Received most bullshit ticket in my life on the way back from WSOP

[jsearles22]

Most people know ignorance of the law is no excuse. The fact that there are people who are unaware of a law concerning road-side safety is justification for ticketing. If the cars in question were two families, one with a flat, common sense says slow the fuck down and or get over if possible. No law should be required but because there are so many clueless, distracted or unaware drivers it has been made law. Again it's simple common sense but some people feel they are polite, careful and above the law. Please fight this ticket

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" sounds good until you really think about it.

With new traffic laws which didn't exist when most drivers were licensed and tested, mass ignorance of those laws is a HUGE problem if they are being enforced. You need to know the laws in order to follow them properly.

If 71% of drivers don't know about these laws, then the government failed big time in properly publicizing them, and there should not be moving violations handed out for such a thing.

Also, as I have stated multiple times, this law is stupid because it will only be followed by careful/alert drivers, whereas it will not at all affect the ones who are likely to actually hit the officiers on the side of the road (drunks, distracted drivers, sleepy drivers, etc). Anyone aware enough to move over is also alert enough to not veer into the officers on the shoulder while driving.

This is why law enforcement departments are refusing to release any stats as to whether or not this law has helped bring down such accidents. That's because it likely hasn't, thus being useless other than a money grab, which is how it's being ]used today.

It helps to use your brain and critically think about the usefulness of new traffic laws, rather than just knee-jerk claiming it's a great idea because it sounds good on the surface.

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/

[limitles]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" sounds good until you really think about it.

With new traffic laws which didn't exist when most drivers were licensed and tested, mass ignorance of those laws is a HUGE problem if they are being enforced. You need to know the laws in order to follow them properly.

If 71% of drivers don't know about these laws, then the government failed big time in properly publicizing them, and there should not be moving violations handed out for such a thing.

Also, as I have stated multiple times, this law is stupid because it will only be followed by careful/alert drivers, whereas it will not at all affect the ones who are likely to actually hit the officiers on the side of the road (drunks, distracted drivers, sleepy drivers, etc). Anyone aware enough to move over is also alert enough to not veer into the officers on the shoulder while driving.

This is why law enforcement departments are refusing to release any stats as to whether or not this law has helped bring down such accidents. That's because it likely hasn't, thus being useless other than a money grab, which is how it's being ]used today.

It helps to use your brain and critically think about the usefulness of new traffic laws, rather than just knee-jerk claiming it's a great idea because it sounds good on the surface.

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/

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.

[jsearles22]

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/

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.

There’s literally charts and graphs and historic data you petulant drunk

[limitles]

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.

There’s literally charts and graphs and historic data you petulant drunk

No need for name calling but I guess that's all you have. All the charts and graphs you mention
lead to the same conclusion. Either pull over if a lane exits or slow down.

Druff did neither

[MumblesBadly]

The cop told me the requirement was either 10mph or 20mph below the limit (he rattled off a lot of stuff, so it was confusing, nor did I bother to ask for clarification, because I was only 1mph below the limit).

The real point here is that clearly not enough people are aware that this is an actual law which will result in a moving violation.

Until the public is well enough educated, they should only be handing out warnings for it -- or at least logged warnings (where they will ticket you if caught doing it again).

Even if this is a great law (which I don't believe it is, for reasons already explained), they shouldn't be ticketing until most people are aware of it.

I believe it's not being publicized on purpose, so this way they can run stings on it for revenue.

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.

[RS_]

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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

That's exactly the defense I was planning upon using.

But I'm guessing this is going to end up a reduction and a change to a parking violation, which while better than a $198 moving violation, still sucks.

[nunbeater]

fuck I haven't seen Druff argue this hard against anything besides a woman saying she got raped

[MumblesBadly]

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.

That's exactly the defense I was planning upon using.

But I'm guessing this is going to end up a reduction and a change to a parking violation, which while better than a $198 moving violation, still sucks.

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.

[Dan Druff]

That's exactly the defense I was planning upon using.

But I'm guessing this is going to end up a reduction and a change to a parking violation, which while better than a $198 moving violation, still sucks.

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.

[zealanddonk]

fuck I haven't seen Druff argue this hard against anything besides a woman saying she got raped

Police trying to rape some jew gold out of Druff.

[1marley1]

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!

