Failure to Yield to a Stationary Vehicle - VA

[hthomps]

I know that ignorance is absolutely no excuse, but I'd never heard of the Move Over law until I was pulled over the other day. My exit lane was about to start so I pulled into the far right hand lane - unfortunately right as I passed a police cruiser with lights on, parked off the side of the road. Other cars were in the lane so it didn't occur to me I was doing anything illegal, and since the car was well off the road I believed it was a safe move to make. Unfortunately the police officer right in front of me disagreed and stopped me. In Virginia it's a class 1 misdemeanor, and I have a court date. I'm not sure how to approach this when I appear. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

[j991]

§ 46.2-921.1. Drivers to yield right-of-way or reduce speed when approaching stationary emergency vehicles on highways; penalties.

The driver of any motor vehicle, upon approaching a stationary emergency vehicle, as defined in § 46.2-920, that is displaying a flashing, blinking, or alternating emergency light or lights as provided in §§ 46.2-1022, 46.2-1023, and 46.2-1024, shall (i) on a highway having at least four lanes, at least two of which are intended for traffic proceeding as the approaching vehicle, proceed with caution and, if reasonable, with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, yield the right-of-way by making a lane change into a lane not adjacent to that occupied by the stationary emergency vehicle or (ii) if changing lanes would be unreasonable or unsafe, proceed with due caution and maintain a safe speed for highway conditions.

Violation of any provision of this section shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor. If the violation resulted in damage to property of another person, the court may, in addition, order the suspension of the driver's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for not more than one year. If the violation resulted in injury to another person, the court may, in addition to any other penalty imposed, order the suspension of the driver's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for not more than two years. If the violation resulted in the death of another person, the court may, in addition to any other penalty imposed, order the suspension of the driver's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for two years.

-Thats the applicable code section, and according to your desription of events you are in violation. This is a law that is gaining a lot of momentum in Va. in recent months. The courts are still unsure what the criteria is in determining guilt and the punishment. The questions facing the courts are a) was the officer outside the vehicle and even though the law doesnt stipulate that he must be, should that fact increase the punishment? b) when and who determines if an approaching vehicle should slow or change lanes? is it the officer descetion or should there be a general "rule of thumb" recognized?

What it all boils down to is this, go to court, plea not guilty and explain the circumstances fo the event. The judge will have the final say, but I haven't seen any outrageous penalities for this offense. Expect a $50-$150 fine, but unless you caused an accident or someone to be injured your license should not be suspended.

[JIMinCA]

I think I would fight that one pretty hard. Language such as " if reasonable, with due regard for safety and traffic conditions" is pretty vague. By the OPs statement, considering the upcoming exit (i.e. traffic conditions) and the fact that the cop's car was well off the road (i.e. due regard for safety), it appears that the OP was not UNREASONABLE. Keep in mind that the State will have the obligation to prove that you were unreasonable. So, at trial, I would question the cop extensively on why the actions were unreasonable. Just because a MORE reasonable alternative existed, doesn't make the actions cited UNreasonable.

I do hope you come back to inform us on the outcome. This is very interesting.

[briankrva]

Talk about gray areas. My girlfriend was en-route to WV at midnight due to a family hospitalization, passes a PO who pulled another driver over. Next thing you know, my girlfriend is due for a court date for the very same infraction, failure to yield. We didn't even know that it was a law. Seems like a horribly vague law to us, and a bit steep as a Class 1 misdemeanor... a max of 12 mos. and $2500, seems excessive and ludicrous to me. She was doing all she could just to stay awake, much less, giving "due regard for safety and traffic conditions". She slowed down, so I don't see how this can stick. I can't believe this has been a law for 5 years.

Worried and irritated

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by briankrva

She was doing all she could just to stay awake, much less, giving "due regard for safety and traffic conditions". She slowed down, so I don't see how this can stick.

Just make sure that she doesn't use the part I underlined when she's addressing the Judge...

