"Move Over" Law

[bcjack]

Any opinions????

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=6&id=27856

[bcjack]

The last try was SB 800 by Senator Joe Simitian

[Welpe]

I personally make a point to move over when it is safe to do so, or at least reduce my speed some. In a lot of crashes, I wouldn't be surprised if rubber necking played a role. As a side note, it seems there is less rubbernecking occurring when only the 4-way flashers are activated. Of course that is only a passer by's observation.

[FuelInjection09]

I hope that bill passes someday. If it's working fine in other states, especially in metropolitan areas, then why wouldn't it function well in California? The only thing that bothers me about becoming a CHP officer is having to stand on the side on a busy freeway with people flying past you at 80mph. Just the part about putting my life in other driver's hands troubles me.

[retchp]

It looks like the jist of any law would be that a motorist would have to move over into another available lane if they "see" an emergency vehicle on the shoulder with lights flashing. Most drivers with any brains would do that anyway and do so now. The key word there being "brains". Under any law like this, Mr. Stupid would offer the defense that he didn't "see" the unit before he drove into it's back seat!
Of course the officer would still be injured or dead and the law would not have enabled Mr. Stupid to "see" any better.
We already have too many laws in my opinion.
In my experience the best thing about working an accident on a crowded freeway was that sooner or later traffic grinds to a halt and you can literally walk through it with impunity. The dangerous times are light traffic and high speeds. Those folks don't even see you until they are past you then they say, "What was that tan thing standing in the road":shock:
In short, its another idea that sounds good on paper but won't work in real world applications, particularly on metropolitan freeways.
Also, just a thought...you are the officer on scene when Mr. Stupid blows by you without moving over. What exactly are you going to do about it since you are tied up with two wrecked cars and an injured child???

[14596]

In my experience, the only group of drivers that continually do this on a consistent basis are "truckers".

Very appreciative of this!

[Mac]

Also, just a thought...you are the officer on scene when Mr. Stupid blows by you without moving over. What exactly are you going to do about it since you are tied up with two wrecked cars and an injured child???
That was my first thought also - it's situations such as those where we ourselves say "there's never a cop around when you need one!". :lol: It's one of those laws that would work really neat if you had two or three spare units to sit behind a scene and chase down the scofflaws, but it never works that way. A well-intentioned law and one that wouldn't hurt to have on the books just in hopes that at least a FEW people would slow down, put their cell phones down and maybe pay attention to their driving for a change.

Oh....and ditto to what 14596 said - it IS greatly appreciated when the truckers move over and give us some room, and they do pretty consistently do it.

[DESERT RAT]

I may be cynical, but I think it is another useless law that has great intentions. I can't even get them to pull over when Ive got "them" lit up, how can I expect them to pull to another lane when I got "someone else" lit up. Oh and I wont even go into the foreigners who see the red/blue lights and stop in the middle of the road! What we really need is a electromagnetic bubble burst that decinegrates vehicles that fail to yield to emergency vehicles....Heeeheheheh.....Just kidding! Kind of!

[Tom]

I got a funny move over story..........with props to the truckers who ARE VERY GOOD about it.....

It was a dark and stormy night W/B I-580 west of San Ramon Valley Boulevard....for those unfamiliar I'm pretty sure its 6 lanes here (sorry CRS).....after completing a possible DUI stop my partner inadverdantly left the PAS device on the roof of the patrol car. We pulled onto the freeway, accelerating hard (have to get in the flow of traffic!!!! at 3 am) and we hear a clunk-clunk. Darn...that was the.........PAS Device! We pulled over to the side and began an emergency reverse on the right hand shoulder. Coming upon the area we see the PAS device still in its protective box - no worse for the wear. It was out in the #5 lane. Not any traffic on the freeway-except-ONE big rig in the #6 coming our way.

Guess what happened next-Yup-move over and SMASH. It was one of the funniest things I have ever seen. You couldn't line it up any better. It was PAS flakes after that direct hit.

Tom

[Fish'nChip]

Ok....that article is simply WRONG! The only thing that makes any sense is the second to last sentence.

"But this is a common sense issue," she said. "If you see a highway patrol car on the side of the road, slow down and move over.

I could think of a lot of laws we could could put out there that would save at least one life but we can't go law happy for every situation. There are some issues that are much more pressing that I know for a fact would save more lives (not just officers and tow truck drivers). How about fatigued drivers? distracted drivers? How about making the punishment of DUI actually punishment?

