Unfair Failure to Yield to Police Officer Ticket

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Virginia

I was driving along 288 and passed by two police cars pulled over to the side of the road. There was an officer outside of his vehicle who motioned to move in to the left lane. This was impossible, because directly to the left of me there was another vehicle. There also was not enough time to decelerate and pull in to the left lane when I was motioned to move in to it. I assumed the cops realized this since I drove on for about five minutes, before police cars came in behind me and pulled me over. They wanted to search my car, but I told them I don't consent to any searches and they dropped the idea. I was citated for Failure to yield right of way to emergency vehicle. Is there any way I can fight this? I only got my license three months ago, so I'm worried about losing it over this silly ticket. :wallbang: Thanks in advance for any help.

silly ticket? Are you not aware of how many cops are injured or killed because of the situation you described? Most states have laws requiring you move over or slow down when approaching an emergency vehicle.



You were directed to move to the other lane. That isn't a suggestion. It's a directive which you are required to comply with.

Not only that, there is a law that requires you to move over, if at all possible, when approaching an emergency vehicle with their lights on. Unless they cars were immediately after a hill and you could not see them as you approached, I really do not see any defense to your failure to move over as directed.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

silly ticket? Are you not aware of how many cops are injured or killed because of the situation you described? Most states have laws requiring you move over or slow down when approaching an emergency vehicle.



You were directed to move to the other lane. That isn't a suggestion. It's a directive which you are required to comply with.

Not only that, there is a law that requires you to move over, if at all possible, when approaching an emergency vehicle with their lights on. Unless they cars were immediately after a hill and you could not see them as you approached, I really do not see any defense to your failure to move over as directed.

---

Okay, Next time an officer directs me to move in to the other lane beside me where there's a vehicle, I'll be a good little sheeple and drive in to it, great idea. I try to drive as safely as possible, and to follow the officers request would have caused an accident.

Quote:

---

Quoting TLP5

---

Okay, Next time an officer directs me to move in to the other lane beside me where there's a vehicle, I'll be a good little sheeple and drive in to it, great idea. I try to drive as safely as possible, and to follow the officers request would have caused an accident.

---

You say there was no time to slow down and move over, but did you slow down at all when you saw the lights? Was your speed less than the speed limit? From your description it does not sound like it was either reasonable or safe to change lanes. These kinds of laws are intentionally written with vague language. What constitutes a "safe" speed for conditions when the emergency vehicle is off the side of the road? Slowing down to anything below the speed limit would seem to comply with the language of the law. It says yield OR slow down. If you did one OR the other, then you should not be found guilty. However, the reality is that you will likely be found guilty. This is a big money maker from everything I have read all over the web. Washington just enacted a very similar law recently.

It does not seem likely that you would lose your license based on section C.

Quote:

---

Quoting Code Of Virginia

---

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

A. The driver of any motor vehicle, upon approaching a stationary vehicle that is displaying a flashing, blinking, or alternating blue, red, or amber light or lights as provided in § 46.2-1022, 46.2-1023, or 46.2-1024 or subdivision A 1 or A 2 of § 46.2-1025 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 the stationary vehicle or (ii) if changing lanes would be unreasonable or unsafe, proceed with due caution and maintain a safe speed for highway conditions.

B. A violation of any provision of this section shall be punishable as a traffic infraction, except that a second or subsequent violation of any provision of this section, when such violation involved a vehicle with flashing, blinking, or alternating blue or red lights, shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

C. 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.

D. The provisions of this section shall not apply in highway work zones as defined in § 46.2-878.1.

(2002, cc. 163, 341; 2008, c. 818; 2010, c. 289.)

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Speedy Gonzalez

---

You say there was no time to slow down and move over, but did you slow down at all when you saw the lights? Was your speed less than the speed limit? From your description it does not sound like it was either reasonable or safe to change lanes. These kinds of laws are intentionally written with vague language. What constitutes a "safe" speed for conditions when the emergency vehicle is off the side of the road? Slowing down to anything below the speed limit would seem to comply with the language of the law. It says yield OR slow down. If you did one OR the other, then you should not be found guilty. However, the reality is that you will likely be found guilty. This is a big money maker from everything I have read all over the web. Washington just enacted a very similar law recently.

It does not seem likely that you would lose your license based on section C.

---

Thank you for the reply, it is greatly appreciated. When I saw the officers to the side of the road, I moved as far to the left inside of my lane as was safely possible, because I do acknowledge the danger there is to cops when they are on the side of the road. Although I did not slow down any, I was going below the speed limit, somewhere between 55 and 60. How can they prove that I did not slow down though when I saw them on the side of the road? There isn't any evidence to say that I didn't slow down, unless they actually used a radar gun to determine my speed before I came upon them and then after. Clearly their own visual of it is no accurate representation.

Also, I've been through drivers education as well as behind the wheel and I have not even heard of this law. Numerous people who I have asked also haven't heard of it. What gives with the lack of awareness? This is definitely something they should be teaching. I always recognized that you should yield to emergency vehicles in the road, but these vehicles were pulled over and stationary.

