, but that big of a speed discrepancy--between the person slowing down and the drivers approaching from behind--cannot be safe.
This is what I meant when I said that sometimes these laws do more harm than good. If they go too far, they can create another hazard to substitute for the one they're trying to ameliorate.
So many people out there are morons with no regard for the safety of others. I don't need a law to tell me not to go whizzing by within inches of somebody at the side of the road at 80 mph. Anybody who does that should face severe, severe penalties.
Quote from: TBR on July 20, 2010, 07:42:31 PM
I also think John kind of got screwed on this one (though given the situation I probably would have went ahead and moved over myself), but I think I'd probably just pay-up since he's out of state.
Yeah, I got screwed, no doubt in my mind. And as I said I was in the act of starting the process of changing lanes when the officer turned off his lights, at that point I was probably something like 100 feet from his car. Also remember he was already back in his car. So at that point it becomes a question of which is safer; changing lanes on a stretch of state highway in teh city in moderate traffic at 4:30 on a weekday afternoon, or legally going by a car parked on the shoulder of the highway.
What I didn't mention in the original post was that this was the highway in the city limits, there are businesses and cross streets, the speed limit was 45 and traffic was moderate so this wasn't a situation where one can confidantly change lanes with a quick glance in the mirror to see if the other lane is clear. Also I don't think that I mentioned that I had also slowed and was probably doing between 35 and 40 when I passed the officer's car. I'll go to court because I'm not guilty and I'll be in the area anyway. It's a matter of principle for me. The only way I'll not go is if I call them, explain the situation and they dismiss it or tell me to mail them the minimum fine. But, again, because I'm out of state I expect they will sock it to me. And I will have a witness with me; my wife.
As for moving over myself. Yes, I generally do it, especially when warranted. If this were simply about safety it would be a law to move over for anybody on the shoulder, not just cops. Civilians out of gas or changing a flat on the shoulder are probably more likely to be unaware of their danger on the shoulder of the road than a trained officer and are therefore probably more at risk. Certainly they are more likely to do something stupid like step out on the roadway without looking. And yes, when possible I move over for those civilians as well.
Quote from: TurboDan on July 20, 2010, 11:51:59 PM
I always move over for anyone - cop, robber, tow truck driver, drunk guy, dude chasing escaped chickens - because you never know.
In these parts, our fine state troopers use the borderline-suicidal strategy of parking diagonally, halfway in the right lane, during traffic stops to attempt to get the traffic to move over. Another boneheaded move by a boneheaded organization run by a bunch of boneheads. :devil: I can see the use of this tactic on local roads, but on a highway with a 65mph limit where traffic regularly moves 80-85? I'd hate to see the shitshow that would ensue if someone wasn't paying attention and rammed into the back of one of those CVs sticking out in the middle of traffic.
All in all, I think this is a good law. But like too many laws, it seems like it was being used in this case in a technical sense to make a traffic stop rather than to actually correct someone who made an obviously-dangerous move on the highway. Plus, if the guy really did mouth off while cracking a shitty grin, that's especially contemptuous, given the fact that he's essentially making a mockery of the law that's there to protect his ass.
I had Texas plates, He was an Arkansas cop, I was out of state and in his mind likely not to fight the ticket or ever show up in Russellville again. Probably nuff said right there.
It's especially annoying for two reasons; 1. I didn't deserve the ticket and he knew it and wrote it anyway. 2. I was very polite to him, I always am if stopped. There is no value in mouthing off to anybody who is armed and can drag you to jail or otherwise make your life miserable. Sirs, smiles and polite speech cost nothing.
Quote from: rohan on July 20, 2010, 05:43:26 PM
http://www.odmp.org/officer/15352-police-officer-gary-neil-priess
http://www.odmp.org/officer/15387-trooper-rick-lee-johnson
Their families may beg t o differ. It's a great law -and one we set up to enforce specifically about once a month along different parts of the county. Park a police car along the side of the road with the lights on and a few chase cars sitting in front of it. Folks who don't abide by the "move over law" get misdemeanor tickets. If the people get mouthy or nasty they get a ride to jail and get to bail out there. The law is there to protect road-side workers wether they be police or construction workers or firemen or wrecker drivers. In Ofc. Priess incident the truck driver was playing "Hat Off" a game truck drivers would play for points to see if they could knock off the officers hat. I can honestly and absolutely say that I have nearly been hit a number of times by people getting to close. It's not a game it's officer's lives at risk.
You should get a copy of the state law before you decide it's unwarranted- you should have moved over out of nothing more than courtesy but that's my opinion nothing else. If someone can post the law from that state then one of us can layman-ize it for you if you want.
(an d for those of you tha like to grade my posts- I'm drinking tonight)
Yeah, it's a great law...that's enforced once a month when it doesn't even matter because you're setting up a false situation anyway. :rolleyes:
Can you imagine if murders were enforced this same way? You'd set up tables on the streets with potential victims and weapons and wait for people to walk by and commit a murder. "Sorry fella, but you picked the wrong day to commit a murder in this town!"
