Move over traffic laws

[Bill Bess]

Has anyone heard of this being a law in their state? Move-over lane traffic law. On January 1, 2010 in California , A vehicle must move to a vacant traffic lane, and reduce their speed by 20 mph, or 25 mph when posted 25, When there is an emergency vehicle with it's lights flashing stopped on the right side of the roadway.
This is already a law in Texas and several other states. Violations in California are very expensive and add points to your driving record.
Moving to the left lane or changing to a safe lane while passing any vehicle parked on the side of the roadway/ emergency parking lane has been common practice for commercial truck drivers for years...but I guess this is now requred.
Anyway, check it out.
Bill

[John Montgomery]

The "move over law' has been in effect for a least a couple of years here in Florida. It also applies to wreckers working on the side of the road.

[flipscobra]

Yeah they got that stupid law here in Ga. And they enforce it and its a big fine. They even trap you using it.

[SunDude]

We have this in Ontario now. It comes with a $500+ fine. Mostly I don't object to it, as it's pretty dangerous for cops and other emergency personnel to stand at the side of the road nowadays. But I do object when they set up stings to trap motorists, which they did just days after the law came into effect.

On the other hand, Ontario just enacted laws prohibiting all hand-held phones for drivers -- something that should go a long way towards improving road safety -- but I've yet to see them enforce it. Sting or no sting.

[Ron61]

SunDude,

On the other hand, Ontario just enacted laws prohibiting all hand-held phones for drivers -- something that should go a long way towards improving road safety -- but I've yet to see them enforce it. Sting or no sting.

We have had that law for a year or so here and I have yet to see anyone that has gotten a ticket for it except our Governors wife and she got 3 I believe it was. Every driver you see here has a phone stuck in their ear. They seem to think that unless they are on that phone, the world is going to end. And most of our wrecks around here are now caused by people talking or texting on a phone.

Ron

[Woodz428]

Originally Posted by SunDude

.

On the other hand, Ontario just enacted laws prohibiting all hand-held phones for drivers -- something that should go a long way towards improving road safety -- but I've yet to see them enforce it. Sting or no sting.

We've had the move over law for a while, not sure how long. The state just instituted the cellphone law at the beginning of the year. The local cities passed an ordinance last year that banned texting/downloading ringtones while driving because some young woman killed a bicyclist while downloading a ringtone. This is one stupudist laws possible. I believe "reckless" driving encompasses either of those. Here you can get a reckless driving charge if you are 25 over the limit, and can lose your license...but running over someone and killing them DOESN"T qualify as reckless. Give me a break, this is just another reach into your pockets to pay for the obscene spending that seems to be part of a politicians make up. Of course lawmakers exempt themselves...because they are so impotent ( I spelled that right).

[TXBLU]

I'm pretty sure it's move over or slow down to 20 below the posted speed limit here in Texas.

Eric

[lovehamr]

Originally Posted by flipscobra

Yeah they got that stupid law here in Ga. And they enforce it and its a big fine. They even trap you using it.

Dang flip; I don't think it's stupid. You only have to see one braindead A-hole plow into an ambulance or police car with all those flashing lights and you know why it's on the books. Before my time on the road I thought it must be impossible for someone driving a car or truck to be that obtuse. I was wrong.

Steve

PS forgot firetrucks. Yes delta alphas have hit them as well.

[Ron61]

We have had it for quite a while and no I don't think it is stupid at all. I have seen a few CHP cars and a couple of fire trucks hit by some fool gawking at the wrecks. Just a month ago a woman ran into a CHP car which was stopped at an accident and was off the road. She was talking on a cell phone and told the officer that she was telling her friend about the wreck she was passing. I wonder if she included the part about her being part of it because of her stupidity. The only problem here is if you get caught in the center lane and traffic is heavy, about all you can do is try to figure out which lane the emergency vehicle is in and slow down as much as possible as you can't change lanes with bumper to bumper traffic.