Quote:

---

Quoting TLP5

---

Thank you for the reply, it is greatly appreciated. When I saw the officers to the side of the road, I moved as far to the left inside of my lane as was safely possible, because I do acknowledge the danger there is to cops when they are on the side of the road. Although I did not slow down any, I was going below the speed limit, somewhere between 55 and 60. How can they prove that I did not slow down though when I saw them on the side of the road? There isn't any evidence to say that I didn't slow down, unless they actually used a radar gun to determine my speed before I came upon them and then after. Clearly their own visual of it is no accurate representation.

---

first, the law requires you to move over or, if not safe, to drive prudently. The problem: the law is irrelevant in this situation. The cop gave you a specific directive to move to the other lane. While you say it was unsafe to do so because there was a car there, you also say you did not slow down whatsoever so you could merge behind the other car.

How do you know the cop wasn't directing you around something in the road or some other reason it was imperative you moved over?

You ignored the direct and legal order of a police officer and that is an offense not taken lightly by any force across the country. You can whine all you want about being a sheeple and if that is what you believe this situation to be, then be prepared to lose your license for other acts taken simply to protest.

Have a great life walking,.

Quote:

---

Quoting TLP5

---

. Clearly their own visual of it is no accurate representation.

---

actually, in many states, the officers determination of your speed is adequate testimony to convict a person for speeding. A radar or other means of measurement is actually considered supporting of the officers determination rather than the other way around.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

first, the law requires you to move over or, if not safe, to drive prudently. The problem: the law is irrelevant in this situation. The cop gave you a specific directive to move to the other lane. While you say it was unsafe to do so because there was a car there, you also say you did not slow down whatsoever so you could merge behind the other car.

How do you know the cop wasn't directing you around something in the road or some other reason it was imperative you moved over?

You ignored the direct and legal order of a police officer and that is an offense not taken lightly by any force across the country. You can whine all you want about being a sheeple and if that is what you believe this situation to be, then be prepared to lose your license for other acts taken simply to protest.

Have a great life walking,.

---

There was not time to slow down and merge in to the other lane. When the cop motioned, we were very close. Given the proximity, I would have had to slam on my breaks in traffic on a highway, which I was taught not to do by my behind the wheel instructor.

I know he was not directing me around something in the road because I am not blind.

Yes, I ignored the direct order of an officer, in order to avoid an accident. I did it not out of protest, but for safety. You're basically pulling these assumptions out of thin air. If you're not going to be reasonable, you don't have to post in this thread, you know. But of course I'm a terrible human being for not wanting to be involved in an accident and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. :P

and to your claim of ignorance of the law:

since you have had your license only 3 months, I suspect the current version of the driver's manual available from the DMV was also in print when you got your license. Here is an excerpt from that manual:

Quote:

---

Yielding to Vehicles with Flashing Lights
Drivers must take specific actions when they see vehicles
with flashing or blinking blue, red, yellow or white lights on
roadways.
Stopped vehicles
 When approaching a stopped vehicle with flashing
lights on a four lane highway, you must change to a lane
not next to the emergency vehicle, if you can change
lanes safely. If you are unable to safely change lanes,
reduce your speed and proceed with caution. Violations
can result in court suspension of your driver’s license
and demerit points on your driving record

---

so, now how do you claim a justified ignorance to the law? I guess if you want to tell the judge you did nothing to educate yourself on the driving laws of your state, I suppose he might believe you. If you do that, I would be concerned that he might think you are ignorant on many other laws of the state and want you to educate yourself a bit more before being allowed to drive again.

Quote:

---

TLP5;551377]There was not time to slow down and merge in to the other lane. When the cop motioned, we were very close. Given the proximity, I would have had to slam on my breaks in traffic on a highway, which I was taught not to do by my behind the wheel instructor.

---

If you had at least made an effort to slow down, I suspect they may not have chased you down and given you a ticket. If you haven't noticed, if you cannot change lanes, you are required to slow down. If you had done that, at least you could stand in front of a judge and say:

It was not safe to change lanes due to other traffic BUT I DID SLOW DOWN as required as an alternate action.

Instead, you can argue that you tried to move over and did nothing to alter your speed. Maybe the judge will accept your explanation. It is up to him.

Quote:

---

I know he was not directing me around something in the road because I am not blind.

---

Oh, so you can see glass in the road or that somebody was going to walk around the front of the vehicle at that time and needed the space? In reality, it doesn't matter. He did direct you to change lanes and you refused to comply with his order.

Quote:

---

Yes, I ignored the direct order of an officer, in order to avoid an accident.

---

it's your story.

Quote:

---

I did it not out of protest, but for safety.

---

Now, if you slowed down, I would believe you. As it is, all I see is "I did not slow down and I did not move into the other lane as directed"

Quote:

---

You're basically pulling these assumptions out of thin air.

---

what assumptions? I've assumed nothing.

