Mailbag: Thoughts on moving over and merging from a driver named Paul
Posted on June 24th, 2008 – 6:05 AMBy Roadguy
Roadguy received the following e-mail last week from alert reader Paul, who lives in Mounds View. I found it to be an interesting read, and if you have a few hours to check it out yourself, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
There is an ad that’s been running on local television for the past week or so meant to call the public’s attention to a law that was passed about a year (maybe more) ago that mandates that traffic must move over one lane when encountering a patrol car or other emergency vehicle stopped on the shoulder of the road. The ad shows a State Patrol car crumpled up like an accordion bellows that has, obviously, been struck from behind. Every time I see this ad I wonder why they are running it, not to mention wondering why they passed the law in the first place.
What neither the lawmakers or the advertising copywriters seem to have paid any attention to is the line in the ad that says, “When you see….” Do they honestly think that there are people on our highways who, seeing a patrol car on the side of the road, decide, “Oh, well, there’s no law against it, let’s hit it.” There may be a few people out there who are so mean-spirited and antisocial that they like to “buzz” a patrol officer outside their car just to take out their aggression on the officer, but I doubt that simply passing another law or advertising its existence will change their behavior….
It’s not that I’m in favor of patrol cars and officers being hit while they perform their duties on our roadsides. Having been “rear-ended” twice in my life, I’m not in favor of anyone — patrol officer, EMT, firefighter or civilian — being hit on the side of the road. But I’m pretty sure that it’s not happening due to the lack of a law forbidding it or because drivers just don’t care who or what they hit.
The problem, it seems to me, is demonstrated in that phrase, “when you see,” because far too many drivers, for far too many reasons, simply aren’t seeing, whether because they are drunk, dozing, changing CDs, scolding the children safely belted into the backseat, wiping ketchup off their pants, lighting a cigarette, looking at their GPS display, or talking, or even worse, texting on their cell phones. There is already a law on the books prohibiting careless driving, and colliding with anything while doing one of the things listed above would, it seems to me, consitute careless driving.
But not only is the advertised law stupid and redundant, it could well be dangerous as well. Consider that, from what I’ve observed, traffic officers, when making a stop, will delay that stop until they get to a (relatively) safe stretch of highway. It’s not common to see an officer on the side of the road in the middle of a tight turn or in the vicinity of a blind intersection. They try to stop along stretches of highway where they will be visible. Their hazard lights are flashing. All that oncoming traffic needs to do is stay completely in their own lane as they pass the stopped vehicles and nobody gets hit. But officers are getting hit. So, obviously, there are people who can’t keep their car going in a straight line (for the reasons listed in the previous paragraph.)
Now, by law, you ask these incompetents to change lanes and merge into traffic while going past the patrol car. If you’ve lived your whole life in Wyoming or Montana and these are your first few hours in Minnesota, you can be forgiven for not seeing the problem with this but, having spent 45 years driving among Minnesotans, it’s my guess that 20% of Minnesota drivers simply can’t merge — the concept is completely outside their understanding — and another 20% can, but won’t. So the law has now taken the relatively safe and easy maneuver of simply driving in a straight line past the cars on the roadside and instructed drivers to squish two lanes of traffic into one, a maneuver much more complex for the average Minnesotan, in the expectation that all of this jostling of traffic will make the office on the side of the road safer.
I take rather a different view of how to cut down on the number of collisions due to inattention. My solution: if the Legislature is going to “outlaw” things, (and that seems to be their approach to most everything, it’s what they know how to do best) outlaw air bags and automatic transmissions, power brakes and power steering. The spectre of a crash ought to bring to mind thoughts of death or dismemberment. Crashing one’s car ought to have more severe consequences than simply being a financial inconvenience. Let’s bring back unpadded steel dashboards. And get rid of all the power accessories so that driving has more of the feel of operating a large, dangerous machine and less the feel of sitting in a lounge chair, talking with friends on the phone while watching the scenery pass by. If a person can text message their friend while changing gears and wrestling with the steering wheel of a non-power assisted Chevy Suburban, more power to them. I think that people have adopted all of their “side behaviors” because “automated” driving is simply boring for them. We need to get them more actively involved in actually operating the car again. It’s the reason they’ve incorporated “rumble strips” on sections of interstate highway, to simply wake up drivers who have starting dozing due to the monotony of driving down long stretches of straight, smooth highway with little to do but simply hang on to the wheel and go along for the ride.
Were this done, I can practically hear the whining in my mind. “This car’s no fun to drive. It’s soooo hard to steer. I don’t like it.” And maybe, if driving weren’t quite as much “fun” as it’s become, people would make fewer frivolous trips and gasoline prices would stabilize, and carbon emissions would start going down and fewer patrol officers would be hit on the roadsides. Hmmmmm. Just a thought.
