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

[Dan Druff]

Do you not understand that there are tons of chickenshit "violations" the cops could pull you over for if they wanted?

Should every minor "violation" be aggressively enforced now with an expensive moving violation ticket?

BTW, if you think about it, this law is stupid anyway, and isn't likely to make much of a safety difference.

Someone who is both aware of this law and consciously wiling to move out of the right lane is probably driving safely, anyway, and is very unlikely to swerve into an officer on the side of the road.

The people who run into side-of-the-road people and vehicles are ones who are either drunk, tired, or not paying attention. These people wouldn't be aware enough to move out of the right lane anyway, even if they knew about the law.

It's like those stupid red light cameras. The accidents due to running red lights are almost always caused by those driving recklessly in the first place (drunk, etc), and those people wouldn't be dissuaded by the presence of cameras.

Just more bullshit to write more tickets in the false name of safety.

Let's start here.....Do you realize that you driving up in the wrong lane at an average speed is a problem

The officers, tow truck drivers, etc. do not know how brilliant you and that you just cashed in a stupid fuck fest.

They see you as an incoming missile with no knowledge of highway laws past 1980

I don't understand what you're asking here.

I wasn't going to hit anyone because I was driving safely and wasn't going to swerve out of my lane for no reason.

Those who would swerve out of their lane wouldn't be aware enough to get out of the right lane anyway.

Do you suddenly swerve out of your lane when driving and paying attention to the road, as I was?

Because in 31 years of driving, that's never happened to me.

[Hockey Guy]

Druff's opinions are facts again people.

Nothing to see here.

[jsearles22]

Oh look at this... a website did an article about Move Over Laws basically stating what I have been saying this whole time:

- Most people don't know the laws exist (71% according to a poll done, linked from the article)

- Laws are unlikely to actually affect whether police officers are hurt or killed on the side of the road, and they refuse to release data showing any improvement since these laws were passed

- Traps are everywhere just like the one which got me, where the goal is to raise revenue, not increase safety

https://www.motorists.org/blog/updat...ove-over-laws/


But yeah, it's all about safety and I should be ashamed of myself.

Nice fact twisting. The 71% fact was used to illustrate that drivers NEED educated. Here is the entire excerpt:

According to a national poll by Mason Dixon Polling & Research, sponsored by the National Safety Commission:
71 percent of Americans have not heard of “Move Over” laws;
86 percent support enacting “Move Over” laws in all 50 states; and
90 percent believe traffic stops and roadside emergencies are dangerous for law enforcement and first responders.

Is anyone surprised Druff is on the opposite side of the 86-90% of people who responded to the poll he’s trying to use to make a point?

[limitles]

Let's start here.....Do you realize that you driving up in the wrong lane at an average speed is a problem

The officers, tow truck drivers, etc. do not know how brilliant you and that you just cashed in a stupid fuck fest.

They see you as an incoming missile with no knowledge of highway laws past 1980

I don't understand what you're asking here.

I wasn't going to hit anyone because I was driving safely and wasn't going to swerve out of my lane for no reason.

Those who would swerve out of their lane wouldn't be aware enough to get out of the right lane anyway.

Do you suddenly swerve out of your lane when driving and paying attention to the road, as I was?

Because in 31 years of driving, that's never happened to me.

No one can tell that the oncoming car is populated by the Norman Chad made famous Todd Witteles.

We would give you a pass but a guy on the highway which you brushed off wouldn't feel the same

[jsearles22]

So you don’t normally drive in the right lane, yet on a 3+ lane highway you dove all the way to right to avoid the big bad scary fast cars instead of the completely defenseless parked car on the right shoulder?

Yes, I don't normally drive in the right lane, was going fast enough to where driving there wouldn't be warranted, but then slowed down to 69 when I saw cops on the side, and moved to the right lane to avoid impeding traffic and creating a hazard.

Why is that hard to understand?

If you slowed down on the highway to be one of the slower cars all of a sudden, would you still hang out in the left or center lanes just to be an asshole?

Maybe you would.

The asshole is the guy who intentionally drove his car closer to a defenseless person likely standing outside of a car even though the law and overwhelming public sentiment dictate he should do otherwise.