I agree with Raza. I don't think that's a good way to enforce the law.
First, the danger to the officer is almost illusory, as he isn't going to exit the patrol vehicle. In and of itself, this wouldn't be so bad, because we can assume that some of those ticketed will adjust their behavior in the future.
However, the resources devoted to that method of enforcement could just as easily be spent sending additional cruisers to shadow construction workers, highway workers, and other patrol vehicles. Then you could both alter the driving habits of those ticketed and punish those responsible for creating a more tangible danger.
I know I would have appreciated a patrolman shadowing me when I surveyed new off/on-ramps for I-90 last summer. Perhaps the highway patrol was too busy conducting operations like the one Rohan described. :huh:
To be fair to the Wyo patrol, they sent a cruiser by periodically to check on us, and they encouraged us to take down plate numbers and report unsafe drivers. We did, but it's hard to do that when you're on foot and trying to work. A patrolman could have actually pulled them over and issued citations. I realize they have neither the time nor the manpower to issue an officer for every highway crew, and I appreciate the job they do. I just think that since their resources are limited, that's all the more reason to spend them wisely. If some guy that Rohan ticketed in Michigan drove through Wyoming and slowed down when he saw me because of that prior ticket, then my heartfelt thanks goes out to the Michigan police.
Something I have noticed over the years working on the highway. When you have a cruiser next to you, people become a LOT more responsible. I know that since our LEOs have seen all types of crazy behavior go on in their presence, they might not believe me, but trust me: it's like night and day. Especially when you're like us and you don't have a full cone system set up, people pay you absolutely no respect. And often we have to survey points in the middle of the roads.
Quote from: Tave on July 21, 2010, 10:39:38 AM
I know I would have appreciated a patrolman shadowing me when I surveyed new off/on-ramps for I-90 last summer. Perhaps the highway patrol was too busy conducting operations like the one Rohan described. :huh:
Something I have noticed over the years working on the highway. When you have a cruiser next to you, people become a LOT more responsible. I know that since our LEOs have seen all types of crazy behavior go on in their presence, they might not believe me, but trust me: it's like night and day. Especially when you're like us and you don't have a full cone system set up, people pay you absolutely no respect. And often we have to survey points in the middle of the roads.
Q: Why did the surveyor cross the road?
A: To try to stay alive. :lol:
I know it's not funny in real life but that lame joke just popped in my head.
Okay, that's a good point about an LEO wrastlin' with a perp and getting drawn/thrown into the roadway. Still, my hunch is that is not what is happening - it's the drunk, drowsy, distracted, reckless, et al., driver that moves out of the lane.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 21, 2010, 12:16:11 PM
Okay, that's a good point about an LEO wrastlin' with a perp and getting drawn/thrown into the roadway. Still, my hunch is that is not what is happening - it's the drunk, drowsy, distracted, reckless, et al., driver that moves out of the lane.
Certainly the vast majority.
Quote from: Tave on July 21, 2010, 10:39:38 AM
I agree with Raza. I don't think that's a good way to enforce the law.
First, the danger to the officer is almost illusory, as he isn't going to exit the patrol vehicle. In and of itself, this wouldn't be so bad, because we can assume that some of those ticketed will adjust their behavior in the future.
However, the resources devoted to that method of enforcement could just as easily be spent sending additional cruisers to shadow construction workers, highway workers, and other patrol vehicles. Then you could both alter the driving habits of those ticketed and punish those responsible for creating a more tangible danger.
I know I would have appreciated a patrolman shadowing me when I surveyed new off/on-ramps for I-90 last summer. Perhaps the highway patrol was too busy conducting operations like the one Rohan described. :huh:
To be fair to the Wyo patrol, they sent a cruiser by periodically to check on us, and they encouraged us to take down plate numbers and report unsafe drivers. We did, but it's hard to do that when you're on foot and trying to work. A patrolman could have actually pulled them over and issued citations. I realize they have neither the time nor the manpower to issue an officer for every highway crew, and I appreciate the job they do. I just think that since their resources are limited, that's all the more reason to spend them wisely. If some guy that Rohan ticketed in Michigan drove through Wyoming and slowed down when he saw me because of that prior ticket, then my heartfelt thanks goes out to the Michigan police.
Something I have noticed over the years working on the highway. When you have a cruiser next to you, people become a LOT more responsible. I know that since our LEOs have seen all types of crazy behavior go on in their presence, they might not believe me, but trust me: it's like night and day. Especially when you're like us and you don't have a full cone system set up, people pay you absolutely no respect. And often we have to survey points in the middle of the roads.
I've driven across Wyoming on 80, and if I remember correctly, that was one of the more desolate Interstate highways I've been on. It was really fun hitting 80 MPH in the Grand Am without worrying about getting pulled over.
