I’m willing to admit I’m wrong. I’ve done some quick research and it appears most believe these laws aren’t reducing accidents. Well intentioned but maybe not effective
https://www.google.com/amp/s/minneso...ads-safer/amp/
I’m willing to admit I’m wrong. I’ve done some quick research and it appears most believe these laws aren’t reducing accidents. Well intentioned but maybe not effective
https://www.google.com/amp/s/minneso...ads-safer/amp/
It's hilarious that we as a society think everyone can be a dr, a lawyer, an engineer. Some people are just fucking stupid. Why can't we just accept that?
An opinion poll. You're going on an opinion poll? Well if that's the deciding factor then I suggest the best move under these conditions is to floor it and get past these traffic areas as fast as possible.....the longer you're there the greater chance of trouble. ok that's a joke but from the opinion poll
But critics say that despite its good intentions, the law hasn’t been proven to make the roads safer and that Minnesota’s statute should allow motorists the choice to slow down instead of moving over.
Last edited by limitles; 07-17-2019 at 04:45 PM.
Druff, I did some research on whether Nevada has highway signage on its “move over” law. I did so using Google Earth looking at the signage entering Nevada from California on I-15. Here’s what I found.
Overhead sat image showing I-15 and the Cali-Nev border.
Closer image with blue lines showing roads with Street View images.
Here’s the northbound view as you first approach the “Welcome to Nevada” sign by the side of the road. And up ahead is a large overhead electronic sign, but it’s blank. No message.
A little closer and there’s now a message showing on it. But can’t quite make it out from here.
Closer still. But still not sure what it says.
Let’s get closer...
Uhhh... Yer fucked. Pay the fine.
DMV handbook says to slow down but doesn’t say how much. Technically, 69 in a 70 should be fine, unless it says otherwise (which it doesn’t).
If you fight it, I’d go along the lines of, “I was in the middle lane and people were flying by so I moved to the right lane and then I didn’t have enough time to move to the left, which would have been very unsafe given the speed the other cars were going.”
You could also argue that above all, safety is the most important aspect of driving & road laws. You felt it was safest to be in the right lane due to the other cars going very fast. Even the cop agreed (or something along these lines) that you were being safe or whatever. The focus should be on that moving over would be less safe (not that staying in right lane is safe), forcing them to provide proof you could have moved over safely.
Mumbles, do you not realize that a temporary sign saying "Move Over or Slow Down for Stopped Emergency Vehicles" is not the same as "It's the law and you'll be ticketed for driving in the right lane if emergency vehicles are stopped on the side"?
One reads as a safety suggestion, the other is a hard law which is being enforced.
I'm surprised that you're seemingly supportive of revenue-based ticket traps, given that you're a truck driver and probably have to battle this shit all the time.
fuck I haven't seen Druff argue this hard against anything besides a woman saying she got raped
Druff, I while I loathe genuine speed traps, I don’t see this particular law as intended as a fine generator; LEOs and emergency workers put their lives on the line doing their job along the side of the highway. And there are too many idiots who barrel down the road oblivious to the risk they exacerbate by driving too close or too fast near parked emergency vehicles.
In any event, please ask the judge to allow you to record the court proceedings when you challenge this ticket there. The audio alone would be terrific to include in a radio show segment.
If this wasn't a trap, why were there 2 officers at the first traffic stop, with the second all ready to jump out and pull me over?
And why does that configuration exactly match the traps described in the article I posted?
I'm still waiting to understand how this particular law is going to reduce deaths of law enforcement officers on the side of the road. The only people "moving over" will be the careful, alert drivers -- exactly the ones who will NOT hit anyone when going by.
When faced with a difficult decision, ask yourself "What would Micon do?", then do the opposite.
PFA Rookie of the Year Awards
2012: The Templar (unknown)
2013: Jasep $5000+
2015: Micon's gofundme legal defense $3k begging for 100k:
2018: 4Dragons
2019: Dutch Boyd: Mike Postle
2020: Covid19
2021: SMIFlorida and some sort of shit coins for $50k
2022: BDubs leaks chums club info
2023: 22nd Feb 4th Dec Youtube channels removed
2024: Dustin Morgan wins Chrissy's $1000 contest
Highway signs are ‘suggestions’?
You can’t be serious.
This whole thread is a troll.
2nd cop shows up to support / backup the first cop. He provides an additional buffer for the distracted traffic cop and puts his car even closer to travel lanes. Then you come barreling down the right lane oblivious to traffic laws in place and enforced for a decade. Bullshit!
