There is a trend in a variety of states across the U.S. to crack down on those motorists who do not observe "Slow Down, Move Over" laws that require drivers to reduce their speed and clear the lane next to emergency responders and motorists who are parked on the shoulders of highways. (In fact, the dangers involved in emergency situations mean some first responders now have robots to assist them.) As of 2012, every state in the union had one of these laws, but they provided protection only to fire, police, and ambulance personnel. As time went on, a number of states expanded these laws to cover road crews, utility vehicles, and tow trucks. The latest development involves expanding these laws to cover anyone who finds themselves stuck by the side of the road.
According to the Emergency Responder Safety Institute, a total of 46 persons responding to a roadside emergency lost their lives while helping people by the roadside during 2024. This was in spite of the presence of Slow Down, Move Over laws being in effect in every single state.
A recent study put out by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has revealed that, because of both drivers' lack of compliance and poor understanding about these laws, more than one-third of all drivers do not slow down or move over when workers are present on the roadside. The other two-thirds either changed lanes or reduced their speed but did not do both. The study found that fewer motorists slowed down or moved over for tow trucks, while a higher percentage conformed with this behavior for police vehicles.
AAA, which offers many services you might have not known about, provided several recommendations for improving the public's awareness of and compliance with these Slow Down, Move Over laws that already exist in every state. It recommends that all 50 states' laws be standardized to give protection to all types of vehicles on the roadside and to any person who happens to end up there. It also suggests a public education campaign that starts with driver's ed. classes and reaches older drivers through public service announcements, navigation apps, and roadway signs.
Finally, AAA acknowledged that more emphasis needs to be put on enforcement of these Slow Down, Move Over laws, with an initial emphasis on making the driving public more aware of these laws. This should then provide the desired result of having more drivers observe them by slowing down and moving over, which will save many more lives of first responders, roadside workers, and anyone else who finds themselves stuck on the side of the road. (Just in case that person is you, you may want to check out these Milwaukee apparel items to keep safe.) And that's a good thing.
Slow Down, Move Over laws already exist in every U.S. state that you will ever drive through. So it only makes sense to be alert for any vehicles stopped by the roadside, slow down if you see any, and move over whenever possible to give them some space to do what they need to do and get home safely.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01, @04:30PM
Was expecting the story to be about left lane bandits -- drivers moving slowly in the left (fast) lane.
But this is a good story too. I know at least one person ticketed for not moving over for a stopped vehicle (cop car, I think). Their insurance cost went up for a few years after that ticket.
(Score: 3, Touché) by VLM on Sunday March 01, @05:51PM (11 children)
The stats for failure to comply are remarkably low, given that somewhat less than half the population believes government officials have no right to enforce the laws or have borders. There are no illegal highway lanes all are welcome in all lanes.
If for example, the Iowa highway patrol gets mad about a driver disobeying the law, first of all, what gives them the right to say Iowa has any borders at all, and secondly, what gives them the right to think they can enforce law if the person being enforced upon doesn't like it? If they don't like a law, they shouldn't have to follow the law.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Sunday March 01, @06:31PM (2 children)
I'll assume you're being (somewhat) sarcastic. I get it. The problem, as I see it, is these kinds of laws are far too vague, but also far too generalized (one size fits all), but sometimes too specific.
In my state, as many, there's a law that says cars need to give 4 feet of clearance when passing a bicycle.
A) Is there a measuring device on cars? Who can judge 4 feet accurately? Can a cop, who thinks you're too close to the bicycle?
B) What if the bicycle is in the middle of a lane? What if bicycle is weaving? Or just decides to veer to the left as you're passing, causing the distance to be less than 4 feet? In other words, you'd have been 4 feet safe but bicycle changes the scenario midway?
C) What about a car is suddenly coming the other way? No time nor distance (road width) to keep that 4+ foot distance.
Point is, "slow down": how much?
"Move over": again, how much?
And when, in what scenario?
A few days ago I was behind a car who was a bit overly cautious. 2-lane semi-rural road. Hills, turns, etc. An ambulance was coming the other way, lights on but no siren, no high-speed. Car in front of me slams on his brakes and moves over (no shoulder, just mud). Was that necessary? Ambulance had clear lane, we had clear lane, our travel had zero impact on ambulance. Again, is it still necessary?
For all of these reasons and many more I have a dash camera.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01, @08:07PM (1 child)
> give 4 feet of clearance when passing a bicycle.
> A) Is there a measuring device on cars? Who can judge 4 feet accurately?
I knew when I was grazed by the side mirror of a car, while I was on the shoulder side of the white "fog line". That was much less than 4 feet!
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday March 04, @01:43AM
I have a few nice bicycles, but haven't ridden in a few years. I miss riding. I never ride on the streets. I would if there were bike lanes, but I live in an older suburban area and there's no room nor budget for shoulders. I know bikes have a right to use roads, but I sure wouldn't. Plenty of nice trails and other places to ride near me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dr Spin on Sunday March 01, @07:14PM (5 children)
When I learned to drive, I lived in Cambridge, UK, within 1m of the lab where the atom was first split. While learning to drive, I was taught "your vehicle expands one inch for each 10 MPH you drive due to Heisenberg's uncertainly principle. If driving in Europe, it expands 1cm each side for each 1kph".
When I argued, my instructor explained "Whether it is correct physics is not the point - your driving examiner's understanding of quantum mechanics is probably not as good as yours, but his understanding of what bad driving looks like is certainly better than yours".
Since then, my own research suggests that this does not apply to cyclists. Cyclists are not solid objects but a giant probability cloud - you can hit them even if it appears that there is more than 1m clearance between the two of you. Some of the may, in fact, be an "improbability cloud".
Cyclists often do not even know what planet they are on! (In my part of London, they are prone to riding, wearing dark clothes, with no lights, the wrong way up one-way streets after midnight (when street lights are off) - completely undeterred by the fact that the penalty of this offence is death).
Unlike in USA, the UK does not have the right to remain insane.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01, @08:26PM
Like ninjas, you never see them coming. Some say they don't exist.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday March 01, @08:35PM (3 children)
They don't even bother stopping at stop signs or red lights around here. Also, despite it being illegal, they ride on the sidewalk all the time and occasionally run over pedestrians. They also don't think jaywalking laws apply to them.
In their defense, most of them are some variation of homeless people who lost their license for alcohol and drug abuse; so expecting cyclists to behave on the roads is unlikely if the only reason they're cyclists is they can't follow traffic laws.
In a way kids are safer because you expect them to act like kids.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02, @04:50PM (2 children)
> They don't even bother stopping at stop signs or red lights
There's one thing about cycling you may have not noticed? The point of view of the cyclist is only a foot or two (half meter) behind the front of the bicycle, and is unrestricted left and right. Compare to your eye point 6 feet (2 meters) or more behind the front of your car, with partially blocked field of view by A (and possibly B) pillars that interrupt the view.
Not making excuses for ignoring stop signs and lights, only saying that when cyclists do this, they likely have a better view of traffic, or the lack thereof. I know that I do. I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist, and driver.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02, @08:43PM (1 child)
And? Still doesn't give you the right to just ignore traffic signals meant to keep large masses from coming into contact with each other or your soft, squishy body.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dr Spin on Tuesday March 03, @12:02PM
If the driver cannot see you, one mistake BY YOU, and YOU are dead. He (or she) maybe, has a slight bump on his/her wing.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01, @08:16PM
> If they don't like a law, they shouldn't have to follow the law.
By now we know that there are plenty of entitled rich people that believe this, and get away with it all the time. Some may need to hire a lawyer or a lobbyist for their pardon. The mistake is being poor.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday March 02, @12:18AM
The only issue I personally have with it is that they didn't mount any sort of meaningful campaign when the law was changed to get the word out, but it was so vitally important to the safety of the emergency workers on the side of the road that it basically can't be reduced or eliminated so long as it was a valid ticket. Which is it? Is it so important that it shouldn't be reducible or is it so unimportant that there doesn't need to be any sort of public outreach?
The whole thing is a bit of a moot point as around here by the time you see the lights, you're likely already right on top of them and can't necessarily safely slow down. There's also often times a lot of broken down cars on the side of the road waiting to be towed. Which may be part of why the stats are as low as they are. Around here if you have the time and space to react properly, then you're much less likely to need to.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Sunday March 01, @06:41PM (1 child)
"Slow Down, Move Over"
One of the things appear to be that people panic as soon as they see a police, or emergency type vehicle. Either they just go completely blank and can't even recall how to drive properly anymore or they all of a sudden remember all the traffic rules and start to drive "perfectly". This is why it works putting empty police vehicles at the side of the road and all of a sudden people will slow down and drive real carefully.
That said as far as ambulances and fire trucks. There should just be a camera facing front. If you don't slow down and move over. Automatic ticket sent to the car owner. But from what I have been told by the drivers of ambulances and fire trucks they prefer it if people just didn't start to panic and do stupid things when they see the flashing lights and hear the sirens. Like trying to speed up or they don't know what side to mover over to instead they start to swerve from side to side. In that regard they apparently prefer if it you just keep going as you do, maintain your speed and do not swerve. They will overtake you and pass you if you just behave normally. If you can slow down and move to the side that is probably the best option. Just don't drive stupid.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday March 04, @01:55AM
Sudden outbreak of common sense?
I'm glad to hear that. I've been in traffic where an emergency vehicle is trying to get through, but by slamming on brakes the cars cause a big traffic jamb, slowing the emergency vehicle.
People also have to consider that not everyone knows how to react when emergency vehicles come up, especially from behind. The flashing lights might even disrupt some otherwise normal brain function, and people somewhat panic. Those lights have gotten brighter, faster flashing, crazy flashing patterns. Sometimes you're already in heavy traffic and suddenly you have to find a place to go, when everyone else is trying to do the same, in almost bumper-to-bumper traffic. You don't want to get into an accident either, so it's extra confusion, anxiety, and panic.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DadaDoofy on Sunday March 01, @06:51PM (1 child)
I find it somewhat surprising that it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone to investigate the negative effects of these laws. It's important to know if they are a net good or a net evil.
Anyone who has encountered a situation with workers or emergency personnel on the shoulder knows these laws makes people slam on the brakes and change lanes from the right to the middle without looking. In heavy traffic it takes a severe toll, causing wrecks usually with multiple cars, but apparently no one wants to admit it's the fault of slow and pull over laws.
Much as red light cameras are known to cause a measurable uptick in rear-end collisions, it's quite apparent collisions are also caused by slow and pull over laws. Unfortunately, with heavily monied interests such as AAA, NHTSA, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Sheriffs Association, etc. behind slow and pull over, it's unlikely data that would answer this question will ever see the light of day.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday March 04, @02:20AM
Uncommon sense, thank you. I 100% agree.
Only point I somewhat disagree on is that the data are probably available and someone might compile it. The problem I see is getting Congress, agencies, anyone, to refine and revise those laws.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01, @07:10PM (4 children)
Most drivers only do one of slowing down or moving over because in most states you are only supposed to do one of those. You move over if you can, and slow down if you can't.
This is always what you were supposed to do but now you can theoretically get a ticket for it. I am not sure how that would actually happen since tow truck drivers can't write tickets and policemen are usually already busy giving someone else a ticket. I guess there could be "emergency vehicle traps".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01, @08:20PM (2 children)
> I guess there could be "emergency vehicle traps".
On the interstate here, there are construction zones with lowered speed limits. At least one person I know got a speeding ticket in one of these...on a weekend when there were no construction workers within miles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01, @10:08PM (1 child)
Depends. Not enough information.
In a work zone, it's expected that the lanes are narrower, and there perhaps isn't a place to pull off in an emergency. It's totally reasonable for the speed limit to be lower, even when workers aren't present. When they *are* present, it's totally reasonable that you drive *even slower* than the posted speed limit.
Your friend probably told you it was a clear day, blue sky, no cones or markings whatsoever, the only thing identifying the construction was the speed limit sign, and he was wrongfully ticketed. He probably left out pertinent details.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01, @11:28PM
There may also be "surprises" in the road left by unfinished work, like surface irregularities.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday March 02, @04:20AM
I had to slow today as the state patrol car sitting on the side of the road was playing games with the light and it was rather dark. I knew as I was entering the freeway that I could see lights, I just couldn't tell where they were until it was borderline irresponsible to slow down, let alone change lanes. It happens a fair bit around here as the highways and freeways aren't particularly straight, which can make it hard to even know that there's anybody on the shoulder when it gets dark.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by oldeschool on Sunday March 01, @09:16PM (4 children)
Metro Atlanta traffic is bumper to bumper, getting over isn't possible most of the time. -- slow down, that's the easy part you aren't moving anyway
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Sunday March 01, @11:47PM (3 children)
I was puzzled the other day...
Six lanes surface street, right two lanes peeling off to freeway on ramp. Hospital emergency entrance on right. I am in leftmost lane preparing for left turn after freeway underpass.
Ambulance in rear view mirror.
Do I stay in place on course in leftmost lane? Or veer to the right knowing I may well inadvertantly contribute to a traffic jam in the right lanes, knowing full good and well the hospital emergency entrance is to the right,?
Why do I even ask? This is the second time this has happened to me in the same spot!
The first time I inadvertantly succeeded in participating in a localized traffic jam in the worst possible place, making a solid wall of static vehicles right where the ambulance needs to go.
In situations like this, does common sense override the to better of the law?
This time I stayed my course and speed and just tried to stay out of the way.
But this time, the ambulance went straight and didn't go in the hospital emergency entry.
Sometimes the best of intentions do not come out as planned.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Monday March 02, @04:52PM
does common sense override the to better of the law?
