Question for LEOs

[RoyGBiv]

"Or"..... One of those pesky little two letter words....

Thanks for posting the citation. I was too lazy to look it up.. TGIF.

[gigag04]

It's called the move-over law. I think intent is to vacate the lane closest, but is written to allow either option.

From experience it is very easy to enforce with a buddy and two LIDAR units. Being able to testify speed and distance locks these cases in.

[talltex]

It's called the move-over law. I think intent is to vacate the lane closest, but is written to allow either option.

From experience it is very easy to enforce with a buddy and two LIDAR units. Being able to testify speed and distance locks these cases in.

So, are you saying you and another LEO have gone out and set up a situation where you parked a cruiser with lights on on the side of the road...not an actual traffic stop...for no reason other than writing tickets to people who failed to yield the lane or slow down enough? Surely, I am misunderstanding what you wrote, and that's not what you meant ?

[mojo84]

I've seen a LEO pull up and stop in front of a person that is in the process of getting a ticket so he can watch for drivers that do not slow down or move over. I believe this is a law that should be strictly enforced.

[G.A. Heath]

It's called the move-over law. I think intent is to vacate the lane closest, but is written to allow either option.

From experience it is very easy to enforce with a buddy and two LIDAR units. Being able to testify speed and distance locks these cases in.

So, are you saying you and another LEO have gone out and set up a situation where you parked a cruiser with lights on on the side of the road...not an actual traffic stop...for no reason other than writing tickets to people who failed to yield the lane or slow down enough? Surely, I am misunderstanding what you wrote, and that's not what you meant ?

Most departments in my area will have a second unit check on the first, often the second unit won't go far after checking on the first so it would be a simple matter for that second unit to enforce this in the manner described by gigag04. To be honest I have never seen them enforce this law, but that could change easily enough.

[gigag04]

Alot of times two traffic units will go hit the highway - one makes a stop - the other sets up just down the road and uses a LIDAR to confirm the speed of vehicles he/she estimates are exceeding 50mph.

I've never seen a "fake" stop set up.

[talltex]

Alot of times two traffic units will go hit the highway - one makes a stop - the other sets up just down the road and uses a LIDAR to confirm the speed of vehicles he/she estimates are exceeding 50mph.

I've never seen a "fake" stop set up.

I'm not sure how I feel about that... sure sounds like the second unit is just there to raise extra revenue. Ya'll must have alot more personnel available than we used to, if you can justify having a second patrol unit go out to "check on" the first one on a routine traffic stop....G.A. says most departments in his area have a second unit go check on the first one. Just surprises me...but at least it isnt 2 units going out JUST to set up a situation where tickets could be written, which was what I thought gigag meant.

[stealthfightrf17]

On of the little towns by me it is common to see 2-3 officers pull someone over. They are a very small town with to many borad officers.

[Jumping Frog]

I'm not sure how I feel about that... sure sounds like the second unit is just there to raise extra revenue.

If you assume the purpose of the law is to save police officers from getting hit while making a traffic stop, then enforcing the law is a matter of saving lives more than just revenue.

Of course, if you assume the purpose of the law was simply to generate revenue, then they are still accomplishing the legislature's purpose.

[C-dub]

This isn't a stupid law, but where does it stop? I hadn't realized that tow truck drivers were now included. They are not emergency workers or first responders. How many regular folks being hit or killed will it take before the law is expanded to any vehicle on the side of the road?

I don't believe the two officer setup on a stop is a money grab. I see it as more of an awareness issue. I think that many people are either not aware of the law or just don't care.

[talltex]

This isn't a stupid law, but where does it stop? I hadn't realized that tow truck drivers were now included. They are not emergency workers or first responders. How many regular folks being hit or killed will it take before the law is expanded to any vehicle on the side of the road?

I don't believe the two officer setup on a stop is a money grab. I see it as more of an awareness issue. I think that many people are either not aware of the law or just don't care.

I'm 55years old now...for as long as I've been driving, MOST people have always slowed down and moved over when coming up on ANYONE stopped on the side of the road...instinctively, without any statute being on the books....whether its an LEO or just someone with a flat tire. When the legislature passes a bill, making it a legal requirement, in certain situations only, it allows the state to punish (via monetary penalties) those who fail to comply. When laws are passed which provide monetary penalties only, where none existed before, revenue is always part of the equation. I agree there is an inherent risk involved anytime anyone is pulled over on the side of the road, but are LEO/Emergency vehicles/Tow trucks...with flashing strobe lights alerting motorists...at more, or less risk than the general public? Again, I'm surprised by the fact that it's evidently common practice for some departments to send a second unit out on a traffic stop, which in gigag's scenario then uses the opportunity to write tickets. They are not handing out warnings...he says having the second unit " being able to testify speed and distance locks these cases in". Sounds like revenue is part of the deal, regardless of how you justify the law. As Jumping Frog said...still accomplishing the legislative purpose.