26 Responses to "Mailbag: Thoughts on moving over and merging from a driver named Paul"
How can you expect anyone to shift over one lane in the presence of a traffic stop when those same people can’t negotiate highway interchanges and perform zipper merges?
If people would get their cellphones surgically removed from their ears, perhaps driving would be safer.
Then again, perhaps pigs will learn to fly…(looks out window) Hmmm, not yet.
I have always thought that the automatic transmission should be banned, exactly for the reasons Paul stated; make people feel the driving experience and be more attentive through shifting their own gears. I admit without hesitation that I am much, much more attentive when I drive my manual car vs. my wife’s automatic sedean.
While I don’t agree with Paul about steel dashes, removing airbags, etc, I think taking some of the “assistance” out of driving is a great idea. I bet someone can find/make-up convincing statistics that certain types of crashes have risen due to stability control, etc, because people think their cars can now save them from anything.
Regarding the “fun” content, I think powerless brakes, powerless steering, and a 5-speed without syncronized gears would be a heckuvalotta fun!
I see his point, although, if everyone was moving over, then maybe that would alert people to the vehicle being there. If you have been staring at the car ahead of you for 5 miles and it suddenly changes lanes, you’re more likely to notice the other car there.
IMO- one of his stronger points is the law of unintended consequences. This ad may not decrease the number of accidents, but it’s now more likely that someone who can’t merge (or at least thinks that you need to slow down 10mph to do so) will be cutting in front of me with reckless abandon because they saw an ad on TV that told them they must.
The thing that scares me the most of all of this is the lack of judgment on the road. A driver needs to realize when it is safe to do something and when it’s not, including such things as talking on cell phones or anything else. If people realized that others around them were acting and reacting and worked to balance their interests with the interests of everyone else trying to get where they want to go as well, we’d have far fewer problems and wouldn’t need to micro-govern every aspect of driving.
There is great wisdom in Paul’s observation. I bet we will see more frequent accidents from reckless lane shifters in the future than officers who have been hit in the past.
The law isn’t about causation. It’s about giving troopers room to operate and, in doing so, to decrease the likelihood of an accident by decreasing the number of full-speed vechicles operating near a stopped emergency vehicle.
I see no problem in disagreeing with the law, but I truly hope it’s not rooted in the idea that it was made illegal because people were doing it on purpose or because it wasn’t illegal. That’s faulty logic.
Great observations, Paul, and thanks Roadguy for posting in its entirety. It’s a short-sighted law that doesn’t address the root of the problem.
“Situational Awareness”
Situational awareness is a learned traight and if it could be taught to the public, not just on our roads, but everywhere, our society as a whole would be better off.
Paul makes excellent points about cars being too easy to drive. My vehicle in H.S. was a 1991 S10 with a 5-speed on the floor and no power steering. It took serious *work* to drive that thing — and it was a relatively light-weight pickup. I didn’t have a cell phone, but even if I had I wouldn’t have been able to use it. Steering was two-handed, nearly all the time.
I bought my current (and previous) car with a manual because I love to drive it and really like the additional feel that it gives me. After five or six years of driving an automatic, I realized just how more attentive I had become. Stop-and-go traffic isn’t even that bad if I pick the right gear and allow the gap in front of me to expand and contract. It just takes more concentration than the mindless speed-up, slow-down ritual an automatic allows. Power steering allows phone calls while driving, but the best part about a manual? It’s a built-in excuse to end said phone call: “Gotta go, time to shift.”
While I’m a fan of stick shifts myself, Alert Reader Paul obviously comes from an era when “men were men, and the cars knew it…………..”
He describes himself as having been driving for 45 years. That means he comes from an era when cars with the accessories he decries were fairly rare. Since he implies in his letter that Minnesota drivers have always been incompetent, the threat of imminent death obviously didn’t deter drivers back then. I fail to see why it would now.
The “Ted Foss Move Over Law” states: “When approaching and before passing an authorized emergency vehicle that is parked or otherwise stopped on or next to a street or highway having two or more lanes in the same direction, the driver of the vehicle shall safely move the vehicle to a lane away from the emergency vehicle.”
IMHO, the key word here is “safely.” If there’s a car in the lane next to you, obviously it’s not “safe” to move over a lane. I’ve heard and read where Law Officers have stated that if it’s not safe to move over, at least slow down some. We do it for road workers. Why not law officers who are working?
I am a retired sheriff’s deputy.
This is an example of the state government passing to “do something” about a problem and then making it much worse.
Over my career, my squad has been hit three times during traffic stops and I cannot count the number of near misses. For the actual accidents, each driver stated that they “did not see me” despite my emergency lights.
Over the years, police departments have added more and brighter warning lights and louder sirens to “compete” with better made cars and more driver distractions.
Most preventable accidents, in my opinion, are caused by distracted drivers. Please always remember that no matter what else you are doing in the car, drively it safely is your first and most important duty.
Thanks for listening (reading).
Ed
I agree that we should slow down (gradually) and be alert when passing by a stopped patrol car but, in my experience, it has not been possible for me to move to the left lane safely most of the time.
I thought there were signs along the road that said: “STATE LAW: Move over or slow down for emergency vehicles.”
Or is that for emergency vehicles responding and in motion, not stopped on the side of the road?
Ed, the retired sheriff, is right. People are just to self-involved to see the police cars. I was in the Army Military Police in the early 80s. We told the newbies that when you were going to make a traffic stop you would first turn on the lights and wait a bit. If the driver did not respond, back off a bit and ‘blip’ the siren. 99.9% of the time the drivers would immediately stand on their brakes and come to a complete stop in the middle of the lane and if you had not backed off a little, you might find yourself kissing their rear bumper.
All it takes is for one person, to done one moronic thing at the wrong time, to cause an accident. When you multiply the number of persons, by the number of moronic things they do, by the number of commutes they’re making - it’s a wonder there isn’t a traffic fatality every minute of the day. I minimize the number of moronic things I do behind the wheel by NOT using my cellphone (text, bluetooth, or otherwise), NOT eating and drinking, not balancing my little dog on my lap, NOT loading up the car with my boistrous friends, NOT blasting my stereo so loud my eardrums bleed, NOT catching up on my reading, and NOT after I’ve indulged in excessive amounts of alcohol. Imagine that. When I drive, it’s to get from A to B, as quickly and safely as possible. And I’ve never once rear-ended a squad car, or anyone else for that matter, alongside the road. But I’m certainly glad the state has passed this ridiculous and unenforcable law. What’s the cop going to do, stop what they’re doing, run back to their car, and chase you down? Nanny state 1, Common sense 0.
Sean — The new signs you are referencing are for the new law for emergency vehicles that have stopped on the side of the road.
As for when an emergency vehicle is responding and in motion and approaching you from behind, I reference Chapter 169, Sec. 20, Subd. 5, Para. (a) (yup, I looked it up just to verify), which indicates that you are required to move over (as far to the right as possible) and STOP. While I doubt that many drivers have indeed stopped fully in that situation, that’s a whole other discussion.
Pete,
I knew someone who lived in OH (they have the same law) and got a ticket during a “sting.” She came down the road and didn’t move over–there was a staged “pull-over”–and when she didn’t move over, another cop came up behind her and pulled her over for not moving over.
Of course this is her own account and who knows if that is how it really went down as I wasn’t there to see it myself, but for whatever it’s worth…
Figures. As if the cops don’t have anything better to do with their time. I don’t understand why they don’t park themselves at the ends of the on-ramps and catch the red-light runners or HOV violators. Talk about a revenue-generating opportunity!
Yesterday, on southbound Hwy 100, at about 9:30 AM, I observed multiple vehicles successfully executing lane changes & merges - at 60+ mph - in order to avoid a duck & her ducklings crossing the freeway. When I went by, they’d already made it to the center lane. Sliding over for the cops shouldn’t pose much of a challenge - particularly if the people in the center lane are also paying attention & make the appropriate room for people in the right lane.
Hmmph. We can see a little birdie on the freeway at 60mph, but we cannot see a big squad car with big colored strobelights…
“Eye chart? I don’t see no eye chart! Just gimme my license!”
Obvioulsy, if someone is pulled off on the shoulder, changing a tire, or a police officer, or a tow truck, or what ever, it’s common sense to give them as much extra room as you can.
Does this have to be legislated? Certainly not.
It’s a useless law. Just another example of our legislature trying to nano-manage the citizens.
I taught my sons that when they see a beating heart on the roadways to take their foot off the gas, in other words slow their vehicle down.
This will give them time to react in whatever way they need to for the occurrence coming up.
Made sense to me all my driving years.
Ive seen some instances where the left lane was completely open, yet some vehicles didnt bother moving over for an officer that has pulled someone over on the right shoulder. Sometimes though ive seen pull-overs in horrible spots - curves and hills - and i got stuck not being able to move over. Another thing, what most people dont know is to either move over OR, SLOW DOWN. And the speed in which they request us to slow to is 20 below posted limit or 45 miles an hour. But werent we taught to move over for any vehicle on the shoulder nearest our lane of travel? i think i was.
It does indeed make sense that someone should give extra room to someone, anyone, on the side of the road, be it a troooper or a person changing a tire or whatever. It’s too bad this sort of thing has to be legislated, but that doesn’t make it a “useless” law. It’s like the law requiring headlights in the rain. Granted, anyone with a brain bigger than a pea should be able to figure this out on their own, but experience shows people are stupid. They are too dumb to do it on their own, and it’s only their own stupidity that means the rest of us get stuck with a law to govern it.
As a former officer I can tell you that it is sad this has to be a law. We do need it as a law because people no longer have the common sense or etiquette to move over a lane for any vehicle on the shoulder (especially one with bright flashing led’s). Avoid danger. It’s not that hard of a concept. Go stand on the highway real close to the shoulder line and see how much you like the artificial fan.
Thanks, Roadguy, for passing on my little rant. I’ve enjoyed reading the various comments. I have no problem with trying to keep patrol officers, maintenance workers or anyone on the roadside safe. I just thought that the wording, “When you see,” was, if nothing else, a bit naive. If they saw, of course they wouldn’t collide. The problem is the not seeing. And, to be honest, if today’s cars were stripped of power brakes and power steering, I’m sure that gross mayhem would ensue.
Also in fairness to those who divide their attention between driving and other tasks, except for a couple of years in the ’70s, I never commuted back and forth to work so I don’t have a good feel for just what a mind-numbing experience that must be. But my father was a truck driver and when we drove, he saw things, both on and off the road, that I just didn’t see. It was totally amazing. And there’s lots to do, (or at least there was in his day, with two transmissions to shift, mirrors to watch, etc.,) when driving a semi. But, despite having millions of miles “under his belt”, his vigilance never failed. And I was so impressed that, with all his experience, he never treated driving, even the family car, as a casual thing that I have little sympathy for those “amateurs” who do, though I’m sure that most of them didn’t learn to drive from the same perspective that I did. I wish they could.
In my years of bicycling back and forth to work, I, (who never wore a helmet,) saw other, helmeted bicyclists do what I considered some of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen done on a bicycle,
which caused me to wonder if they wore a helmet because they recognized that their foolhardiness would one day get them injured or if, when they put on their helmet, they felt like they’d been inoculated from danger. Thus my speculation as to whether getting rid of safety and convenience power assists might get drivers refocused on the task of driving and might instill a feeling of vulnerability, a greater sense of danger.
What I’d really like to see are driver’s tests administered on a driving simulator like the flight simulators that pilots get tested on. All kinds of conditions, including distractions, could be simulated. Certainly the technology exists to do that. But I’m sure that, politically, it would be deemed too expensive. So I suppose we’ll just have to “live” with a few (hundred?) extra deaths per year for the saking of keeping our taxes down.
Hi Road Guy,
Well, it looks like interest in this thread has about petered out so I might as well administer the coup de grace. I had barely hit the enter key after my last posting when the absurdity of my characterizing other bicyclists’ actions as stupid while admitting to riding a bike without a helmet hit me. I expected somebody to point out my “pot calling the kettle black.” That nobody has suggests to me that nobody has read this topic since I posted that.
I’m obviously an unreconstructed old curmudgeon and in my days I’ve seen great improvements made to both cars and highways–divided highways with limited access, steel belted radial tires, padded interiors, seat belts, air bags, traction control & anti-lock brakes to name but a few. And we don’t seem to be much safer than we were in the fifties without all of those improvements. (Is there anything on the roadside more visible than a patrol car with hazard lights flashing?) It’s easy to assail the highway engineers and the automakers on issues of safety but, given the rate and the ways in which people are still dying on the roads, it makes me wonder if we don’t need to take another look at improving the skills and mental involvement of drivers. My allusion to my father’s experience wasn’t intended to be, (though it may have come off sounding that way,) self-righteous but to explain that I was very humbled, riding with him, and that if he, with all his experience, kept his full attention on the task of driving, maybe it would behoove all of us, myself definitely included, to think about focusing our attention more exclusively on driving and less on entertaining ourselves behind the wheel. Except for skidding on an icy highway, all of the driving behaviors that would allow a moving vehicle to slam into a patrol car on the shoulder of the road are already illegal. We already have speed limits that are routinely disregarded. It’s already illegal to blow through a red light but people do it all the time. Drinking and driving, driving while overly tired, simply not keeping one’s vehicle under control are all illegal. Why would one more law make any difference? It seems to me that, at some point we have to acknowledge that there aren’t enough police officers out there to ensure our safety. We’ll simply have to take responsibility for it ourselves. Like me riding my bike without a helmet, the fact that we’ve made it without incident thus far seems to make us complacent. And we shouldn’t be. When we start veering off the road and slamming into brightly lit, highly visible objects, it seems to me like a loud wake up call.
Thanks for the opportunity to have my say. Sorry if my thoughts, as I wrote them, were a bit too strident and inflammatory.