[hthomps]

Just wanted to give an update since I had my court date last week. I plead not guilty, so the judge asked us both to explain. The officer gave the facts and also added that I had passed her on the right. It occurred to me only after I left what she was talking about - she had abruptly slowed when she was in the lane left of me, and rather than slow with her I continued. Oh well. I explained to the judge that my exit was coming up so I moved to the right lane, only really registering the parked officer as I made the lane change. Rather than try to merge back when the car seemed well off the road I decided that it was safer to finish the merge. Judge said "bad answer" and lectured me on safety. Because I have a clean record, however, I got court fees and am required to attend traffic school (which I do tomorrow). Does this mean no points?

[The Occultist]

Originally Posted by hthomps

Does this mean no points?

The court or the DMV would likely be the best people to post this question to.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by hthomps

Does this mean no points?

One could only assume that with traffic school, the points would "disappear"...

Also, one thing you shouldn't forget is to count your blessings. Having been cited for what you described as a misdemeanor and yet ending up with nothing more than a tap (not even a "slap") on the wrist... Maaaaan!

Where do you people get your luck from? Seriously!

Happy for you though....

[hthomps]

Oh believe me, I was very, very happy with how it ended up. I'm also telling everybody I know about this law, which again I had never heard of (nor have 4 out of 5 of the people I speak with). There had been a request (JIMinCA) to post how this ended up since it's still fairly new in VA, so I thought I'd let you all know.

[mwbarton]

Please be sure to pass on to everyone you know about the law...it may save someone's life. There was a big media blitz (billboards, newspaper ads, TV, etc.) when it was first passed, but that was a couple of years ago and was over-shadowed by the additional fines for reckless driving so many people may have forgotten about this one. Remember that this law is written in blood...several officers (and I personally know of one motorist assistance officer) have been killed in the recent past on the side of the road.

The law applies to any emergency vehicle (police, fire, rescue, tow truck, motorist assistance, etc.) and requires that you either change lanes or slow down considerably if it is unsafe to change lanes...or at least that is the way VSP is enforcing it. At one point, there was mention of enforcing it for passing disabled motorists on the side of the highway, however I'm don't know if it is being enforced that way.

[ideagirl]

I am an atty in VA. I also got caught by his law (I am a resident of MD and hadn't heard of it at all). Not that it would make any difference anyway, I would yield the right of way to anyone, a PO or a private citizen on the side of the road. Just didn't know it was a law.

My circumstances were that I was EB on Dulles Toll Road. It was dusk and it had been snowing/sleeting. I was driving a friend's car and I had a piece of furniture attached to the roof. I was only doing 50 mph in the far right lane because I was concerned about weather conditions as well as making sure I didn't have to do any evausive maneuvers with the furniture on top of the roof.

I came upon an officer who was already attending to another motorist on the side of the road. I checked in my rearview mirror and saw that there were cars behind me but I wasn't sure, given that I was traveling at least 10mph below the rest of the traffic, whether I could safely attempt a lane change. So, I did what I thought was the most prudent course of action which was to move as far as I could to the left side of my lane (a fact the PO admitted in court) as I passed the PO and to keep my eye on him. As I was approaching him and his vehicle I observed him first with his back to me at the window of the stopped vehicle and then turn around and start towards his cruiser. He never looked up in my direction until the moment he was stepping around the front bumper of his cruiser, which was the exact time I was passing him.

Sure enough, in a couple of minutes he showed up in my rearview. When he came to the window he didn't ask if I knew what I was being stopped for, just "license and registration." When he came back he told me what I had been charged with and that I had to show up to court.

On the day of court there were at least 200 people there to answer summons for traffic violations. NOT ONE was found innocent. So, that day, every trooper was perfect and no one was innocent. Every trooper's perception was reality. This is the problem with this law, you have to rely on the trooper's perception and that is all that you have. While we have to do this for other things (like speeding tickets) we take extra precautions to make sure that nothing is misperceived and no mistakes are made. For instance, when radar is used, the court asks the trooper if the radar was properly calibrated. If a pace was used, the court asks the trooper if his speedometer was recently calibrated and what the results were. But with this law, all that has to happen is the trooper has to say you did something and regardless of what happened, or what the circumstances were, you are guilty.
My trooper, while I don't think he was intentionally misleading, did state some facts that were just not accurate. I believe he perceived that I was going faster than I was and was closer that I was when I passed him due to the timing of him "popping out" from behind his vehicle just as I was passing.
The fact that no one is innocent, however, is not the trooper's fault, it is the judge's. I understand that you can get jaded listening to all the bogus excuses in traffic court, but no one in 200 people innocent???!!!
Just to show you how ridiculous this judge's decision was in my case, he found that, although there had been testimony that it had been misting/snowing and that the roads were wet, there was no testimony that the roads were slippery. How ridiculous. Should I have tried a couple of 180's to see just how slippery it was??

