Do you know about the 'Move Over' traffic law?
willshak
I did not know there was such a law (there isn't in NYS, Maryland, D.C.,
or Hawaii).
Apparently, many motorists (~71 %.) in the states that have the law do
not know it.
http://www.moveoveramerica.com/
In some, or maybe all, the states that have it include other than for
law enforcement safety.
Check your state law for specifics.
I do these things as a matter of courtesy and safety without any law
telling me to do so.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
HEMI-Powered
...
> I saw a news item about this on the TV news this morning.
> I did not know there was such a law (there isn't in NYS,
> Maryland, D.C., or Hawaii).
> Apparently, many motorists (~71 %.) in the states that have the
> law do not know it.
> http://www.moveoveramerica.com/
> In some, or maybe all, the states that have it include other
> than for law enforcement safety.
> Check your state law for specifics.
> I do these things as a matter of courtesy and safety without any
> law telling me to do so.
>
Staying to the right except when passing has long been the rule of
the road. Trucks are also supposed to be in the right most lane
except when passing or when traffic prevents it. What I see so
prevalent in today's drivers are those who blissfully float along
in the left most lane, at or under the speed limit, often side-by-
side with another vehicle. This leads other drivers to attempt to
get around the obstruction by cutting lanes and lane weaving,both
of which are dangers. And, it would seem that many/most of these
left lane hogs are completely oblivious to what they are doing
because they're on a cell phone or fussing with something in the
car.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
willshak
Yeah, but...
that has nothing to do with the Move Over law.
Rich
> I saw a news item about this on the TV news this morning.
> I did not know there was such a law (there isn't in NYS, Maryland, D.C.,
> or Hawaii).
> Apparently, many motorists (~71 %.) in the states that have the law do
> not know it.
> http://www.moveoveramerica.com/
> In some, or maybe all, the states that have it include other than for
> law enforcement safety.
> Check your state law for specifics.
> I do these things as a matter of courtesy and safety without any law
> telling me to do so.
>
That law is also in affect in Rhode Island.
Amazingly, not many people know it though.
Rich
Roadsign
wrote:
>I saw a news item about this on the TV news this morning.
>I did not know there was such a law (there isn't in NYS, Maryland, D.C.,
>or Hawaii).
>Apparently, many motorists (~71 %.) in the states that have the law do
>not know it.
>http://www.moveoveramerica.com/
>In some, or maybe all, the states that have it include other than for
>law enforcement safety.
>Check your state law for specifics.
>I do these things as a matter of courtesy and safety without any law
>telling me to do so.
The law does exist in Ohio but most do not know it. Recently a law was
passed that if your windshield wipers are on, your headlights must
also be on. Most people are completely unaware of that one too.
Tony
willshak
displayed on the 'Welcome to New York' signs at all roadway entrances to
NYS.
willshak
> Roadsign wrote the following:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:10:07 -0500, willshak <will...@00hvc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I saw a news item about this on the TV news this morning.
>>> I did not know there was such a law (there isn't in NYS, Maryland,
>>> D.C., or Hawaii).
>>> Apparently, many motorists (~71 %.) in the states that have the law
>>> do not know it.
>>> http://www.moveoveramerica.com/
>>> In some, or maybe all, the states that have it include other than
>>> for law enforcement safety.
>>> Check your state law for specifics.
>>> I do these things as a matter of courtesy and safety without any law
>>> telling me to do so.
>>>
>>
>> The law does exist in Ohio but most do not know it. Recently a law was
>> passed that if your windshield wipers are on, your headlights must
>> also be on. Most people are completely unaware of that one too.
>> Tony
>>
> That law has been in effect in NYS for decades. It is prominently
> displayed on the 'Welcome to New York' signs at all roadway entrances
> to NYS.
I'm sorry. It used to be prominently displayed on the 'Welcome to New
York' signs, but had been removed since most states already had the law.
Roadsign
wrote:
>Roadsign wrote the following:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:10:07 -0500, willshak <will...@00hvc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I saw a news item about this on the TV news this morning.