[speedsix]

...having had friends broken up and killed by passing motorists who looked and steered into them...stone sober, even...I'm all for the law...it shows respect and concern for that one who's out there risking his health and life to help another...be it cop or wrecker driver...BOTH deserve the consideration...and I disagree that ANY motivation towards raising revenue had anything to do with it...do some research on how many cops we've lost in the 5 years prior to its passing...it's NOT all about money, guys...some folks at the legislature just plain love the police...

[gigag04]

Somewhere on DPS website there is a map showing all the trooper memorials. Many of those are from being hit on a stop.

[talltex]

...having had friends broken up and killed by passing motorists who looked and steered into them...stone sober, even...I'm all for the law...it shows respect and concern for that one who's out there risking his health and life to help another...be it cop or wrecker driver...BOTH deserve the consideration...and I disagree that ANY motivation towards raising revenue had anything to do with it...do some research on how many cops we've lost in the 5 years prior to its passing...it's NOT all about money, guys...some folks at the legislature just plain love the police...

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying they aren't at risk. Sure those protected by this law deserve respect and concern...so does any individual stopping to help somebody change a flat...as C-Dub said "where do you draw the line?" As for Speed's example of some sociopath who INTENTIONALLY steers into someone...that's either murder or attempted murder...passing a misdemeanor fine only law has no effect on someone like that...no more than telling an armed robber he's not allowed to carry a gun. Maybe it's just because I've lived all my life out in the country, where we know every LEO in the county on a first name basis, that affects my thinking on this. People around here already do this and always have. I never see anyone fail to pull over for an emergency vehicle coming toward them, or stop for a funeral procession either...both of which also deserve respect and concern.

As for the revenue issue, I will quote a relative who was a long time state senator..."there's never been a piece of legislation passed that wasn't going to make somebody alot of money...it may be a good bill that will accomplish something needed, but it WILL make alot of money for someone...otherwise it would have never been written." I know that sounds cynical, but the man knows of what he speaks...he served 6 terms then became a lobbyist. How do ya'll feel about the seatbelt law for adult drivers? There's an example of a law that generates hundreds of millions of $$$ for the city/county/state AND the insurance industry. It was passed when the speed limit was raised from 55, because the insurance industry knew they were going to take a big hit when the number of drivers paying higher premiums for having several speeding tickets on their record started dropping. The insurance lobby presented that bill to the legislature and pushed it through. The legislators were given the revenue projections along with their PAC money and presented it to the public as "being for your own good...it will save lives". Sounds good and undoubtedly it has...but passing any law "for our own good" is a slippery slope. Not wearing a seatbelt puts no one at risk but that adult driver...it does not make him a better or safer driver or protect anyone else on the road. I had a State Trooper stop me here in town for not having my seatbelt on a few years ago during the annual "click it or ticket" campaign...he was from the neighboring county and explained that they swapped out with our local troopers so they didn't have to write seatbelt tickets to the folks they had to live with. I told him I understood the situation, then he commented that it was really to protect the public. I said that if the state was REALLY concerned about my safety, why did they require me to wear a seatbelt inside a 4500lb vehicle with airbags, yet allow me to ride a motorcycle with no restraint and no helmet? He didn't know what to say...I said "officer, its because motorcycles represent less than 2% of all vehicles on the road and that means it's not economically important to the insurance industry". If the state has the right to say you must wear a seatbelt for your own good, they can also say you cannot eat bacon..it's bad for you. I know that sounds utterly ridiculous, but the legal concept is exactly the same. If you don't think it could happen, you need look no further than New York, where Mayor Bloomberg is currently trying to pass ordinances limiting the size of soft drinks you can buy to 16 oz...."for your own good".

[speedsix]

...I didn't say anything remotely like this: "

As for Speed's example of some sociopath who INTENTIONALLY steers into someone...that's either murder or attempted murder..."

...and I don't see how anyone who READ what I DID say can legitimately derive that from what I said....