Most of the officers that have been killed recently in traffic collisions dealt with a DUI driver or a vehicle that was out of control (22350, 22107 etc). This law would have changed nothing in these situations.

The Governor made the right decision on this one. As far as I know the Department opposed this bill. Did anyone read it? Here is an excerpt:

A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a stationary authorized emergency
vehicle that is displaying emergency lights, or a stationary tow
truck that is displaying flashing amber warning lights, shall
approach with due caution and, before passing in a lane adjacent to
the authorized emergency vehicle or tow truck, absent any other
direction by a peace officer, proceed to do one of the following:
(1) Make a lane change in an available lane not adjacent to the
authorized emergency vehicle or tow truck with due regard for safety
and traffic conditions, if practicable and not prohibited by law.
(2) If the maneuver described in paragraph (1) would be unsafe or
impracticable, slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe
for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic
conditions.

What a mess!!!!!! :shock:

First off this only applies to freeways. So officers on expressways or other streets aren't important?

What if the emergency vehicle is in the center lane of a three lane freeway...where does the motorist go? Yeah it says if it's impractical they don't have to change lanes. So now we would require motorists to make decision on practicality while travelling 100+ feet per second. Realistcally, the average driver would be so worried about getting a ticket that they would make a more unsafe movement just to avoid getting caught.

That is just the beginning of the problems. Trust me, the Department analyzed the heck out of this one! It's funny because it has more information in the exceptions than in the body of the law. If a driver is in a purple car, at night but they have blue jeans on then they don't have to move out of the lane blah blah blah!!

Oh yeah....we already have a law that covers this situation and it's funny because they incorporated it into this section its called 22350 VC

Okay, I am getting off the soapbox now! :smile:

FnC

[Mick]

I agree with the CHP.

The CHP is opposed to this bill and their argument is hard to dispute. This
was taken from the Assembly Floor Analyses located on www.leginfo.ca.gov:


CHP, who is in opposition to this bill, states this
bill would "create a more hazardous environment for emergency
personnel, tow truck operators, and the motoring public."
Furthermore, CHP contends that this bill will foster more
collisions because drivers will be more focused on changing
lanes than concentrating on obstacles and the roadway
conditions. CHP suggests driving at a safe speed while
maintaining the lane unless directed by a peace officer is a
more desirable course of action.

[Mick]

It's been a long time since I last posted on this subject. I checked out
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_800_vt_20051007.html
and located the final outcome of SB 800:

BILL NUMBER: SB 800
VETOED DATE: 10/07/2005

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 800 without my signature.

This bill is unnecessary and could result in the unintended
consequences of additional roadway hazards. It requires motorists
driving on a freeway to slow down or move over one lane of traffic
upon the approach of stopped emergency vehicles or tow trucks.

Current law already requires motorists to slow to a speed that is
safe for driving conditions. Furthermore, law enforcement experts
caution that the requirement to shift lanes could cause additional
emergency conditions for the driver changing lanes as well as other
motorists on the road. Specifically, the California Highway Patrol
is concerned that this bills mandate could create chaotic and
dangerous situations at crime and collision scenes on the states
freeways.

For these reasons I cannot support this measure.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

[HazMat]

I prefer to see the following.

Any driver, prior to starting his or her vehicle, shall ensure that their head is completely removed from their butt.

[Mac]

I still remember our VC instructor at the Academy saying that the whole code could be reduced to one section - "Thou shalt not commit a bad drive". It pretty much covers it all. :smile:

[SB 405]

And some people here think a cell phone law would be difficult to enforce. :rolleyes: A move over law?....please.

[SB 405]

Well since this law goes into effect in just a few hours I thought I'd dig it up. Something that worries me about this law is for the most part the slower vehicles are already in the far right lane so now you have a situation of slower vehicles moving into the path of faster moving vehicles......comments anyone?

[FDandH]

I don't like the idea of people making a last second lane change as they approach the rear of my patrol vehicle. Recipe for disaster.

[10-7]

Job justification for law makers is all this is, just like the cell phone law they are planning. They come up with idiotic, unenforceable laws, making it look like they give a rats keester about anything out here, and call it a year. Not that I'm bitter or anything...just tired of the flow from above.