Quote:

---

If you're not going to be reasonable, you don't have to post in this thread, you know.

---

I'm not being unreasonable. I'm being realistic. You are the one that states he couldn't pull over AND for some reason, he could take no effort to slow down. That is what I see as unreasonable.

Quote:

---

of course I'm a terrible human being for not wanting to be involved in an accident and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. :

---

glad you feel that way. Why don't you say that to the judge. I'm sure he will accommodate your desires.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and to your claim of ignorance of the law:

since you have had your license only 3 months, I suspect the current version of the driver's manual available from the DMV was also in print when you got your license. Here is an excerpt from that manual:



so, now how do you claim a justified ignorance to the law? I guess if you want to tell the judge you did nothing to educate yourself on the driving laws of your state, I suppose he might believe you. If you do that, I would be concerned that he might think you are ignorant on many other laws of the state and want you to educate yourself a bit more before being allowed to drive again.

---

http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/p..._story_bro.jpg

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're NOT going to win this one. Moving to the left side of your lane isn't sufficient. If you were not able to move out of the right lane, you should have substantially slowed way before the cops started fearing for their lives from you. 60 MPH is going to get you laughed out of court (Speedlimit on 288 is 65).

As for mitigation. How old are you? If this is your only ticket, you're not going to LOSE IT over this. If you're young, you'll have to take driving school (8 hours). With a clean record a judge might offer you either costs only or some other deal, but that's not likely if you go in their with a chip on your shoulder claiming you couldn't comply with the law when it is clear that you should have.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're NOT going to win this one. Moving to the left side of your lane isn't sufficient. If you were not able to move out of the right lane, you should have substantially slowed way before the cops started fearing for their lives from you. 60 MPH is going to get you laughed out of court (Speedlimit on 288 is 65).

As for mitigation. How old are you? If this is your only ticket, you're not going to LOSE IT over this. If you're young, you'll have to take driving school (8 hours). With a clean record a judge might offer you either costs only or some other deal, but that's not likely if you go in their with a chip on your shoulder claiming you couldn't comply with the law when it is clear that you should have.

---

Wasn't planning on going in there with a chip on my shoulder, I have none. And I'm not going to be claiming I couldn't comply with the law, I'm just going to make them prove that I didn't comply with it. After all, the burden of proof isn't on me. I'll play their game by their rules. Simply put I don't have the cashflow right now to deal with paying off a traffic ticket, driving school and the increased insurance rates right now. For some people it may not be a problem, but for me, it's a big deal.

I'm seventeen by the way. Clean driving record, no accidents / prior tickets.

Quote:

---

TLP5;551388]Wasn't planning on going in there with a chip on my shoulder, I have none. And I'm not going to be claiming I couldn't comply with the law, I'm just going to make them prove that I didn't comply with it.

---

well, that's going to be easy. The cop will state he directed you to change your lane, he will testify you didn't. There is the proof you want. What else do you want?

Quote:

---

Simply put I don't have the cashflow right now to deal with paying off a traffic ticket, driving school and the increased insurance rates right now.

---

as Baretta used to say: if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Quote:

---

I'm seventeen by the way. Clean driving record, no accidents / prior tickets.

---

I would hope not since you have had your license for only 3 months.

This message is hidden because jk is on your ignore list.

Sorry, you're wrong again. First off, on this one it's not "Beyond a reasonable doubt" it's just a preponderance of the evidence. The testimony of the officer that you came past him neither slowing down nor moving over even BEFORE he motioned you to do so is MORE THAN ENOUGH to convict. It's not "their rules" it's the LAW OF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. I know you're not old enough to vote for the legislators, but the law still applies to you.

If you're lucky, perhaps the judge will let you off without a conviction reported to your insurance company if you take driving school. You do know that you will have to have a PARENT with you in court (if you don't, your case WILL NOT BE HEARD) and if you end up in driving school a parent (unless you have a gracious judge like my daughter had when she got her ticket a month before her 18th birthday) attend the classes with you. Yes it will run about $75. If you get convicted, the DMV will send you a letter that requires you to take the class or YOU WILL LOSE YOUR LICENSE.

Now you can go there and be abject in your apology for not being attentive or not to slow down (or move) prior to actually reaching the scene, and that you couldn't safely do so later, but as I said, that's no excuse. Maybe you'll get a soft judge

If you don't have the cashflow to honor the implications of failure to observe the traffic laws, you're going to find yourself without the cashflow to drive for a bit.

Yes, I know I have to have a parent with me in court. The officer explained that. Wasn't aware that I'd need to have a parent with me in the drivers school, thanks for informing me. Gee, guess I'll never pass it, in that case. ._. My only real option is to fight it the best I can. I don't consider "I'm sorry, please fine me." an option. The implications will be the same regardless of if I am found guilty after fighting it, and if I just enter a guilty plea. I can only gain by fighting it. First of all, the officer may not even show. It's not terribly uncommon, and if it happens in my case I'll motion to dismiss. That isn't going to be my only line of defense though.

I know it's asking a lot but can you link me to a source about the officer's testimony being enough proof to convict, if it is brought up that no other measuring device was used, such as a case law, for Virginia? I've tried Googling around some but I couldn't find anything helpful. Would be greatly appreciated.

I'm sorry but, as a somewhat new-ish (though older) driver, I have to get on the soapbox. When you are in the right-most lane at freeway speeds, and see a vehicle pulled over on the shoulder, even without any lights, shouldn't it just be plain old common sense to slow down? To minimize any risk of a collision (door swinging open, etc.), and perhaps to see if the driver is in some kind of trouble you may be able to help with? This sense should just be heightened as (a) hazard lights are on (b) there's more than one vehicle (c) you can SEE PEOPLE around or (d) it's a police/emergency vehicle (e) with EMERGENCY LIGHTS on.

I understand how changing lanes may not be an immediate reflex to this situation, especially for a new driver. Still, you were directed to in this case. It's hard to believe the two cars and officer popped out of nowhere giving you no time to at least decelerate to a safe speed. You've already been a "sheeple" by blindly following your instructor's edict to "never slam on the brakes on a freeway." Assuming you were paying attention to your surroundings AND to your mirrors, there shouldn't have been any slamming needed to slow down!

If the officer(s) show(s), it would be foolish for you to put up any kind of affirmative defense such as "make the officer prove I did not slow down." His word will be enough, and if he testifies he felt even remotely that he was in danger, the judge will probably show no mercy from whatever maximum fine/penalties the law mandates. In your place, I would simply be VERY contrite and apologetic, and explain that as a brand new driver you simply "froze" or "panicked" when you saw (a) the officer's direction (b) no opening in the lane to your left and (c) the instruction drilled into you to never brake on a freeway -- and messed up. This may convince the judge to reduce your fines/penalties (to the extent that he can).

Quote:

---

Quoting TLP5

---

I know it's asking a lot but can you link me to a source about the officer's testimony being enough proof to convict, if it is brought up that no other measuring device was used, such as a case law, for Virginia?

---

You haven't been cited for speeding or exceeding the posted limit, but for failure to yield right of way. Case law about speeding won't help. If the officer (under oath) testifies, and all you have in your defense is your word, as a practical matter the judge will give the officer's word more weight. Think about it: who has more to lose, and therefore more incentive to, uh, not be completely truthful?

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

I'm sorry but, as a somewhat new-ish (though older) driver, I have to get on the soapbox. When you are in the right-most lane at freeway speeds, and see a vehicle pulled over on the shoulder, even without any lights, shouldn't it just be plain old common sense to slow down? To minimize any risk of a collision (door swinging open, etc.), and perhaps to see if the driver is in some kind of trouble you may be able to help with? This sense should just be heightened as (a) hazard lights are on (b) there's more than one vehicle (c) you can SEE PEOPLE around or (d) it's a police/emergency vehicle (e) with EMERGENCY LIGHTS on.

I understand how changing lanes may not be an immediate reflex to this situation, especially for a new driver. Still, you were directed to in this case. It's hard to believe the two cars and officer popped out of nowhere giving you no time to at least decelerate to a safe speed. You've already been a "sheeple" by blindly following your instructor's edict to "never slam on the brakes on a freeway." Assuming you were paying attention to your surroundings AND to your mirrors, there shouldn't have been any slamming needed to slow down!

If the officer(s) show(s), it would be foolish for you to put up any kind of affirmative defense such as "make the officer prove I did not slow down." His word will be enough, and if he testifies he felt even remotely that he was in danger, the judge will probably show no mercy from whatever maximum fine/penalties the law mandates. In your place, I would simply be VERY contrite and apologetic, and explain that as a brand new driver you simply "froze" or "panicked" when you saw (a) the officer's direction (b) no opening in the lane to your left and (c) the instruction drilled into you to never brake on a freeway -- and messed up. This may convince the judge to reduce your fines/penalties (to the extent that he can).

---

Interesting points. Though I must mention that they were pulled well off, certainly far enough that a swinging door wouldn't have hit my vehicle. Had they been less far to my lane, I would've certainly slowed down well before I got that close, but I felt no real danger given their distance.

My instructors advice not to slam on the breaks in a freeway is sound, in most situations. He didn't say never break, but not to slam on them, as I would have had to do by the time I was motioned to move over. I'd rather not get rear ended, and there was a vehicle not far behind me. He would have have had time to slow down himself by my judgment, but the thought of counting on that and then quickly getting rear ended at 60 miles per hour doesn't appeal really. :3

True, they did not pop out of nowhere. At that location the road was straight as can be. By the time I was motioned though, there was definitely not any chance of safely merging, so I did what was at that point the safest thing I could do.

Quote:

---

If the officer(s) show(s), it would be foolish for you to put up any kind of affirmative defense such as "make the officer prove I did not slow down." His word will be enough, and if he testifies he felt even remotely that he was in danger, the judge will probably show no mercy from whatever maximum fine/penalties the law mandates. In your place, I would simply be VERY contrite and apologetic, and explain that as a brand new driver you simply "froze" or "panicked" when you saw (a) the officer's direction (b) no opening in the lane to your left and (c) the instruction drilled into you to never brake on a freeway -- and messed up. This may convince the judge to reduce your fines/penalties (to the extent that he can).

---

This actually seems pretty sound, I'll consider it. I'd like to see the source I asked for earlier first though.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

You haven't been cited for speeding or exceeding the posted limit, but for failure to yield right of way. Case law about speeding won't help. If the officer (under oath) testifies, and all you have in your defense is your word, as a practical matter the judge will give the officer's word more weight. Think about it: who has more to lose, and therefore more incentive to, uh, not be completely truthful?

---

Case law about speeding won't help, but case law about speed for what I am being cited with, failure to yield to an emergency vehicle, I would at least like to take a look at, if it exists. After all, they do have to show that at no point I slowed down. I want to see a reliable source saying that for this particular traffic violation, an officer's word is taken for it when it has been introduced that speed was not measured otherwise. I want to have as much information as possible really. Knowledge is power my friends. :)

Also, even if the officer has less incentive to be untruthful, (which I could argue about but I'll spare you it) the officer's memory can't be considered reliable. Sure, he'll take notes at the scene, but when he takes the stand in this case, of the numerous traffic violation cases he's involved in, he likely isn't going to remember anything. Of course, the judge will always side of the officer anyway when it comes down to people's word.

Quote:

---

TLP5;551416]Interesting points. Though I must mention that they were pulled well off, certainly far enough that a swinging door wouldn't have hit my vehicle. Had they been less far to my lane, I would've certainly slowed down well before I got that close, but I felt no real danger given their distance.

---

more excuses of why I did not believe I had to comply with the law. What an attitude for such a young kid.

Quote:

---

My instructors advice not to slam on the breaks in a freeway is sound, in most situations. He didn't say never break, but not to slam on them, as I would have had to do by the time I was motioned to move over. I'd rather not get rear ended, and there was a vehicle not far behind me. He would have have had time to slow down himself by my judgment, but the thought of counting on that and then quickly getting rear ended at 60 miles per hour doesn't appeal really. :3

---

and yet, more excuses as to why I could not comply with the law

Quote:

---

True, they did not pop out of nowhere. At that location the road was straight as can be. By the time I was motioned though, there was definitely not any chance of safely merging, so I did what was at that point the safest thing I could do.

---

so, a straight road. That would mean he could see for a mile or more and yet he didn't have time to change lanes or slow down. Excuses, excuses and more excuses none of which are valid.

Quote:

---

This actually seems pretty sound, I'll consider it. I'd like to see the source I asked for earlier first though.

---

I love it. I really want this kid to try to actually fight this.

Quote:

---

Quoting TLP5

---

Of course, the judge will always side of the officer anyway when it comes down to people's word.

---

There we go, then! :smug: Always keep that in mind when preparing any defense, now or in the future.

Your statement about the average traffic violator being unmemorable to the officer may have merit, but you're not average; the cops were concerned/slighted/whatever enough to leave whatever it is they were doing pulled over to spend five minutes chasing you down and citing you! You can bet that if the officer shows, he will distinctly remember this incident, from memory and/or his notes.

Assuming you were cited for violating the section Ron quoted earlier:

Quote:

---

Quoting Code of VA

---

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 the stationary vehicle or (ii) if changing lanes would be unreasonable or unsafe, proceed with due caution and maintain a safe speed for highway conditions.

---

If you claim changing lanes was unsafe, the officer will have to prove that you proceeded WITHOUT due caution and/or DID NOT maintain a safe speed for highway conditions. I would think that ignoring the officer's direction and not slowing down at all given the condition of two emergency vehicles pulled over fulfills those respectively. However, if you are hellbent on arguing this, these are the two elements you have to create reasonable doubt about.

While the incident is still fresh, make your own notes about exactly why changing lanes was unsafe or unreasonable in the first place -- number of vehicles, make, model, color, speed, etc. -- whatever you can remember. Do the same for the vehicle you think was following too closely behind you too. You will probably need this info to make your testimony sound plausible.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

more excuses of why I did not believe I had to comply with the law. What an attitude for such a young kid.

and yet, more excuses as to why I could not comply with the law

so, a straight road. That would mean he could see for a mile or more and yet he didn't have time to change lanes or slow down. Excuses, excuses and more excuses none of which are valid.



I love it. I really want this kid to try to actually fight this.

---

lol, I'm actually glad I clicked view. You're hilarious. :-)

Quote:

---

Your statement about the average traffic violator being unmemorable to the officer may have merit, but you're not average; the cops were concerned/slighted/whatever enough to leave whatever it is they were doing pulled over to spend five minutes chasing you down and citing you! You can bet that if the officer shows, he will distinctly remember this incident, from memory and/or his notes.

---

Fair point. :3

Quote:

---

If you claim changing lanes was unsafe, the officer will have to prove that you proceeded WITHOUT due caution and/or DID NOT maintain a safe speed for highway conditions. I would think that ignoring the officer's direction and not slowing down at all given the condition of two emergency vehicles pulled over fulfills those respectively. However, if you are hellbent on arguing this, these are the two elements you have to create reasonable doubt about.

---

To be clear, changing lanes wasn't unsafe until I was waved to do so. Before then, yeah, I could have. I screwed up there. But to change lanes when I was motioned to would've been equivalent to suicide.

Quote:

---

While the incident is still fresh, make your own notes about exactly why changing lanes was unsafe or unreasonable in the first place -- number of vehicles, make, model, color, speed, etc. -- whatever you can remember. Do the same for the vehicle you think was following too closely behind you too. You will probably need this info to make your testimony sound plausible.

---

I couldn't tell you the make of my own mother's car, much less the make and model of random people's cars. It's just non-essential info to me, I'm not big on cars it's just a device to get from A to B for me. The rest of that information I can write down though.

Quote:

---

Quoting TLP5

---

lol, I'm actually glad I clicked view. You're hilarious. :-)

.

---

That may be but I'm also not the one that got a ticket for doing something dumb and are here trying to find a way out of it. It's been so long since I got a ticket but I do remember what I did about it:

I paid it because the money was of no consequence to me.

I didn't care and I also didn't have to worry about losing my license over it nor did I have to bring mommy to court with me.

sucks to be you.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

That may be but I'm also not the one that got a ticket for doing something dumb and are here trying to find a way out of it. It's been so long since I got a ticket but I do remember what I did about it:

I paid it because the money was of no consequence to me.

I didn't care and I also didn't have to worry about losing my license over it nor did I have to bring mommy to court with me.

sucks to be you.

---

I've gotta ask, what's your problem with me dude? To be perfectly honest you come off as sort or prickish and hostile even, which makes it near impossible for me to take you seriously. I didn't even mind the criticism others gave in this thread, but you just seem impolite to me. I don't mean to insult you, I'm just speaking my mind. I think both of us can learn from this and be better individuals all around because of it.

Quote:

---

Quoting TLP5

---

I'm just speaking my mind..

---

and I am just speaking my mind.

I thought you put me on ignore?

as to insulting me: I always consider the source so an insult from you would not bother me in the least. You come across as a self righteous little twit that believes he is above the law. You have excuses for everything: why you couldn't pull over, why you couldn't slow down, why you didn't see the cops a mile ahead and take corrective action then.

Rather than telling the judge you took the action you felt was prudent given the circumstances and accepting whatever, if any, punishment comes from that, you want to fight this like there is no mistake in your actions. I think you would get a much better response from a judge, especially since you are so young, by telling him you did what you believed was proper and not go in with guns blazing and pissing off the judge by saying:

prove that I was wrong.

It is obvious you were wrong (the directive by the cop, not per the statute necessarily). At that point, rather than arguing you did not break the law, I believe the proper action would be to explain why you believe what you did made your actions legal, or at least acceptable and as such, did not warrant the ticket.

In honesty, you sound like an immature kid that thinks he owns the world. Not that that is unusual since many, if not most kids go through a similar stage but the sooner you learn that you don't own the world, the sooner you can improve yourself.

as to me changing: while not impossible, at my age it's unlikely. While you can teach an old dog new tricks, it usually takes a lot of incentive. I do not have any incentive to actually change since I am comfortable where I am, even if it pisses off some people.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and I am just speaking my mind.

I thought you put me on ignore?

as to insulting me: I always consider the source so an insult from you would not bother me in the least. You come across as a self righteous little twit that believes he is above the law. You have excuses for everything: why you couldn't pull over, why you couldn't slow down, why you didn't see the cops a mile ahead and take corrective action then.

Rather than telling the judge you took the action you felt was prudent given the circumstances and accepting whatever, if any, punishment comes from that, you want to fight this like there is no mistake in your actions. I think you would get a much better response from a judge, especially since you are so young, by telling him you did what you believed was proper and not go in with guns blazing and pissing off the judge by saying:

prove that I was wrong.

It is obvious you were wrong (the directive by the cop, not per the statute necessarily). At that point, rather than arguing you did not break the law, I believe the proper action would be to explain why you believe what you did made your actions legal, or at least acceptable and as such, did not warrant the ticket.

In honesty, you sound like an immature kid that thinks he owns the world. Not that that is unusual since many, if not most kids go through a similar stage but the sooner you learn that you don't own the world, the sooner you can improve yourself.

as to me changing: while not impossible, at my age it's unlikely. While you can teach an old dog new tricks, it usually takes a lot of incentive. I do not have any incentive to actually change since I am comfortable where I am, even if it pisses off some people.

---

I found the "Click here to view this post" all too tempting. Now I've decided it's probably better I unignore you, so we can chat.

Don't give me that excuse! It's never too late to better yourself. I don't know how old you are, but I know you can better yourself if you tried. Everybody has room for self betterment and that includes me. Besides, why should I change if the person telling me to won't even? I tend to watch what people do a lot more than what they say. You get a lot more accurate representation of who they are.

Thing about you is you make all these assumptions. Earlier you assumed I didn't move over out of protest, for example, that's where I stopped taking you seriously and decided to put you on ignore. These assumptions just seem to magically appear. You make one in your last post, that my defense was to say "Prove I was wrong." I have a little more tact than that. I say the burden of proof is on them and you just twist it in to something else. You might be doing it right now, twisting what I'm typing in to something completely unrecognizable. : P I hope not, I want to have an intelligent mature discussion. Another assumption is that I had an excuse for why I couldn't see the cops a mile ahead, because I didn't make an excuse for that. I did see them, and I've said that. Also, sometimes what you call excuses are perfectly valid reasons. You can call my reason for not changing lanes once I was directed to by the cop an excuse all you want but it doesn't change the fact that had I done so there's the very real possibility that I'd have been lying dead on route 288 right now instead of typing this message on here.

Immature, arrogant, self righteous, and a tad bi-polar. I am all of those and I'm not afraid to admit it in the slightest. After all, I'm human, we all have our flaws. You and I are flawed fundamentally, as is the rest of mankind. There's nothing we can do but better ourselves as human beings and try to get along. Especially since I'm probably going to be sticking around here a bit. There's so much I can learn on here, this forum is a wonderful source.

TLPS: I'm not acquainted with VA traffic law. That said, I doubt very much you will find the kind of case law you want, for a couple of reasons:

• Most case law about speed measuring devices is with reference to statutes on speeding.
• Your citation is for a fairly rare and minor violation
• Most importantly, it involves *subjective* judgment on part of the officer; with their training/experience (and not just because they wear a badge), judges and courts will often defer to their calls and presume they were correct unless YOU can prove otherwise.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose the officer had a radar log that shows you going past at 55-60 mph on a 60 mph posted highway, and you somehow show that was a safe speed for the conditions. Based on the elements of the offense, all he has to testify to is that, in his professional opinion, you proceeded without due caution for you to have broken the law.

You can look up VA statutes as well as case law to see what exactly "conditions" mean in this context (the phrase is probably also in a max speed statute, so it shouldn't be hard); here in CA, courts have interpreted that to include pedestrians, disabled vehicles, etc.

You have to decide whether you want to go all-or-nothing here; if the cop shows, you end up riling the judge with your defense but still end up guilty and can still take traffic school by law, it becomes a monetary decision between the max fine+fees and the minimum they might be reduced to if you went in all apologetic. Good luck either way!

It would have been good to mention to the officer you wanted to switch lanes right away as directed, but could not because it was a safety issue. You both had completely different vantage points. It's unclear as to whether you did or did not mention this to him, and the response.

The reality is, even if you are telling the truth, it's going to be difficult. This forum also can have a bit of a "holier-than-thou" mentality....if you haven't noticed.

It's not holier than thou, it's just realistic. Even if you 100% believe his story, he incriminates himself. If he goes to court, he will lose. There's not a shred of mitigating statement. He was already guilty as soon as he barreled down on the cop at 60MPH in the right lane. The fact he didn't move over (for whatever reason) after the cop motioned him to do so is just icing on the cake. The fact the officer had to do so was already an indication of his failure to comply with the law.

It's not rare nor is it particularly minor (though it's not criminal as reckless would have been). It is subjective on the officer's part for sure, but I don't see anything in his story that would sway them. Especially if he says what he says here. The officer might as well not even show up, he's incriminating himself.

I'm not familiar with the GDC down in Chesterfield or whatever court he's going to appear in, so I can only speak of general things. If his record is otherwise clean, the judges sometimes will offer some leniency. Sometimes they'll let you defer for taking VADIP, sometimes they'll drop the fine (leaves about $50 in court costs). Never hurts to ask after you're already been frank about being wrong in committing the crime. GDC is fairly informal, but judges aren't going to permit you to whine or argue like you have here. You can ask the officer questions about his testimony if you want. You can present your case in turn. You might want to sit in on a prior session to see the sense of things.

If he can make the point with absolute confidence that it was unsafe to switch lanes at the particular moment, the judge may believe him. it's completely possible that happened, the officer was directing traffic to the other lane, but at that time, there was a car next to him and he could switch lanes. Also, wanting to search his vehicle does seem rather overzealous - unless that is standard in VA. "Probable cause" is intentionally set abysmally low. Not looking like a white 45 year old insurance salesman is usually enough to satisfy some sort of probable cause. Keep in mind, by not consenting to the search (even when not required) is a surefire way to upset the police.

There is a lack of clarity - he does not mention what he said to them. If he said nothing to them, that may have been the best thing to do.

Most likely he will lose, correct...that's how traffic court generally works (probably even more so in draconian VA). Given the way he writes, he is obviously intelligent and may be able to present his points well enough to the judge, therefore, he may have a chance.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

If he can make the point with absolute confidence that it was unsafe to switch lanes at the particular moment, the judge may believe him. it's completely possible that happened, the officer was directing traffic to the other lane, but at that time, there was a car next to him and he could switch lanes.

---

What part of the statute are you incapable of understanding? He was already in violation of the move over law before he even attempted to move out of the lane. He by his own admission says he was probably going close to the speed limit and made no attempt to slow down or move over prior to getting to the point where the cop was fearing for his life.

What does "probable cause" have to do with it? He has an eye witness who saw him violate the statute and will testify to it in court. That's pretty much all it takes in all 50 states.

Even if he clearly communicates what he says here, all he's indicating is that he's guilty as charged.
I told him how to mitigate the damage based on how things work in GDC here.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

It's not rare nor is it particularly minor (though it's not criminal as reckless would have been). It is subjective on the officer's part for sure,

---

To clarify, I made those observations strictly in the context of (code violations that make their way into) case law i.e. compared to DUIs, reckless, etc. :)

Ok, there's nothing about the cop "fearing for his life", that's pure theatrics. Typical prosecution-mindset kabuki that permeates this sub-forum. Yes, there was a safety issue because he did not switch lanes instantly upon direction from the officer, and he says he was unable to do so, because he would have hit the car next to him. Let's say, he did switch lanes, and hit the car next to him...meaning, he would have been fully complaint with the directive from the officer...would that have been a better outcome? As far the amount of time/distance he had to get in the proper lane, but chose not to, that's still up for grabs. He says he was unable to. If he admitted he had a couple hundred feet to change lanes, but chose not to - then I would agree with you. I have not seen that.

He did not have to allow his car to be searched. That requires "probable cause", which is really anything - even a traffic stop going 1mph is enough for them to request it. It's like saying "find water in the ocean", that's the threshold for "probable cause". He may have looked at them wrong, for example. In some states, I'm sure they can search the car regardless. Unsure about VA. It does seem overzealous.

Overalll, he did disrespect law enforcement the way you see it. It would have made more sense to hit the car next to him (provided he is telling the truth). You are right.

Quote:

---

If he admitted he had a couple hundred feet to change lanes, but chose not to - then I would agree with you. I have not seen that.

---

here is what he said:

Quote:

---

True, they did not pop out of nowhere. At that location the road was straight as can be.

---

A person can see a mile ahead without a problem if there are no obstructions but lets say he had only 1/4 mile.

60 MPH = 88 fps. Time to travel 1/4 mile @ 60 mph = 15 seconds. Was that enough time to make an effort to move to the other lane? I believe so but here is why he didn't move over

Quote:

---

Interesting points. Though I must mention that they were pulled well off, certainly far enough that a swinging door wouldn't have hit my vehicle. Had they been less far to my lane, I would've certainly slowed down well before I got that close, but I felt no real danger given their distance.

---

He had no intention of pulling over (as required by the law) because he deemed there to be no danger to the police. Sounds like the ticket is justified to me.


and if he wasn't aware of the law, why would he even contemplate moving over and deciding not to because of the distance from his lane?

I will say that the surest way to find out what the maximum penalty is for this ticket is to tell the nice judge that you thought a law designed to protect law enforcement officers seemed like too much of an inconvenience.

You had 15 seconds to slow down. You didn't.

You had 15 seconds to get over. You didn't.

Case seems pretty clear to me. In 15 seconds, you could have even performed a double and slowed down enough for the car in the left lane to pass you and THEN got over.

Unfortunately, the thought that you can slow down and let another car pass you rarely occurs to young drivers.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

here is what he said:

A person can see a mile ahead without a problem if there are no obstructions but lets say he had only 1/4 mile.

60 MPH = 88 fps. Time to travel 1/4 mile @ 60 mph = 15 seconds. Was that enough time to make an effort to move to the other lane? I believe so but here is why he didn't move over

---

How do you know it wasn't 1/16 or 1/32, or even 1/64 mile? You arbitrarily came up with a length to favor them. Sometimes, it's hard to switch lanes. There are drivers out there who do not like letting other drivers switch lanes, when they should. You seem to know with a 100% certainty this did not happen.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

How do you know it wasn't 1/16 or 1/32, or even 1/64 mile? You arbitrarily came up with a length to favor them. Sometimes, it's hard to switch lanes. There are drivers out there who do not like letting other drivers switch lanes, when they should. You seem to know with a 100% certainty this did not happen.

---

Yes, it was an arbitrary distance. I didn't come up with the number to favor the police. In fact, if I had done that, I would have stuck with the mile distance. I dropped it down to 1/4 mile simply because if a driver does not see at least that far ahead, they have no business being on the road driving 60 mph. OP claims to be a reasonable driver so he should be aware of two cop cars setting on the side of the road at least 1/4 mile ahead.