OR 811.147 "Move over" law

[bootpdx]

I was cited for this while driving home the other night on Hwy 30. I plan to plead not guilty and ask for a waived or reduced fine. First of all, I could not change lanes, secondly, I slowed down and moved as far left in my lane as possible. Most importantly, this part of Hwy 30 has shoulders that are at least one lane wide, not the small 3 foot wide shoulders, but a good 10 to 12 feet wide, so the officer was well off the road and in no danger.

This law was created in 2004, I received my Oregon driver's license in 2002. The law is vague because it is issued if a driver exhibits "failure to maintain a safe distance from an emergency vehicle" IMO, I did maintain a safe distance and since it is not defined, as in feet, then to me it is up for grabs.

I understand this law was created to keep people from striking officers when they are in the shoulder, but educating the public in sting fashion is ridiculous. I maintained visual contact with the officer on the side of the road and knew he was there. I was not in danger of striking him.

When I was waiting for my citation, I counted 8 cars that went by me in the right lane. They did not move over or even slow down. As I sadi, I plan to take pictures of this huge shoulder and state the facts to the judge. I have nothing to lose since I already face a $245 fine. Isn't it part of the Police department's responsibility to educate the public? Is the only way of educating issuing fines?

HAs anyone had experience contesting this violation in Oregon?

[nealster]

I also was just "stung" by the move over law. Unfortunately I am from out of state and will have to figure out how to fight the law. Let me know if you've figured out any more instances of people succesfully fighting this law. I was driving safely at the time I got the ticket, and rather than giving me a warning (since I didn't know the law), they stung me with a 350 dollar ticket!!!! must be time to increase revenues i guess...

[Zigner]

This applies to both posters.
1) When issuing the cite, it's the police officer's "opinion" that matters re: safety.
2) Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[colourfastt]

At this point, most states have "move over" laws. Typically the law requires you to move to out of the lane nearest the emergency vehicles. If this cannot be accomplished safely, then the law requires that you reduce your speed by 20 mph below the posted limit. (Again this is a generality, some states have 15mph and others 25.)

In Florida, FHP is running "move over" patrols; i.e., 3 or 4 FHP troopers will be sitting on the shoulder and then ticketing those who don't move over.

[mrsmokewagon]

I also just received a ticket last weekend for this. A previous poster stated the policeman's opinion is the one that matters. I received this ticket in Polk County and I have to go to Dallas to rectify it. I am wondering if I plead not guilty will the final decision be a binary one (i.e. Guilty=pay all OR Not Guilty= Pay $0)

Like most people receiving this ticket, I slowed down, moved over (didn’t change lanes) because I didn’t believe that it was safe to change lanes.

Is it a worthless effort to plead not guilty?

Thanks!

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by mrsmokewagon

I also just received a ticket last weekend for this. A previous poster stated the policeman's opinion is the one that matters. I received this ticket in Polk County and I have to go to Dallas to rectify it. I am wondering if I plead not guilty will the final decision be a binary one (i.e. Guilty=pay all OR Not Guilty= Pay $0)

Like most people receiving this ticket, I slowed down, moved over (didn’t change lanes) because I didn’t believe that it was safe to change lanes.

Is it a worthless effort to plead not guilty?

Thanks!

Please start your own thread...

[Ozark_Sophist]

Originally Posted by Zigner

This applies to both posters.
1) When issuing the cite, it's the police officer's "opinion" that matters re: safety.
2) Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

This applies to Zigner. When the law is unclear as the move over laws are as to what slow down means or when to move over, the court's opinion is the one that matters. The officer/state will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the court that the driver didn't slow down enough or move over if possible. As the driver slowed down and did not hit the officer, it appears the intent and language of the law was followed. Had the driver struck the officer, than the statute would apply.

The statutes do not say slow down to X speed or by X percent. The statutes do not require the individual to move over, particularly when it is unsafe to do so.

[fairisfair]

I have to agree with Ozark, the laws are vague.

You did what you felt was correct and safe, I would fight it.

Oh, but that's just me. . . . .