>>> I did not know there was such a law (there isn't in NYS, Maryland, D.C.,
>>> or Hawaii).
>>> Apparently, many motorists (~71 %.) in the states that have the law do
>>> not know it.
>>> http://www.moveoveramerica.com/
>>> In some, or maybe all, the states that have it include other than for
>>> law enforcement safety.
>>> Check your state law for specifics.
>>> I do these things as a matter of courtesy and safety without any law
>>> telling me to do so.
>>>
>>
>> The law does exist in Ohio but most do not know it. Recently a law was
>> passed that if your windshield wipers are on, your headlights must
>> also be on. Most people are completely unaware of that one too.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>That law has been in effect in NYS for decades. It is prominently
>displayed on the 'Welcome to New York' signs at all roadway entrances to
>NYS.
Well, us hicks in Ohio didn't think of it until now. We may have paved
roads by next year, but only the big roads.
The big argument over the law is "Are runnning lights considered
headlights?". IMHO, the trouble with running lights is that they do
not turn on the tailights.
The problem with the "pull over" law is what does pull over mean? To
the right is usually correct, but not always.
Plague Boy
Well, I'm curious: what, exactly, are "running lights"? Just the
marker lights? My understanding is that what people call "running
lights" should be called "parking lights". The only time I can
think of where it would be useful to drive with the
parking/running lights on and the headlights off is in heavy fog.
I am one of 116 people in the US that checks all the lights on
their car on a regular (~monthly) basis. I don't recall every
noticing that the taillights don't come on unless the headlights
are on.
Or are we discussing "Daytime running lights" (DTRs) in the
newer cars, that are on all the time?
When I drove for a living, I had my headlights on whenever I was
moving. I soon discovered that a large white van, with
headlights, can still be invisible to a portion of the driving
population. OTOH, I never had an accident, so maybe it did help.
Gratuitous peeve: people that park the car (standing) but leave
the headlights on. It takes a moment to realize that the are not
coming and the right-of-way is clear, by which time it may not
be. The unneeded glare also obscures cars that *are* moving but
don't have their lights on, pedestrians, etc.
--
PB
"I suspect you're an arrogant little pissant who grew up in the
Red Bull generation." - CJW
Clive
<plagu...@earthlink.net> writes
> Or are we discussing "Daytime running lights" (DTRs) in the
>newer cars, that are on all the time?
years, but is also a requirement of many EU countries.
--
Clive
willshak
> Roadsign wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:11:12 -0500, willshak <will...@00hvc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> The big argument over the law is "Are runnning lights considered
>> headlights?". IMHO, the trouble with running lights is that they do
>> not turn on the tailights.
>
> Well, I'm curious: what, exactly, are "running lights"? Just the
> marker lights? My understanding is that what people call "running
> lights" should be called "parking lights". The only time I can think
> of where it would be useful to drive with the parking/running lights
> on and the headlights off is in heavy fog.
>
> I am one of 116 people in the US that checks all the lights on
> their car on a regular (~monthly) basis. I don't recall every noticing
> that the taillights don't come on unless the headlights are on.
>
> Or are we discussing "Daytime running lights" (DTRs) in the newer
> cars, that are on all the time?
My 97 pickup has driving lights that I installed. They go on with the
ignition and there is a dashboard switch that disables them for all times.
They are 55 watt halogen lights under my front bumper, but they are
angled down a little bit so as not to shine them in the faces of
oncoming cars.
> When I drove for a living, I had my headlights on whenever I was
> moving. I soon discovered that a large white van, with headlights, can
> still be invisible to a portion of the driving population. OTOH, I
> never had an accident, so maybe it did help.
>
> Gratuitous peeve: people that park the car (standing) but leave
> the headlights on. It takes a moment to realize that the are not
> coming and the right-of-way is clear, by which time it may not be. The
> unneeded glare also obscures cars that *are* moving but don't have
> their lights on, pedestrians, etc.
Even worse are parked cars on the wrong side of the road with headlights
on - a NYS 'left side to curb parking violation' even with no lights on.
D.
"willshak" <will...@00hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qK2dnXbnbrKypOXW...@supernews.com...
willshak
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:55:59 -0500, willshak <will...@00hvc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> My 97 pickup has driving lights that I installed. They go on with the
>> ignition and there is a dashboard switch that disables them for all times.
>> They are 55 watt halogen lights under my front bumper, but they are
>> angled down a little bit so as not to shine them in the faces of
>> oncoming cars.
>>
>
> their driving lights on all the time? Driving lights are not supposed
> to be for around town - they are for the open road with no on-coming
> traffic. These vehicles are already the highest vehicles on the road
> and have plenty of light projection and visibility with their regular
> lights and they are already blinding drivers in on-coming cars. Yet
> they still drive around all the time with their friggin driving lights
> on.
They are installed for safety, not for me to see better, but for other
dopes to see me coming. That's why they are angled down. They don't even
light up oncoming vehicles or vehicles I am following..
My fault for calling them 'driving lights', but thats what they are sold
as, and they are on when I am driving, but they are being used as
aftermarket daytime running lights. ..
Roadsign
>On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:15:10 -0500, Roadsign
><docnospa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The law does exist in Ohio but most do not know it. Recently a law was
>>passed that if your windshield wipers are on, your headlights must
>>also be on. Most people are completely unaware of that one too.
>>
>>Tony
>
>Typical legislative moves: pass laws designed to improve public safety
>but don't tell the public so that the law actually has little effect
>except to cause a few more tickets to be written.
>
>In MA, they passed a law requiring people to clean the snow off their
>cars and trucks. It seems the snow flying off cars, and especially
>semi trucks, has caused many accidents as the ice and snow blankets
>cars behind them. Another "common sense" law like "move over"
>legislation, but common sense isn't common. So, they pass a law - but
>again they haven't told anyone, so new drivers even know about it, and
>safety is not improved.
It gets even worse when the police don't know the law.
Last fall I was on a 4 lane road, in the rightmost lane, at a traffic
signal. This road crossed another four lane road. When the road
crossing mine got the red signal, my road got the left turn signal.
This meant that traffic on the other side of the intersection could
turn left as well as the side I was on. The guy in front of me was
going to make a right turn (as I was) and right turn on red was
permitted. The guy turning left smashes into the guy ahead of me in
the rightmost lane of the crossroad.
The cops show up and I waited as a witness. (I knew the guy ahead of
me as he lives two doors down from me) The cop tickets me neighbor?
Was the cop right?
Tony
Anyolmouse
"Roadsign" <docnospa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ckpnn5dupv2ckno4n...@4ax.com...
Everywhere I have lived, the law states that if there is more than one
lane, the left turner is supposed to turn into the inside lane and the
right turner should turn into the curbside lane. If the person that has
turned left wants to move over to the curbside lane he may do so when
that lane becomes clear. Vice versa for the person in the right lane.
This information should be in your states drivers manual and should be
on the drivers test. Looks to me like the LEO gave the ticket to the
wrong person.
--
We have met the enemy and he is us-- Pogo
Anyolmouse
Roadsign
Absolutely! I "mentioned" to the cop that my neighbor was in the
right, but he still ticketed him. It went to court and turned out
right, but what a waste of time. So it isn't just "the people" who
don't know the driving laws, it also includes the boys in blue that
enforce them.
E. Meyer
"Roadsign" <docnospa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It depends which state you are in. In Texas if you have the light (i.e. The
guy with the left turn signal) you can legally turn into whichever lane you
please and if you are making a right turn on red after stopping, you can
only legally turn from the curb lane into the curb lane and only without
interfering with any other traffic. Here the ticket would properly go to
the right-turn-on-red guy.
Jim Yanik
news:C7A167F6.17961%e.p....@verizon.net:
logically,the one with the green signal has right-of-way over those stopped
at a red,even a right-on-red.
Right-on-red requires that the driver go only when it's not interfering
with thru-traffic. That includes green left-turn arrows.
there are plenty of places where you HAVE to left-turn into the rightmost
lane in order to turn into an entrance that's near the intersection.