Ron

[lovehamr]

The GA law is worded as "Change lanes and/or slow down" so as to avoid those types of problems. The point is obviously to protect the emergency workers.

[thudmaster]

I like the law. My son drove a tow truck for years and told me lots of horror stories. I like the no cell phone law also but the fine is too small. Make it 300.00 and points on your driving record and watch them put their phones down till later.

[CSXDreamer]

It's a good law to protect people on the side of the road with a car stopped on the shoulder; however, I wonder if a courteous driver could be unfairly ticketed. If one is driving in the far right lane and has a vehicle or other vehicles in the lane to his left, he certainly can't move over. Now it becomes a judgement call on a patrol officer whether a passing car has slowed down to a certain speed. That officer that almost got sideswiped 15 minutes ago and now stopped granny for a burned out tail light, is probably going to come after you.

[Black Mamba]

I think of it as a common sense situation but obviously there are enough morons driving around with their radios too loud, can't hear over their woo woooo pipe whistles, texting or whatever that don't give emergency crews enough room. When you look at something you have a natural tendency to turn your body (and steering wheel) that way. When that happens to often it leads to whamo!

Being a cyclist I wish this same law would apply to riders... the move over part anyways.

[Gunner]

Originally Posted by Bill Bess

Violations in California are very expensive and add points to your driving record.

This is this week's panicky pass-it-on mail, I guess - this is the third time it's been brought up or sent to me. Yes, the law is real (and has been for three years in California). What's new is that Caltrans crews displaying a flashing amber light are now included in the coverage; before it was only red and blue emergency vehicles. It's a damned good idea, as anyone who has ever worked roadside for any reason knows. The new law also cancelled a sunset provision that would have taken the law off the books on January 1.

The BS is that it's a horrendous fine and points - the story circulating is someone's son who got a $750 fine and three points for driving past two cop cars without making an attempt to change lanes. All BS; the law REQUIRES you to slow down - at least show you are paying close attention - and to move over a lane if you can safely do so. The fine is... $50. No points.

Fa chrissakes, three points is what you get for an accident involving serious injury or death!

Here, read it yourself from a reliable source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/ne...rel/09pr23.htm

I suspect that if the "Sonny" story is true, he passed those cops at one hell of a rate of speed and the move-over cite was the least of his problems.

[SunDude]

Originally Posted by CSXDreamer

...If one is driving in the far right lane and has a vehicle or other vehicles in the lane to his left, he certainly can't move over. Now it becomes a judgement call on a patrol officer whether a passing car has slowed down to a certain speed...

In Ontario the law states that a driver must change lanes provided that it is safe to do so -- so if someone is immediately to your left, you would have little option but to slow down in the right-hand lane as you pass the emergency vehicle. (Still, if you've ever changed a flat tire on the highway shoulder, you know how terrifying and dangerous it can be.)

But all this is moot if a driver isn't paying attention and this is a chronic problem these days, in my opinion. Too many drivers are too busy thinking about and doing other things. Like phoning or texting. Now there's a behaviour that puts everyone at risk, not just emergency staff. I do wish people would start taking this more seriously.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I actually take pride in how I drive. And I enjoy it. It's one of the my favorite things to do. So paying attention to the road and to how my car is running is not a chore. No cell phone for me.

[Cobrabill]

[quote=SunDude;
Now there's a behaviour that puts everyone at risk, not just emergency staff. [/QUOTE]

You nailed it:"BEHAVIOR".And as anyone short of a imbecile knows,you can't legislate behavior.

Cell phone are no different than:

Ipods
cd/tape decks
GPS systems
Heater/A.C. controls
power mirrors
rotten little bastards in the back seat
"Airbag" in the passenger seat

The driver is being distracted.The source of the distraction is irrelevant.Ban them all or ban NONE of them.

[TXBLU]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

You nailed it:"BEHAVIOR".And as anyone short of a imbecile knows,you can't legislate behavior.

Cell phone are no different than:

Ipods
cd/tape decks
GPS systems
Heater/A.C. controls
power mirrors
rotten little bastards in the back seat
"Airbag" in the passenger seat

The driver is being distracted.The source of the distraction is irrelevant.Ban them all or ban NONE of them.

I guess turn signals, wipers, and headlights should be banned, too, by that logic (or lack thereof).

Cell phone use has been shown to as bad, or worse, of a driving impaiment as being drunk. A lot of GPS systems have limited use while the vehicle is in motion. iPods I don't know about, but are probably nearly as bad as cell phones. As for the rest on your list, not even close.

Cell phone use while driving should be banned in all 50 states. Gotta make a call? Pull over.

Gotta change your rotten little bastard's diaper? Pull over.

Don't get along with your wife? Seek counseling.

Can't chew gum and walk at the same time? Maybe you shouldn't be driving, let alone adjusting your AC or changing the radio station...

Eric

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by TXBLU

I guess turn signals, wipers, and headlights should be banned, too, by that logic (or lack thereof).

Cell phone use has been shown to as bad, or worse, of a driving impaiment as being drunk. A lot of GPS systems have limited use while the vehicle is in motion. iPods I don't know about, but are probably nearly as bad as cell phones. As for the rest on your list, not even close.

Cell phone use while driving should be banned in all 50 states. Gotta make a call? Pull over.

Gotta change your rotten little bastard's diaper? Pull over.

Don't get along with your wife? Seek counseling.

Can't chew gum and walk at the same time? Maybe you shouldn't be driving, let alone adjusting your AC or changing the radio station...

Eric

You're wrong.

[Bill Bess]

I suspect this thread is a positive thing, Cobrabill got it correct...Behavior is the key. In a prior life I taught a defensive driving course where I worked, as a rersult our accident rates declined as long as we insisted on the training and continually reinforced it. It was rewarding to see employees begin to demonstrate their abilities and knowledge to use these new skills. The problem was that so many thought it was a waste of time and contiuned to drive like "Goofy" in that old Walt Disney cartoon "Motor Mania".
If folks spent as much time trying to be a skilled driver as they do messing around with all the new electronic toy crap...we would all be safer and live longer.
I can relate to BlackMamba...riding your bike in Burbank is scary...no bike lanes except on Chandler blvd.

[Black Mamba]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

You nailed it:"BEHAVIOR".And as anyone short of a imbecile knows,you can't legislate behavior.

Cell phone are no different than:

Ipods
cd/tape decks
GPS systems
Heater/A.C. controls
power mirrors
rotten little bastards in the back seat
"Airbag" in the passenger seat

The driver is being distracted.The source of the distraction is irrelevant.Ban them all or ban NONE of them.

Plenty of evidence out there about all the distractions you've listed but I (and most will) beg to differ on a cell phone in the hands of a driver being no different then the other items on your list. Plus you need to think about time involvement with a cell phone - blocking your vision on one side - verses things like adjusting the radio, mirrors, etc.

From the web, study done in 2005:

Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

The reason is now obvious:

Behind the Statistics
Are Cell Phones Really So Dangerous?

Drivers talking on cell phones were 18 percent slower to react to brake lights, the new study found. In a minor bright note, they also kept a 12 percent greater following distance. But they also took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. That frustrates everyone.

"Once drivers on cell phones hit the brakes, it takes them longer to get back into the normal flow of traffic," Strayer said. "The net result is they are impeding the overall flow of traffic."

Strayer and his colleagues have been down this road before. In 2001, they found that even hands-free cell phone use distracted drivers. In 2003 they revealed a reason: Drivers look but don't see, because they're distracted by the conversation. The scientists also found previously that chatty motorists are less adept than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.

Separate research last year at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign supported the conclusion that hands-free cell phone use causes driver distraction.

"With younger adults, everything got worse," said Arthur Kramer, who led the Illinois study. "Both young adults and older adults tended to show deficits in performance. They made more errors in detecting important changes and they took longer to react to the changes."

The impaired reactions involved seconds, not just fractions of a second, so stopping distances increased by car-lengths.