[Hockey Guy]

I was going to post a long explanation about how Druff did the absolute minimum, he slowed down to the fastest he was supposed to be driving on that stretch of road under "normal" conditions, yet he's a victim but have decided Druff won't listen & believe he's right anyway so fuck it.

I was going to type a long post about how druff is completely wrong, but as we all know druff is never wrong even when he's wrong so really nothing would be accomplished and what a waste of time typing that out would be.


Cliffs: Druff. Not wrong since 1972.

Yeah.

[Dan Druff]

Yes, I don't normally drive in the right lane, was going fast enough to where driving there wouldn't be warranted, but then slowed down to 69 when I saw cops on the side, and moved to the right lane to avoid impeding traffic and creating a hazard.

Why is that hard to understand?

If you slowed down on the highway to be one of the slower cars all of a sudden, would you still hang out in the left or center lanes just to be an asshole?

Maybe you would.

The asshole is the guy who intentionally drove his car closer to a defenseless person likely standing outside of a car even though the law and overwhelming public sentiment dictate he should do otherwise.

Ah, so I see you're abandoning your entire first two points because I proved everything you said to be wrong.

LOL

There was no defenseless person on the outside of the car facing the highway.

NHP policy is to stand on the passenger side door, for this exact reason.

Even the officer pulling me over admitted that to me.

[Dan Druff]

Oh look at this... a website did an article about Move Over Laws basically stating what I have been saying this whole time:

- Most people don't know the laws exist (71% according to a poll done, linked from the article)

- Laws are unlikely to actually affect whether police officers are hurt or killed on the side of the road, and they refuse to release data showing any improvement since these laws were passed

- Traps are everywhere just like the one which got me, where the goal is to raise revenue, not increase safety

https://www.motorists.org/blog/updat...ove-over-laws/


But yeah, it's all about safety and I should be ashamed of myself.

Nice fact twisting. The 71% fact was used to illustrate that drivers NEED educated. Here is the entire excerpt:

According to a national poll by Mason Dixon Polling & Research, sponsored by the National Safety Commission:
71 percent of Americans have not heard of “Move Over” laws;
86 percent support enacting “Move Over” laws in all 50 states; and
90 percent believe traffic stops and roadside emergencies are dangerous for law enforcement and first responders.

Is anyone surprised Druff is on the opposite side of the 86-90% of people who responded to the poll he’s trying to use to make a point?

If 71% of drivers "need education" about the law's existence, then that should be game, set, and match regarding my original point.

They shouldn't be ticketing for a relatively new law which has been poorly publicized to the point where only 29% of drivers know it exists.

The other two stats are stupid because the public knee-jerk reacts to things like this without really thinking about it.

Pollster: "Hey, cops get hit all the time when parked or standing on the side of the road, do you support a law making it required to move over when you see one on the side?"

Respondent: "Ummm.... yeah? I guess that makes sense!"

Only when you stop and think of the reality -- that people who are going to swerve out of the right lane are the same ones who would ignore that law anyway -- is when you realize that the law makes no sense.

Indeed, according to that same article, law enforcement refuses to release any stats showing whether the passage of these laws has improved the situation. Why do you think that is?

And LOL at the last stat, where 90% think that it's "dangerous" for law enforcement to be stopped on the side of a busy highway. Is anyone disputing that?

[Sanlmar]

Nobody has any idea what will occur during a traffic stop. Anything is possible when dealing with the public.

Cops getting rear ended when in their vehicle is a staple of the evening news.

If you are changing a tire, for instance, a police car is likely to pull over and offer a shield. A motorist can’t assume anything when seeing flashing lights.

If nobody is in the right lane less attention needs to be given to oncoming traffic. The texters and the drunks.

When someone IS in the right lane that is a bad sign and attention can be given under current rules.


I am still just surprised not all parts of the country aren’t with the program. That’s the news in this thread for me. It’s like stopping at a crosswalk in the East.

[limitles]

Nobody has any idea what will occur during a traffic stop. Anything is possible when dealing with the public.

Cops getting rear ended when in their vehicle is a staple of the evening news.

If you are changing a tire, for instance, a police car is likely to pull over and offer a shield. A motorist can’t assume anything when seeing flashing lights.

If nobody is in the left lane less attention needs to be given to oncoming traffic. The texters and the drunks.

When someone IS in the right lane that is a bad sign and attention can be given under current rules.


