Law regarding slowing down on freeway if traffic stop in progress

[Cyc Wid It]

I was recently informed that drivers are required to slow down to 50 mph if there is a traffic stop on the side of the highway. Can someone clarify this for me please? Thanks.

[alex00]

There was a "Move Over" law modeled after many other states that if an emergency vehicle or tow truck were on the side of the road with emergency lights on approaching drivers had to move to another lane or slow to a "reasonable" speed in the lane adjacent to the shoulder. The law only applied to the freeways, and not surface streets.

The law was opposed by the CHP Commissioner, and I belive, the Governor. It was slated to be repealed, last year or the year before. I didn't find it in the VC the last time I looked.

EDIT: Sorry, it was 21809, and was not repealed. It was ammended in 12-09 to include Caltrans trucks.

[Cyc Wid It]

Ah ok, thanks for the heads up.

[Adehtla]

My understanding is this: CVC 21809(a)(2) basically reiterates CVC 22350, only it calls attention to emergency vehicles, tow trucks, and CalTrans vehicles on the shoulder, and CVC 21809(b) creates an extra fine . That sound about right?

[alex00]

My understanding is this: CVC 21809(a)(2) basically reiterates CVC 22350, only it calls attention to emergency vehicles, tow trucks, and CalTrans vehicles on the shoulder, and CVC 21809(b) creates an extra fine . That sound about right?

Yes and no. 21809 calls for the driver to move out of the lane, unless the maneuver is impractical or illegal. If the driver can't move then they need to slow for conditions. Basically 22350 with the added requirement to move out of the lane if they can.

I took a cross country trip on I80, and this kind of law is big out in the midwest, and I assume heavily enforced. If there was a patrol car on the side of the road, the nearest lane was empty. Truckers were quick to jump out of the lane. There are huge signs all over the freeway alerting to the requirement. I think the law is a good idea on the face of it, but nearly unenforceable. If I'm stopped on the freeway I'm not likely to chase down all the cars that blow by me in the nearest lane. In the midwest I saw staggered patrol cars on the freeway. One would be on a vehicle stop, and another would be a few hundred yards down the road. They may have been doing this to enforce the move over law.

[Adehtla]

Yes and no. 21809 calls for the driver to move out of the lane, unless the maneuver is impractical or illegal. If the driver can't move then they need to slow for conditions. Basically 22350 with the added requirement to move out of the lane if they can.

Ahh... I had misread 21809 as saying you could move out of the lane OR 22350. That'll teach me to read more carefully. Thanks for the correction.

I took a cross country trip on I80, and this kind of law is big out in the midwest, and I assume heavily enforced. If there was a patrol car on the side of the road, the nearest lane was empty. Truckers were quick to jump out of the lane. There are huge signs all over the freeway alerting to the requirement.

I didn't see anything about this when I dropped on to I-80W in Wells, NV. I'm guessing you were a bit further east ;-)

I think the law is a good idea on the face of it, but nearly unenforceable. If I'm stopped on the freeway I'm not likely to chase down all the cars that blow by me in the nearest lane. In the midwest I saw staggered patrol cars on the freeway. One would be on a vehicle stop, and another would be a few hundred yards down the road. They may have been doing this to enforce the move over law.

I'm with you on this. It's a great idea. It's something that falls in a common-sense category, and no person can complain it infringes on their rights. Unfortunately, people don't think of it and driver's education doesn't even mention it (at least it didn't in 2000).

Stay safe out there.

[rkt88edmo]

Yes and no. 21809 calls for the driver to move out of the lane, unless the maneuver is impractical or illegal. If the driver can't move then they need to slow for conditions. Basically 22350 with the added requirement to move out of the lane if they can.

I took a cross country trip on I80, and this kind of law is big out in the midwest, and I assume heavily enforced. If there was a patrol car on the side of the road, the nearest lane was empty. Truckers were quick to jump out of the lane. There are huge signs all over the freeway alerting to the requirement. I think the law is a good idea on the face of it, but nearly unenforceable. If I'm stopped on the freeway I'm not likely to chase down all the cars that blow by me in the nearest lane. In the midwest I saw staggered patrol cars on the freeway. One would be on a vehicle stop, and another would be a few hundred yards down the road. They may have been doing this to enforce the move over law.

I've already seen posts on forums from people in CA getting hit with this ticket. Best bet is to move over early.

[Unit74]

There is a super easy defense though.... It is up to the driver to determine if it is safe to move over, not the officer.

There can be an infinite amount of reasons why a driver "may" feel it was unsafe to move over.

[Chris M]

Just leave the right lane open for entering/exiting the freeway only. Leave the left lane open for passing only. Problem solved & no fines.

If everyone did that it would also resolve a lot of traffic problems, and reduce road rage. Unfortunately it'll never happen.

[alex00]

There is a super easy defense though.... It is up to the driver to determine if it is safe to move over, not the officer.

There can be an infinite amount of reasons why a driver "may" feel it was unsafe to move over.

But if you do stay in the lane you need to slow down to a speed appropriate for conditions. I think speeds above 45-50 MPH can easily been seen as unsafe for conditions.

[Unit74]

But if you do stay in the lane you need to slow down to a speed appropriate for conditions. I think speeds above 45-50 MPH can easily been seen as unsafe for conditions.

And just like any other 22350, the unsafe speed will have to be justified. I don't think a vehicle on the shoulder will satisfy that with the court. There needs to be other circumstances present.

Any prepared defendant should be able to get a not guilty from the court.

[Adehtla]

And just like any other 22350, the unsafe speed will have to be justified. I don't think a vehicle on the shoulder will satisfy that with the court. There needs to be other circumstances present.

Any prepared defendant should be able to get a not guilty from the court.

I don't know about that... Throwing out the considerations for weather and visibility, CVC 22350 says: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for...the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."

Now... Let us imagine an emergency vehicle stopped on the right shoulder giving someone a light show. You've just lost width of the roadway to at least two standing vehicles, which may or may not be completely on the shoulder; say it with me, "traffic hazard." And just because it makes sense, chances are good there is a person or two outside of a vehicle which you should not be endangering by your speed.

I think I'm going to go with alex00 on this one. Try to move out of the lane. If you cannot, slow down. It would be a bad day if you hit a LEO, just like it would be a bad day if you hit a kid. I would think everyone would want to avoid that.

[Unit74]

If that is the case, a vehicle on the shoulder, why was the law not applied to ANY vehicle on the shoulder. Or in other terms, a stranded motorist has less value than a Caltrans worker.Your logic is not reasonable.

There has to be an equal application of the law without specific preference. I don't see it holding water in any court.

.

[Adehtla]

If that is the case, a vehicle on the shoulder, why was the law not applied to ANY vehicle on the shoulder. Or in other terms, a stranded motorist has less value than a Caltrans worker.Your logic is not reasonable.

There has to be an equal application of the law without specific preference. I don't see it holding water in any court.
.

You raise a very valid point. However, it is not my logic that is flawed, it is that of the California legislature. Reading the law, one can only assume it was the intent of the legislature to offer protection to those who are most likely to be outside of their vehicle on the highway in the course of their job.

I agree that this protection should be afforded to everyone, don't get me wrong. However, since when has "equal application of the law without...preference" been prevalent in California? You're certainly free to use it as a defense, but I honestly don't think it will work.

You cannot violate both the spirit and letter of the law, and then tell the court that since the law does not afford every motorist the same protection, you should be found not guilty.

[zoid52]

A Caltrans worker is at the bottom rung of the ladder and only dirt is lower. Working next to traffic flying by at 85 mph 2 feet from your head is unnerving at best. I should know- Im a lowly Caltrans worker