[malcolmjmuller2004]

After Seeing all the wrecks when I lived in the S.F. Bay Area, I always slow down and move over.

[kube4x4]

When I was deployed to New Orleans for Katrina, we would have to make the trip on I-10 b/t Baton Rouge and N.O. every day. Any time we came upon a LSP Trooper, they had all their rear lights on (all blue and attention getting). Everyone (and I mean everyone) slowed and merged into the left lane, out of the troopers way. I was very impressed. I asked a trooper why everyone moves to left and that's how I found out about the move over law. A lot of states in the south and east have it. And I thought those truckers who were moving over when I was on a stop were being nice! Too bad the law in CA was written just for freeways. I think a 4-lane divided highway should also be included.

[WannaBeaChippie]

I believe it's common sense, I dunno...theres just a part of my conscience that isn't comfortable driving past a person on the side of ANY road. Unless I'm moving 2 MPH, and I know they see me. People in California drive to fast, and they think they should all be first, the slow lane is usually used for speeders and going 70 MPH out here is just to slow. Don't forget the road rage...the law is a good law...but it will be hard to enforce with the heavy footers here in California, and people don't care because they don't understand how much danger lies behind speed! They are all focused on the seconds that lie behind getting to their destination.

[dw]

I believe it's common sense,
No comment. :shock:

[bcjack]

What the hell kind of sense does this make????

21809. (a) A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a
stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergency
lights, or a stationary tow truck that is displaying flashing amber
warning lights, shall approach with due caution and, before passing
in a lane immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or
tow truck, absent any other direction by a peace officer, proceed to
do one of the following:
(1) Make a lane change into an available lane not immediately
adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or tow truck with due
regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not
prohibited by law.
(2) If the maneuver described in paragraph (1) would be unsafe or
impracticable, slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe
for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic
conditions.
(b) A violation of subdivision (a) is an infraction, punishable by
a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50).
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2010, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2010, deletes or extends
that date.

[gabriel]

What the hell kind of sense does this make????

21809. (a) A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a
stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergency
lights, or a stationary tow truck that is displaying flashing amber
warning lights, shall approach with due caution and, before passing
in a lane immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or
tow truck, absent any other direction by a peace officer, proceed to
do one of the following:
(1) Make a lane change into an available lane not immediately
adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or tow truck with due
regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not
prohibited by law.
(2) If the maneuver described in paragraph (1) would be unsafe or
impracticable, slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe
for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic
conditions.
(b) A violation of subdivision (a) is an infraction, punishable by
a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50).
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2010, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2010, deletes or extends
that date.

Apparently that's how much the life of an emergency worker is worth. I agree that the law itself may not do much, however the intention of the law along with the publication of such intention should be enough for the people to understand what is going on and how to avoid it. My .02 cents.

[SB 405]

I have not seen one driver do this as of today.

[Tom]

I've always noticed that MOST truck drivers do it....even before the law.

[dw]

I've always noticed that MOST truck drivers do it....even before the law.I will agree 100% on that one.

[redhead]

I have been pondering this for the last few days and been watching CHP cars on the side of the road with violators (assumption at best) and noticed (on ride alongs as well) that rear emergency lights are not on, other then standard equipment emergency flashers, which DO NOT fall to this definition of this VC.

21809. (a) A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a
stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergencylights,

All that being said, I don't want to go into policy and if I am touching on it, please just edit my post, but how could you enforce that when most CHP cars do not use overheads or rear window when on the shoulder with a violator.


All that being said, I have always done my best to give more room to officers and all other personal (CalTrans et al) while driving.

[dw]

All that being said, I don't want to go into policy and if I am touching on it, please just edit my post, but how could you enforce that when most CHP cars do not use overheads or rear window when on the shoulder with a violator. Based on your observations and as you touched on, it is not possible to enforce this law if emergency lights are not displayed. (Which, in all fairness, I agree with -- much of the motoring public does not recognize a police vehicle when passing it at 90 miles per hour. They also drive scanning 10 feet in the lane ahead of them... We must do something to signify at a distance, "emergency vehicle -- move over!" Lights serve this purpose well.)

As to our use of lights on emergency vehicles... That's going to get the standard, "sorry, but said policies are confidential and not for public disclosure" comment you all love to hear. :doh: