Move Over Law

Can your son prove that he was unable to move into the other lane, or that he slowed down to 20 mph less than the posted speed limit? Another thing to consider is your son's driving record. Does he have a good record, or a spotless record? In some traffic court cases, you can request traffic school, pay the court costs, and keep the incident off your record. For a fine of $754, it would be worth consulting with a traffic lawyer. Generally, your local bar association will supply you will contact information about lawyers who specialize in a particular legal matter. Often these lawyers will give you a no cost 30 minute consultation. Always explore your legal options before paying a fine, signing a document, or admitting guilt to a legal matter.

Let me begin by saying a $674 fine is totally absurd.
In NY State the fine can be UP TO $275 with two points against the drivers license for first time offenders The below article claims some NY Police Departments in NYS are abusing the law and using it as a revenue generator similar to speed traps.

http://magnelllaw.blogspot.com/2011/04/police-abusing-new-mo...

Clarification:

"Here's a story from an article:"

The fines are simply becomming outrageous.

I wonder what it would take to get a lawyer to file a class action suit & making what they're doing SO obvious that no politician could stand behind such a thing.

Fred

It came about because many LEO's are getting killed/sideswiped by passing idiots not slowing or moving over. Unlike Traffic Cams, this is a safety issue, not revenue enhancing ploy!!!

I think this law is an excellent law. Many times I was on the side of I90 towing a car with semis and cars whizzing by mere inches away at 65-80 MPH..

I completely support the move over law in every state.
That being said, I think the fine your son incurred is utter rubbish.

A fire fighter was killed by a drunk driver while he was assisting with a crash on the Dan Ryan Expressway.
Scott's Law -- The "Move Over" Law
•proceed with due caution
•change lanes if possible
•reduce your speed

A person in violation of Scott's Law commits a business offense punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.
Scott's Law also provides that it is a factor in aggravation if the person committed the offense while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or intoxicating compounds. If this is the case, a person's driving privileges shall be:
•Suspended for 90 days to one year if the violation results in damage to the property of another person
•180 days to 2 years if the violation results in injury to another person;
•2 years if the violation results in the death of another person.

too excessive, unless you hit their car (that would be too close). I would think this might be a good story for the local evening TV news shows. With a good reporter asking the police dept and judicial why the fine is so high and what and why the law is all about.

In Ohio: Most traffic tickets are minor misdemeanors which, in Ohio, face a maximum possible penalty of a $150 fine plus court costs. These included speeding, ACDA, failure to control, traffic light violations, equipment violations, and other minor traffic violations. Most of these offenses are subject to set fine schedules determined by the court which allow you to simply plead guilty and pay the ticket usually for $90 to $130.

..I support the law, but I think the fine is just a shade high.

I also have no problem with the law, I'm aware of it and abide by it. Idiots will always be idiots in their driving habits, no fine will change that.
Would it not be better to initiate a Public Awareness camapaign to show just how dangerous the officers job is, similar to Texting and Driving?

The thing I don't like about the law (aside from the fact that here in New Mexico very few people seem to obey it) is the distinction made for law enforcement or emergency vehicles. It seems to me that a simple civilian vehicle stopped by the road is good cause to move over if able--save when the vehicle is far off the road.

Yes, I know, derelict cars are an issue, but still, I don't agree with the distinction drawn by these laws.

And I do try to move over, and often succeed, but won't incur risk breaking into traffic to do it. And here in New Mexico folks are not likely to cut you merging slack just because you have your blinker on and there is something beside the road.

As others have stated, there is an a solid officer safety rationale for this law. A very similar statute was passed in Florida. Citizens are charged with knowledge of every statute/law that has been passed. Since most of these laws generally have the same effective date each year, it's relatively simple to find them.

In AZ, the law was updated in 2011 to include all vehicles:

http://adotblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/move-over-law-now-cover...

http://adotblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/move-over-az-every-vehi...

The one link suggests that about 40 states now include all vehicles.

While I must admit that seems a bit stiff, I bet he won't be making that mistake again and he will tell every one he knows too.

The web site quoted at the bottom of the first post indicates that is is law in ALL states except Hawaii and D.C.

News to me. And many others here, it appears.

Might be wise to spend some Public Service Message tax dollars on this, rather than some of the other drivel I've seen. Assuming it's about safety first.

I know it was the law in Florida before I escaped there 8 years ago. I knew it was the law here in Arizona to move over for all vehicles too but didn't realize it was in effect for 2 years now. Been doing it since before I was driving commercially, so its just habit now.

That fine and penalty is way too high though.

for the interesting article. Sounds pretty extreme.

That link seems broken for me at the moment. Regarding New Mexico, all references I've been able to find for the relevant section, which is 66-7-332, use the term "authorized emergency vehicle" to define the coverage. I think we have not yet joined AZ on the right side of this issue.

The most recent reference I could find set the NM fine for this violation at $50.00.

All vehicles, all states..
Seems prudent and logical to me even if it isn't law for non-emergency vehicles in some states.

Done. Will put it into practice going forward.

I am totally in favour of this law and the associated fines. Too many people are risking their lives for others.

If you're in Canada, pay attention. Most provinces have similar laws. In Alberta, move over a lane or slow to 60 KPH if adjacent to the emergency vehicle.

Am I reading this right? The New York State "Move Over Law" only applies to highways, parkways, etc and NOT to normal one lane or two lane roads.

Seems logical to me. I'm not pulling across double lines that's for sure! (Well, depends I guess). Slow down and give max room, yes..

I think the point is to expect activity around a pulled over vehicle and take the appropriate caution. Just (not) noticing a pulled over vehicle seems to be a common problem!

..edit- I suppose I'm more aware of parked vehicle issues since I'm a motorcyclist. Always have pulled far away from vehicles on the side of the road, but on a scooter you can still be in the same lane and give enough room for a person (or two+), an opening door(s), or a squid that pulls out without looking. Been there, seen all of that.

I, along with almost everyone else who has posted it seems, have no major problem with the law or it's intent. This is something I have always done anytime I see any vehicle at the side of the road just out of common courtesy.
However from the amount of the fine and the way the other Officer was waiting there, possibly just to see if he could catch someone doing this, shows that their primary concern in this case was likely the revenue, not safety. This fine is way too high unless there was another issue involved such as reckless driving, hitting or nearly hitting someone which could send it into another arena such as vehicular assault.

I doubt that the law will prevent a fatality along the highway. No one will hit an emergency worker whether they change lanes or not. If they are distracted, drunk or have their vision obstructed the matter of a law would make no difference. Workers should not be in an active traffic lane, although I have seen just that on two recent occasions.
Good law anyway... Just sayin