I am still just surprised not all parts of the country aren’t with the program. That’s the news in this thread for me. It’s like stopping at a crosswalk in the East.

Forget about it...This guy owns a website and he cashed in a fuck who's cares fest.
Don't try telling him what's what

[Dan Druff]

Nobody has any idea what will occur during a traffic stop. Anything is possible when dealing with the public.

Cops getting rear ended when in their vehicle is a staple of the evening news.

If you are changing a tire, for instance, a police car is likely to pull over and offer a shield.

If nobody is in the left lane less attention needs to be given to oncoming traffic. The texters and the drunks.

When someone IS in the right lane that is a bad sign and attention can be given under current rules.


I am still just surprised not all parts of the country aren’t with the program. That’s the news in this thread for me. It’s like stopping at a crosswalk in the East.

Here's the honest truth about my situation.

When I slowed to 69 about 0.5 miles up the road when I saw the flashing lights ahead, people were still speeding by.

I felt it was safest for everyone for me get into the right lane.

I knew that I could control my vehicle just fine, and wasn't going to swerve and hit the cops or anyone else. I was paying full attention, and not distracted by anything.

I felt that going by at 69mph in the right lane while driving safely and carefully was the safest option, as compared to moving into the center or left lane at 69mph, and possibly surprising a faster vehicle coming from behind.

I still believe that.

I also didn't know about this law, or obviously I wouldn't have done this. But 71% of people apparently don't, so I can't feel too bad.

Bottom line: This ticket was bullshit, and was a clear trap.

[Sanlmar]

Nobody has any idea what will occur during a traffic stop. Anything is possible when dealing with the public.

Cops getting rear ended when in their vehicle is a staple of the evening news.

If you are changing a tire, for instance, a police car is likely to pull over and offer a shield. A motorist can’t assume anything when seeing flashing lights.

If nobody is in the left lane less attention needs to be given to oncoming traffic. The texters and the drunks.

When someone IS in the right lane that is a bad sign and attention can be given under current rules.


I am still just surprised not all parts of the country aren’t with the program. That’s the news in this thread for me. It’s like stopping at a crosswalk in the East.

Forget about it...This guy owns a website and he cashed in a fuck who's cares fest.
Don't try telling him what's what

This game can go 12 games 5th set. Don’t count him out because of age.

[MumblesBadly]

Druff, consider yourself lucky that you didn’t get pulled over by a cop like the one featured in this video teport.



But in all seriousness...

If you can show that the highway didn’t have proper signage mentioining the “move over” law, you might have a decent case to get the ticket dismissed.

[JimmyG_415]

Nope, doesn't change things at all.

I'm not a big druff fan, obv, but I'm 100 % w/him here.

I know this was in NEV, but 99 %+ of my driving has been in CA.
By googling it, I see the 'move over rule' was added to CA, in 2007, but this is the 1st I've heard of it.

I don't see a post (granted I don't look at them all) that states how much slower than the speed limit he is supposed to drive, and I can't find it in the CA DMZ site,
but per this attachment...." slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions."
That sounds like a winnable case if he was below the speed limit.

If Druff fights this, I'd bet money he doesn't pay in the end.

http://www.mcftoa.org/wp-content/upl...pdate-2015.pdf

If this is a joke of some kind, I don't get it.

This happened around 3:30pm.

Of course it's a joke.

If it happened at dusk or in the dark there'd be zero questions by anyone that you'd be totally in the wrong. I doubt you'd even dispute that or that this thread would exist if that was the case.

It would be funny in a stupid kinda way if it did though.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[limitles]

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.

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

[sonatine]

druff destroys pfa proud boy bootlickers with FACTS and LOGIC

[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.

Deiff, the reason I mentioned the issue of signage is because it is not reasonable to expect people from out of state to know what the traffic laws of another state. That’s why you usually see signage on the highway after just entering a state that mentions state-specific laws. Just say them the earlier today for some of the states I traveled through today. If Nevada doesn’t have signs mentioning “Move over or slow down for emergency vehicles” (or something similar) just as you cross into Nevada on the highway, and also leaving major metropolitan areas with major airports, you could reasonably argue that Nevada was negligent in mentioning that law for out-of-state drivers, and as such at worst the LEO should have issued you a warning.

[Dan Druff]

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.

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.

[limitles]

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.

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".