C'mon VA Gen Assbly. You need to give the courts some guidance on how to apply this law, because they obviously cannot do it themselves. I'd be interested in hearing stories from others about this statute. I am thinking of trying to challenge it on constitutional grounds. It is just impossible to apply in any consistent and fair way.

[FlyingRon]

You may be an attorney, but you're not very observant. There are signs on the beltway warning you about the moveover law.

By and large everybody is found guilty in Virginia traffic court because nobody mounts a credible defense. I've rarely see one, and one comes along the judge nearly does rule in the defenses favor.

Certainly your own excuses don't indicate anything exculpatory.

I'm not a lawyer (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night) but I was a paramedic (in MD even) for years. The sides of the highway are scary places. Get off your high horse, slow down, and move over. If it takes intensive enforcement to get people to do so, I am all for it. These troopers are operating out of self preservation. This is one charge that is very dear to their personal safety.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by ideagirl

Just to show you how ridiculous this judge's decision was in my case, he found that, although there had been testimony that it had been misting/snowing and that the roads were wet, there was no testimony that the roads were slippery. How ridiculous. Should I have tried a couple of 180's to see just how slippery it was??

Why should there have been testimony as to how slippery the road was? It had NO BEARING on your guilt or innocence.

What lawyering school did ya go to 'gain?

[Maestro64]

Idealgirl,

It sounds like you attempted to show it was not safe to make a lane change at the time. But as you found out your's or other motorists' safety did not matter because the states who passed these laws are out to make example of people and show they are trying to do something about police being killed on the highways by stupid drivers. As a side benefit the states get to make extra money. VA who has some of the highest fines in the country has made it clear their high fines are about raising more money for the state. Some legislators got voted out because of these tactics but it hasn't changed a thing.

These tickets are the easiest ticket any officer can give out, it is subject at best, because all the officer has to say is he felt threaten. He can right one ticket after another too. Pull one person over and while ticketing that person eye up the next person on the road and run him down since many highways today are crowed and there is no room to change lanes safely.

Anyway, if you read the law it says move over or slow down. No where does it say how much slower just to slow down. This is how you should have proceeded since there was no way for the officer to know you did not slow down. Especially since he was at the other car. He could not claim he saw it on the radar, even if he left it on as they do sometime by the time he got back to the car it was reading the speed of other cars coming by him at the time.

The other tact to use was the fact it took a few minutes to catch up to you, so how did the officer know he got the right car since so many cars look the same these days. he probably had to pass 10 or 20 cars to find yours in the pack of cars. He could have gotten the wrong car. Anyway lesson learned.

The problem with this law it does not fix the problem which is stupid drivers who should not be on the roads or ever given a license. If you ever watch the video when cars hit a police officer or another car on the side of the road these people drive right into the car, like it was magnet, they make no attempt to avoid the officer or car they did not even hit their brakes. Notice the law only says move over for police not another vehicle parked on side of the road.

Personally, I have moved over since I first began to drive when I saw an officer pulling someone over or just a parked car on the road. I did it because it was the right thing to do and I saw people do stupid things on the side of the road and was not interested in hitting them. Most likely you do not know if they are just going to pull into your lane or open the door and step out without warning.

This is called defensive driving.

[I_Got_Banned]

ideagirl... If you do go the legislature and try to change anything, the one thing that should be changed is the name of the statute... "Failure to yield to a stationary vehicle" is pointless... How can you yield to something that is STATIONARY?????????