LOL at the cop "supporting" the first cop during a cell phone usage stop. (Seriously that's what it was! I found this out later.)
And LOL at the second cop being all ready to pull out and grab someone going by. What "buffer" was he providing? He was sitting in FRONT of the other cop doing the ticket writing, and that cop was on the PASSENGER side of the other vehicle pulled over.
I wasn't "barreling" down anything. I was going 1mph below the speed limit. The shoulder on the right was plenty wide. I wasn't veering out of my lane at all, nor was I distracted in any way.
Sorry that you lack the common sense to know an obvious traffic trap when you see one.
Sorry that you believe that this traffic law would do anything to save lives, when it's clear that the only people who follow this law are the alert/careful drivers -- the ones who would pose no danger anyway.
I'm sure the government loves sheep like you, though -- people who believe that traffic ticket traps are for safety purposes and aren't exploiting innocent drivers for extra local government revenue.
Mumbles, let's get back to you.
Who do you think this law is stopping from hitting officers on the side of the road?
Drunks? Someone driving drunk in the first place clearly isn't going to be thinking about safety of others or following the law.
Tired people? Someone who can barely keep his eyes open isn't going to be alert enough to remember to move over when he sees emergency vehicles on the side.
Distracted drivers? Someone texting up a storm while driving is barely alert enough to keep his car on the road, and won't think about moving out of the right lane.
This law is useless, hence the reason why after 12+ years of existing, they still can't show any data which shows the law has helped matters.
Did you read the article jsearles posted? https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/...e-roads-safer/
This article brings up some good points that the law may actually be creating more accidents than it prevents, as people feel the urgency to abruptly get out of the right lane, thus causing merging accidents at high speed which otherwise wouldn't have happened. It's the same reason why red light cameras do more harm than good. They don't decrease red-light-run accidents, yet they increase the number of rear-end accidents.
In more recent years, the law has been abused by law enforcement setting traps (like the one which got me) to at least derive revenue from it.
That's the unfortunate side effect of introducing new, well-intentioned laws which have a financial aspect to them. Eventually they get abused for revenue purposes. Look at what happened to civil forfeiture -- introduced in 1984 to thwart drug dealers, and has since evolved into legalized theft.
You don't get it. It's not because of drivers acting unsafely. It's also about the action on the shoulder.
It's indeed BS, but that's not always the case. Good luck proving it.I think it's even more bullshit to station multiple cars on the shoulder to specifically nail people for this as part of a trap.
How well publicized do you want it to be? There are many other laws that are not "well publicized". I heard about this law when it was passed in CA. It was also publicized at the start of the next year (under the news category of "new laws") and right before it went into effect. In addition to the electronic signs, there are also signs posted periodically on the side of the road stating "Move over or slow down for workers or emergency vehicles". This law also applies to other government vehicles such as Caltrans, not just police/fire dept.This is especially true because this was NOT a law when people like Hut and myself learned to drive, and the change in the law has not been very well publicized, apparently.
Just pay the damn ticket and go to traffic school, and move on.
Because other people may not know about it, whenever i'm in the right lane and can't move over, I turn on my hazard lights as I slow down to pass if traffic is close behind.
If one is driving safely in the right lane, they are not creating a danger for those on the shoulder. I have never once veered out of my lane on the highway and hit another car or anything else, in my 31 years of driving. NHP officers are NOT standing on the driver's side, as per department policy.
So, yes, it is about driving safely, and I was creating no danger for anyone.
I can't prove it, and in fact that's irrelevant in court. The court does not care if a driver is ensnared in a traffic trap -- only whether or not the ticket itself should have been written. However, I stated it's a trap because this is a really nasty way to raise revenue, given that 71% of drivers don't know about this law, and that it wasn't a law when most drivers got licensed.Originally Posted by David USF
If 71% of drivers don't know about it, then they've done a poor job publicizing it.Originally Posted by David USF
Take the seatbelt law, by contrast. I bet almost every driver knows about the law to wear your seatbelt, because that has always been well publicized. Even 25+ years after the law was passed, you still see "Click It or Ticket" signs on the highway reminding you that it's actually the law.
"Move Over for Stopped Emergency Vehicles" does not mean you'll get a ticket for not doing so, and it's not even clear what that exactly means, if you're not already aware of the law.
I don't want to waste traffic school on this. Beyond it being extra expense and a pain in the ass, this also uses up my "one time" for traffic school until early 2021.
As I said, the court involved is known for reductions and changing to parking violations, so that's probably what will happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)