No. It has been log established that where the law and common sense oppose each other, the law wins.
There are millions of precedents.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02, @06:12PM (1 child)
It's okay to pull over on the left side, or even stop in the left lane, so long as the center lane is clear for the ambulance. A turn lane is also a good place to stop because even if the ambulance wants to turn, it can go around the stopped cars from the traffic lane. The ambulance wants you out of the way, whatever that requires.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday March 03, @02:45AM
Thank you. Trying to stay out of the way was my goal. I could see the ambulance was in the center lane, that lane was clear forward. It was clear forward ahead of me.
This same situation happened to me before and I fell into "lookup-table" mode as to what to do, as my internal common sense hadn't kicked in yet. I could have done a helluva lot better - but that was apparent to me after quite a few mental ponderings on how I should have handled it. I had not considered that my action contributed to the emergency entrance to the hospital on the right to almost be gridlocked.
I held the course this time to keep the path to the hospital ER clear.
That could have went very badly.
I already do way too many really stupid things when I do things in a hurry without due consideration. Premeditation helps if I have already done that screw up.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 01, @11:57PM (5 children)
This all started in Indiana. Or, I'm really damned sure it started in Indiana. That's the first state I saw these signs. The Interstate Highway system was mostly built to specifications, than included, I think, 8 ft emergency breakdown lanes. In fact, most of the states have 12 ft lanes. That is, you can pretty safely park a tractor trailer to the extreme right of a breakdown lane, leaving enough room to walk between that truck, and traffic.
Not Indiana. Somehow they got an exemption, and the lanes are barely wide enough to park the average privately owned car/pickup. No room to walk between that car, and oncoming traffic. No room for a large commercial vehicle. A lot of people were killed on Indiana highways for that reason. So, instead of fixing the stupid, Indiana decided to pass a law. As so often happens, a lot of other states started passing similar laws, just because they didn't want to be outdone.
Cops could have "fixed" a lot of the stupid, all by themselves. The Great State of Texas trains troopers to approach the PASSENGER SIDE of the vehicle, away from traffic. Other states used to teach the same. But, now, the law encourages cops to work on the driver's side of the vehicle, right in front of traffic.
I've actually argued with cops in the past about that nonsense. "Well, if you hit me you've broken the law!" "Hey, dummy, if you're dead, you don't give a shit about the law." No one is ten feet tall and bullet proof, not cops, firefighters, EMS, or wrecker crews. Watching out for yourself will eliminate a lot of grief, and a lot of widows and orphans.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday March 02, @01:11AM (4 children)
Unfortunately, every employed individual is a genetic to the ones employing him/her/it and must subjugate their own common sense / intellect to the letter of the instructions given.
I have seen this happen so many times when dealing with people of a "subordinate" mentality. Apparently dumb as a bag of rocks. Following orders.
I have seen this paradigm destroy huge established companies when financial types buy successful establishments , subordinating the leadership that built the company and its reputation, under new executives with a different mindset. The trust in a company reputation with 100 years in the making will be purchased by financial mavens ( using other people's money, no less ! ) and destroyed in 5 to 10 years before the company customers discover the company can no longer deliver a quality product.
The business tycoons have already made their money with all their management fees and stock market promotions selling their castrated animal as a prime performer to unwitting buyers ( people who bought the stock ) , who are left holding buildings full of inexperienced employees with former customers seeking others who can do the job. Often having to go to other nations to find other companies ( competitors to the former employer ) that hasn't been subjugated with the latest business mentality. In much the same way many of us are trying to avoid many brands of cars and appliances prone to disappointing performance compared to what they used to do.
I even note this in some police officers who appear about as intelligent as a pistol. That comes right out of a CIA instruction manual for taking down organizations using "Malicious Compliance" and "Deliberate Indifference", with the goal of destroying trust in public institutions by demonstrating the folly of authority sans intelligence. A lot of this is "Mens Rea" type stuff, where both obedience and common sense are considered. Inexperienced people can be quite stupid. But they learn.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Informative) by anubi on Monday March 02, @01:18AM (3 children)
First line: change "subordinate" to "genetic".
I don't know what happened .
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Funny) by anubi on Monday March 02, @01:24AM (2 children)
Dammit
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday March 04, @03:08AM
Besides laughing, and thanks for the laugh, when I first read it I thought you meant "genetic", and I like the concept. Was probably a Freudian slip?
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday March 04, @03:10AM
Rather than "dammit" I see "D'oh!"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sfm on Monday March 02, @09:49PM
It would be nice if states posted their policy on this more frequently,
as not all states have the same law:
Texas: Slow down OR move over.......
Minnesota: Slow down AND move over......
That is a $145 difference :(