Actually, I-80 in Nevada is probably more desolate. That's where I hit my first flying bird and saw my first real life tumbleweed back in 1999.
Quote from: The Phantom on July 21, 2010, 03:22:34 PM
I've driven across Wyoming on 80, and if I remember correctly, that was one of the more desolate Interstate highways I've been on. It was really fun hitting 80 MPH in the Grand Am without worrying about getting pulled over.
It must have been awhile ago. The speed limit has been 75 mph for a decade, so you needn't worry about going 80 no matter how many patrolmen are on the prowl.
I-80 gets a ton of semi traffic. I've been on it when it's pretty empty, but I've also been on it when it's packed to the gills.
Quote from: Raza on July 21, 2010, 09:41:19 AM
Yeah, it's a great law...that's enforced once a month when it doesn't even matter because you're setting up a false situation anyway. :rolleyes:
Yes Raza- we ONLY enforce the law when we do wolfpack enforcement once a month. :rolleyes:
QuoteCan you imagine if murders were enforced this same way? You'd set up tables on the streets with potential victims and weapons and wait for people to walk by and commit a murder. "Sorry fella, but you picked the wrong day to commit a murder in this town!"
Well- that's just about the dumbest argument you could've chosen and I'm not even going to bother to explain it beyond that to you
I don't think the cellphone law has had that much of an impact. People just put it on speaker and hold it up to their face :facepalm: Hell, even the Governor's wife was spotted heading down Sunset yacking away.
Which is what I do, actually. That or I just talk on the phone regularly if I'm in a non-patrolled area.
Quote from: Tave on July 21, 2010, 06:04:55 PM
It must have been awhile ago. The speed limit has been 75 mph for a decade, so you needn't worry about going 80 no matter how many patrolmen are on the prowl.
I-80 gets a ton of semi traffic. I've been on it when it's pretty empty, but I've also been on it when it's packed to the gills.
Yeah, it was in 1999. All the states from Nebraska through Nevada had 75 MPH limits. Then I hit the big descent into California's San Joaquin Valley, and the limit wasn't any higher than 65.
I love it out west, though. I love the vast openness of it all.
Quote from: rohan on July 21, 2010, 08:17:37 PM
Yes Raza- we ONLY enforce the law when we do wolfpack enforcement once a month. :rolleyes:
Well- that's just about the dumbest argument you could've chosen and I'm not even going to bother to explain it beyond that to you
:rolleyes:
Another brilliant response Raza.
You make me sad for you Raza.
cmon kids lets play nice...
He started it.
:rolleyes:
( pssssst I was joking)
I don't see why people still post in the Driving and the Law forum. It ALWAYS ends up in coppers vs. everyone else, and it goes nowhere. The debate isn't even engaging or intellectual. Still LOL worthy though, I guess.
Quote from: Minpin on July 23, 2010, 10:04:10 AM
I don't see why people still post in the Driving and the Law forum. It ALWAYS ends up in coppers vs. everyone else, and it goes nowhere. The debate isn't even engaging or intellectual. Still LOL worthy though, I guess.
:rolleyes:
We have the same arguments over and over in all the sections. Why would this one be different? :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on July 23, 2010, 05:36:07 PM
We have the same arguments over and over in all the sections. Why would this one be different? :lol:
Good point. :lol:
Yeah, it's not liked we've ever settled on any argument ever.
Quote from: Minpin on July 23, 2010, 10:04:10 AMI don't see why people still post in the Driving and the Law forum. It ALWAYS ends up in coppers vs. everyone else, and it goes nowhere. The debate isn't even engaging or intellectual. Still LOL worthy though, I guess.
Hey, I resent that! I'm always usually sometimes occasionally intellectual. Fucker.
I was in Arkansas over the holiday weekend and stopped by the county presecutors office on Friday. We agreed to a non-reportable civil penalty of $100; a relatively minor shakedown. It was the path of least resistance since the fine would have been $200 + court costs and a moving violation on my record.
Far less hassle than going to court and potentially losing and paying more.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on September 09, 2010, 07:16:24 AM
I was in Arkansas over the holiday weekend and stopped by the county presecutors office on Friday. We agreed to a non-reportable civil penalty of $100; a relatively minor shakedown. It was the path of least resistance since the fine would have been $200 + court costs and a moving violation on my record.
Far less hassle than going to court and potentially losing and paying more.
Sometimes you have to just cut your losses. Your time is worth something too.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 09, 2010, 07:20:09 PM
Sometimes you have to just cut your losses. Your time is worth something too.
Absolutely.
When I was there the lady at the desk, a really helpful, friendly preson asked what I was hoping to accomplish and asked if I just wanted something wouldn't go on my record. It was had to resist the urge to say "yes, that and keeping the county's hands off my billfold". But, as a professional deal maker I know when I've achieved about the best outcome possible so I just said "yes, that would be nice". :lol: