I was told today that there is a NJ law on the books that makes it illegal to drive in the lane adjacent to a car stopped by a police officer.

 

For example...If an officer has someone pulled over on the right side shoulder, you have to move over to the center or left lane if you are in the right lane. And vice a versa if you are in the left lane and they are in the left shoulder.

 

The law is called " Reckless endangerment to a police offer ''

 

Is there any truth to this?

I know we have a few LE here, if they do not chime in I will call my brother in law tomorrow, he is working now

probably breaking up a bar fight in the bank of red as we speak.

Yes, it was recently enacted into law. It is common in many states, this one included. Up here when being overtaken, vehicle must slow and pull off the road.

 

Here is a source of further information...

 

http://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/move-over-law/

sounds familiar, but I always move over anyway.... especially on the turnpike...

Yes, it was recently enacted into law. It is common in many states, this one included. Up here when being overtaken, vehicle must slow and pull off the road.

 

Here is a source of further information...

 

http://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/move-over-law/

 

 

Wow. Thanks for the quick reply.

 

Wouldnt have believed it for not the link you sent.

 

How would the average poor bastard know about this?

I heard about this over the summer, and thanks for the quick response, rscalzo. I didn't hear anything through the main channels myself; instead had an acquaintance in NJSP let me know casually.

Interesting, I never heard of this. Driving for as long as I have been I always slow down/ move as as far over as safely possible, but never knew it was a law. Thanks for the info.

Just another way for NJ LE to make more revenue.

Just another way for NJ LE to make more revenue.

 

 

eh, try standing on the shoulder with a truck passing you? Hard enough to ride a motorcycle when people blow by you, but when an 18 wheeler blows by and you are standing on the shoulder... that is tough. No matter if it is a cop/trooper or civilian with a broken down car walking to the nearest mile marker... if you can save a life, why not. Not even that, a rock being launched by someone's tire can mean a very bad day.

You know, I'm always surprized by the comments and the need for additional laws!

 

If an LEO is on the shoulder and a car passes with disreguard for his safety the negligent driver should be disemboweled not ticketed. Has common sense and courtesy been lost in this POS society we live in?

 

Secondly, GREAT! We have a new statute. Another law to be abused when someone has a hair up their @$$. Which is the reality. Any negligent and inconsiderate b@$$tard that endangered a LEO could have been charged and prosecuted without this additional statute. But our legislators are all about "feel good" not function. It propagates their exsistance.

Can they just make laws like this and not tell anyone? This is the first I've ever heard of it (I move over anyway but still).

I always slow down/ move as as far over as safely possible

 

Because you drive using common sense. That usually works quite well. It was enacted for those knowingly or unknowingly that drive in the lane an inch from the side of the vehicle stopped. Some may know that a motor vehicle will move towards whatever the operator is currently looking at. Every driver must try to see what is going on so they look taking the vehicle they are driving with them. This law gives a measure of safety.

 

The older law covered operation when the emergency vehicle was overtaking or merging requiring yielding.

I always slow down/ move as as far over as safely possible

 

Because you drive using common sense. That usually works quite well. It was enacted for those knowingly or unknowingly that drive in the lane an inch from the side of the vehicle stopped. Some may know that a motor vehicle will move towards whatever the operator is currently looking at. Every driver must try to see what is going on so they look taking the vehicle they are driving with them. This law gives a measure of safety.

 

The older law covered operation when the emergency vehicle was overtaking or merging requiring yielding.

 

I take it you deem this additional legislation necessary?

I agree with Old School. A new law is not necessary.

 

Will it be enforced? Could it be enforced?

 

Similar to the cell phone law where two hands on the wheel have nothing to do with the driver's attention to driving.

 

I suspect it was born out of a previous incident unbeknown to us. Probably an accident that occurred and the actor could not be charged with anything.

What about when I am on the turnpike and the NJSP wants to speed my me with no lights on...does this law cover that?

What about the time I was on the turnpike and a NJSP raced me up to exit 14...lol..

What about when I am on the turnpike and the NJSP wants to speed my me with no lights on...does this law cover that?

 

The new law refers to stationary vehicles on the side of the roadway.

 

New Jersey law requires all motorists to yield to emergency vehicles sounding sirens or flashing red and/or blue emergency lights. Steer to the extreme right of the roadway and stop. Wait for the emergency vehicle to pass. After, keep at least 300 feet behind an emergency vehicle responding to an emergency call.

 

So technically no you would not be in violation.

....and I bet you hadn't heard about these two either,

 

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills ... 870_R1.PDF

 

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/65420122.html

Remember, not all the police officers are ass holes, Give them a break, they have a hard enough time doing their job. Look at the cop in Fairfield who got shot pulling someone over. It is also the law to pull over when an emergency vehicle is responding to a call, and I see way too many people who do not give them the right of way.

I've seen the seatbelt law changes going through the legislature. For some reason I still like to keep current.

 

A quick review makes it a primary offense and requires all occupants to use the restraint system. While I'm a big proponent of seat belt/harness use, I don't ever remember writing one. Now child safety seat issues are another issue. A stopped a lot of people for that one. It really annoyed me when parents held their infant on their laps, while they were unbelted in a vehicle with an airbag. After seeing the results of an mva with the child killed, it was burned in. But 99 percent understood the stop and corrected the condition. for some reason I seemed to notice those of Asian descent holding the child on their lap more than most. It seemed that it might be a culture issue more than a lack of concern for the child's safety.

 

The law won't affect me. I can't remember the last time I actually had someone riding in the back seat.

I agree with Old School. A new law is not necessary.

 

Will it be enforced? Could it be enforced?

 

Similar to the cell phone law where two hands on the wheel have nothing to do with the driver's attention to driving.

 

I suspect it was born out of a previous incident unbeknown to us. Probably an accident that occurred and the actor could not be charged with anything.

 

This one ranks right up there IMO with Failure to yield to an emergency vehicle for the idiots who wont get out of the damned way. If im going somethere Lights and Siren i dont have the leisure to stop and ticket some a-hole who wont get out of the way, if im on a stop or covering a disabled and some Scumbag wants to breeze me, there isnt a whole lot i can do. Just another feel-good statute.

The law is not just for police cars that have motorists stopped.

 

From the NJ Gov. page -

Drivers approaching stationary emergency vehicles, tow trucks and other highway safety vehicles displaying red, blue and/or amber flashing lights must now move over one lane or, if not safe to move over, then slow down below the posted speed limit.

 

There has to be some common sense in today's society. It should be a gimme to slow down or move over.

 

I have two problems with the law.

 

How is the average motorist know about it?

 

Dont like the fact that some LE will actually work in tandem to stop motorists that do not slow down enough or move over.

 

This is how I found about the new law. My friend's mother was pulled over on 287 in the right lane for doing 45. They had a car stopped with another police car in front of the stopped vehicle. The "other" police car pulled her over for not changing lanes.

Mind you, she is a 62 year grandmother of seven. A naturally born "slow" driver. The type you definitely go around. She wont even listen to the radio while driving because she feels that it is a distraction.

 

Its bad enough most people dont know about the law...but to work in tandem to get a notch in your ticket book this way!!! Such BS

for some reason I seemed to notice those of Asian descent holding the child on their lap more than most..

 

I think it's in their racial memory...

 

Here's a picture I took in China. It's very common.

 

This law and its info have been out in the papers, radio and news for a few months before it was passed. Nothing really sneeky about it.

 

I also agree with Maks, its about making safer situations for all emergency workers. Be it the tow truck driver that is changing some ladies flat tire, a firefighter putting out a car fire, or a Trooper writing a ticket. It seems pretty simple, either move over a lane to give them room to do their job or slow down till you pass and continue on your way.

 

-Scott

Drivers approaching stationary emergency vehicles, tow trucks and other highway safety vehicles displaying red, blue and/or amber flashing lights must now move over one lane or, if not safe to move over, then slow down below the posted speed limit.

Even they admit that nobody does the actual speed limit. So if one can't move over because of traffic, they are considered lawful for going 1 mile under the speed limit?

 

:clap: Way to go politicians. It is just another feel good law to justify your existence.

It is just another feel good law to justify your existence.

 

Hey PK I said that! Great minds think alike

I going to stir up a hornets nest.........I disagree with all of you.Public safety is the number one

concern of all, including the Police.When pulled over, you should look for a safe location to stop. That includes the Police. You don't park your vehicle where it obstructs traffic. That includes the Police. I've seen some juvenile parking done by the Police where their cars are angled into traffic. That's just plain stupid. I agree with slowing down and using caution around a traffic stop. When there is an accident, someone should be directing traffic. Not standing

around and ogling the " crime scene". Does anyone witness the confusion of trying to get around an accident scene, with ten Patrol cars in the area? How come they took off " To

Protect And Serve" from all cruisers. I have respect for the Police, but common sense should prevail. Public safety should come first,not some Politically appointed Captain telling his officers how they should park at traffic stops. 'Nuff said.

I going to stir up a hornets nest.........I disagree with all of you.Public safety is the number one

concern of all, including the Police.When pulled over, you should look for a safe location to stop. That includes the Police. You don't park your vehicle where it obstructs traffic. That includes the Police. I've seen some juvenile parking done by the Police where their cars are angled into traffic. That's just plain stupid. I agree with slowing down and using caution around a traffic stop. When there is an accident, someone should be directing traffic. Not standing

around and ogling the " crime scene". Does anyone witness the confusion of trying to get around an accident scene, with ten Patrol cars in the area? How come they took off " To

Protect And Serve" from all cruisers. I have respect for the Police, but common sense should prevail. Public safety should come first,not some Politically appointed Captain telling his officers how they should park at traffic stops. 'Nuff said.

 

Considering that the majority of departments in this state are Civil service, your lack of understanding how the BASICS of a PD works, just overshadows the ignorance of the rest of your post.

[quote name="Citation Bob from http://www.forums.officer"]I need a little help. Does anybody have an authoritative source on squad positioning for traffic stop?

 

I have tried both the parallel, kick out and the angled stop.

 

I prefer the angled for the following reasons.

1. All lights are still visible.

2. More of the squad is visible to the approaching traffic.

3. It is easier and safer to exit.

4. With corner strobes drivers move left to go around the flashing light.

5. Your exposure to traffic is minimized to the time when you pass around the corner strobe.

6. The engine block is between you and the stopped vehicle in the event you need additional protection from someone firing at you.

7. Cars that do not pay attention or are DUI that strike your vehicle are deflected away.

8. Your flashing head lights cause drivers approaching fromt he opposite direction to pay more attention.

9. The reflective striping on the squad assists in the squads visibility.

10. Access to the trunk (not a good idea) does not place you directly between your squad and the striking vehicle.

 

I am not currently allowed to use this tactic because my chief found something on a site for the Crown Vic that stated the parrallel kick out is better. The committee that made the recommendation appears to be comprised of mostly Ford engineers that I suspect may be influenced by Ford Executives that want a way to minimize their exploding gas tank problem rather than dedicate themselves to officer safety.

 

I would like to convince my chief to use a safer tactic but need someone other than myself to support the tactic.

 

By the way a neighboring department uses the same tactic with a twist. What some of the officers do is angle to the right. The only thng you lose is the engine block but you gain a totaly safe exit from your vehicle and approach to the violater if you consider only approaching traffic.

 

So as you can see, the angled stop is probably a directive from NJSP. Without drawing a free body diagram, the physics of another vehicle striking officer's vehicle using angled stop deflects both the officer's car and the striking car away from the vehicle stopped in front of the officer.

 

There are several factors at play here - some of which are simply subconscious reactions of regular vehicle drivers. There are people who drive consciously and people who are basically unconscious behind the wheel...

So what you are telling me is that Captains are not appointed????? You , my friend are mis-informed. As to the rest of my post... do your self a favor...READ IT!

I would also think it would be common sense for a LEO not to stand so close to oncomming traffic as to endanger his own life. Most cars these days have passenger side windows the officer can stand next to, or in case where he or she is stopping a moving vehicle they can direct the driver of that vehicle to proceed to the next exit or a safer location.