[Dan Druff]

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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[David USF]

WOW, I could have authored this thread. I received the same bullshit ticket last week. I was headed home about 5 pm right near Vandenberg Air Force Bass. Up ahead I saw 3 base cops pulled over on the shoulder. I was driving about 10 miles under the speed limit. I drove by and next thing I know I see lights behind me. I pull over and the officer says I was belting pulled over for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. I told her that was bullshit as I pulled over immediately. Then she explained it was for not moving to my left when I passed them on the shoulder. I’ve never heard that in over 30 years of driving.

I’m gonna fight it. Total crap. I talked to a cop friend and he said he has
Never written that ticket and never will because it’s petty bullshit.

I think a lot of naysayers in this thread are confusing what is most polite/safe versus what is ticket-worthy.

I'm not arguing the claim that it's probably a good idea to move away from a traffic stop on the side of the road.

I just think it's bullshit to be ticketing cars for this which are not speeding and otherwise driving safely.

You don't get it. It's not because of drivers acting unsafely. It's also about the action on the shoulder.

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.

It's indeed BS, but that's not always the case. Good luck proving it.

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.

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.

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.

[David USF]

Not sure if your friends are trolling you or not, but I honestly thought everybody knew this. The law here is you have to move over or slow down to 25 mph. I assume that's everywhere. So technically you were going 44 mph over the speed limit and should have been arrested, but mb the cop was feeling lenient.

Also, it's a little immature to set your autopilot to the sex number.

25 mph? Maybe on city streets, but definitely not on highways.

[Dan Druff]

I think a lot of naysayers in this thread are confusing what is most polite/safe versus what is ticket-worthy.

I'm not arguing the claim that it's probably a good idea to move away from a traffic stop on the side of the road.

I just think it's bullshit to be ticketing cars for this which are not speeding and otherwise driving safely.

You don't get it. It's not because of drivers acting unsafely. It's also about the action on the shoulder.

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 think it's even more bullshit to station multiple cars on the shoulder to specifically nail people for this as part of a trap.

It's indeed BS, but that's not always the case. Good luck proving it.

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.

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.

Just pay the damn ticket and go to traffic school, and move on.

If 71% of drivers don't know about it, then they've done a poor job publicizing it.

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.

[David USF]

The cop told me the requirement was either 10mph or 20mph below the limit (he rattled off a lot of stuff, so it was confusing, nor did I bother to ask for clarification, because I was only 1mph below the limit).

The real point here is that clearly not enough people are aware that this is an actual law which will result in a moving violation.

Until the public is well enough educated, they should only be handing out warnings for it -- or at least logged warnings (where they will ticket you if caught doing it again).

Even if this is a great law (which I don't believe it is, for reasons already explained), they shouldn't be ticketing until most people are aware of it.

I believe it's not being publicized on purpose, so this way they can run stings on it for revenue.

Like I previously wrote, there are many other laws that are not "well publicized". Should warnings be given for those, too? Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Simple as that.

[David USF]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" sounds good until you really think about it.

With new traffic laws which didn't exist when most drivers were licensed and tested, mass ignorance of those laws is a HUGE problem if they are being enforced. You need to know the laws in order to follow them properly.

If 71% of drivers don't know about these laws, then the government failed big time in properly publicizing them, and there should not be moving violations handed out for such a thing.

Also, as I have stated multiple times, this law is stupid because it will only be followed by careful/alert drivers, whereas it will not at all affect the ones who are likely to actually hit the officiers on the side of the road (drunks, distracted drivers, sleepy drivers, etc). Anyone aware enough to move over is also alert enough to not veer into the officers on the shoulder while driving.

This is why law enforcement departments are refusing to release any stats as to whether or not this law has helped bring down such accidents. That's because it likely hasn't, thus being useless other than a money grab, which is how it's being used today.

It helps to use your brain and critically think about the usefulness of new traffic laws, rather than just knee-jerk claiming it's a great idea because it sounds good on the surface.

Sorry, but I said this is a common sense situation. You driving by at the normal speed is not the safest move. You may think so but you're not the one on the side of the road.
You cannot predict what a person on the side of the road might do and therefore the safest move is to slow down significantly or pull away as much as possible.... Guilty. Hand over you license and registration

And let's hear you say this to a judge...."Your honour, I am a busy polite fellow who works hard everyday.

My "wife" RIP goes on and on about how I could be doing more. So I snapped and struck her with a violent blow. I did not intend to kill her nor did I realize there was a law against such action".