Like most gas stations located on corners.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Anyolmouse
"E. Meyer" <e.p....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:C7A167F6.17961%e.p....@verizon.net...
I just looked in the Texas drivers manual and it states when making a
left turn into a road with two or more lanes the driver is to use the
lane that will cause less interference. I could not find where it said
that the left turning driver shall use the center most lane. ( This use
to appear in the manual) It does state in the manual that after coming
to a complete stop a right turn may be made but the driver must stay in
the curb lane. (I.E., No wide turns) So, it looks like even in Texas
the left turn driver should not have caused interference with the guy
making the right turn.
In general, it looks like the driving rules have been dumbed down along
with our schools. <G> Here in Amarillo the traffic laws aren't enforced
much anyway. Except for speeding and the red light cameras. Stop signs
are ignored for the most part. Especially when making right turns. Yield
signs? They might as well be taken down and melted down for scrap.
E. Meyer
<Anyol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. The guy turning right on red
is not allowed to proceed at all until & unless he can doing it without
interfering with traffic. I don't see a scenario where the guy making the
right turn on red does not get the ticket.
> In general, it looks like the driving rules have been dumbed down along
> with our schools. <G> Here in Amarillo the traffic laws aren't enforced
> much anyway. Except for speeding and the red light cameras. Stop signs
> are ignored for the most part. Especially when making right turns. Yield
> signs? They might as well be taken down and melted down for scrap.
Same here (Plano/Dallas). Red light cameras are popping up everywhere
though.
Jim Yanik
Logically,the one with the -green signal- has right-of-way over those
Anyolmouse
I just looked in the 2008 on line Texas drivers manual and it states
when making a
left turn into a road with two or more lanes the driver is to use the
lane that will cause less interference. I could not find where it said
that the left turning driver shall use the center most lane. ( This use
to appear in the manual) It does state in the manual that after coming
to a complete stop a right turn may be made but the driver must stay in
the curb lane. (I.E., No wide turns) So, it looks like even in Texas
the left turn driver should not have caused interference with the guy
making the right turn.
In general, it looks like the driving rules have been dumbed down along
with our schools. <G> Here in Amarillo the traffic laws aren't enforced
much anyway. Except for speeding and the red light cameras. Stop signs
are ignored for the most part. Especially when making right turns. Yield
signs? They might as well be taken down and melted for scrap.
E Z Peaces
> I saw a news item about this on the TV news this morning.
> I did not know there was such a law (there isn't in NYS, Maryland, D.C.,
> or Hawaii).
> Apparently, many motorists (~71 %.) in the states that have the law do
> not know it.
> http://www.moveoveramerica.com/
> In some, or maybe all, the states that have it include other than for
> law enforcement safety.
> Check your state law for specifics.
> I do these things as a matter of courtesy and safety without any law
> telling me to do so.
>
I've always believed in moving over if anybody is parked on the right,
but I don't like the law.
Why give police special status? Of 750,000 police in America, about 10
per year are killed beside the road in the line of duty, so the danger
is small. Wouldn't changing lanes be more important for the safety of a
woman with children who has car trouble, a tow-truck operator hooking
up, or somebody changing a tire, for example?
When a cop is killed this way, it seems to be because a car moved well
to the right of the travel lane due to inattention or loss of control.
Would making millions of other drivers use the left lane eliminate this?
Won't this sudden lane-changing increase the chance that a car will be
knocked out of control and hit the cop?
If a car in the left lane prevents a big rig from moving left, a cop may
be unable to see the car and unwilling to believe the trucker.
Max Magister
friend? After the many scandals with Canada's national police force I think
most Canadians now have an entirely different opinion of that gang. At
least they no longer investigate themselves for wrongdoings. Having said
that, I wouldn't be a policeman for the world, not with society as it is
today.
Max
"me" <noe...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:icctn5di5480i3rgj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:22:30 -0500, E Z Peaces <ca...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Why give police special status?
>
> Because it's politically expedient. The Legislators look out for the
> cops and the cops then vote for them (or just don't campaign against
> them for not being pro-cop enough).
>