-
Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
I am in the state of Texas.
I hope I got this in the right forum.
I apologize if i have worded this poorly.
I have been researching this Law. Is it constitutional and/or if It is being misused my law enforcement.
§ 545.157. PASSING AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/transpor...45.157.00.html
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/TN.545.htm
I have found so far two opinion from the attorney generals office in regards to past versions of this law.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/...pdf/pd0580.pdf
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/...pdf/cm0183.pdf
I think i need to request clarifacation from the attorney generals office on the definition of "Authorized emergency vehicle"
SUBCHAPTER C. VEHICLES, RAIL TRANSPORTATION, AND EQUIPMENT
Sec. 541.201. VEHICLES. In this subtitle:
in particular "
(C) a municipal department or public service corporation emergency vehicle that has been designated or authorized by the governing body of a municipality;"
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/TN.541.htm
further more are law enforcement agency's misusing this law and is it constructional for them to use the law how they see fit.
page 14 seems raise a few questions
http://d3koy9tzykv199.cloudfront.net...TTI-2009-4.pdf
i would like to get transcripts of on just how they plan to do this
http://www.review.ci.austin.tx.us/ne...gency-vehicles
It seems wrong that law enforcement could just run a "sting operation" for PASSING AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE.
- - - Updated - - -
also it seems that there should be some distance from the road that would make this law unusable.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
the emergency vehicle definition really should not be a big issue.
Quote:
(a) On approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle using visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702,
so, the vehicle isn't moving and it is displaying visual signals that only an emergency vehicle is allowed to have on their vehicle. Not sure why you see that as so difficult to determine.
Vehicle moving or not displaying the emergency signals, law not applicable.
Quote:
Sec. 541.201. VEHICLES. In this subtitle:
in particular "
(C) a municipal department or public service corporation emergency vehicle that has been designated or authorized by the governing body of a municipality;"
does it have emergency signals? Are they being displayed? If so, move over.
seriously, not only is it not difficult to determine which vehicles it applies to, when driving, you are expected to understand the drive with due caution so as to avoid accidents or such. Err on the side of caution and there should never be a problem.
Heck, I move over for a beat up old Yugo that is on the side of the road with their flashers on. It is called driving with due regard for the situation at hand. You never know when the Yugo driver will open his door (and most likely have it fall off into your path of travel) or step from around the vehicle into your path.
Quote:
also it seems that there should be some distance from the road that would make this law unusable.
Seriously? If the vehicle is not on the highway, the law doesn't apply. If it is, you
Quote:
(1) vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle when driving on a highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle;
or slow down.
You really seem to be making more of this than there is. The law is actually one of the better laws regarding this issue I have seen. It is quite clear, especially when you compare it to many other state's laws.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
let me reply to your last statement first.
Quote:
You really seem to be making more of this than there is. The law is actually one of the better laws regarding this issue I have seen. It is quite clear, especially when you compare it to many other state's laws.
It is a big deal if the law enforcement agency's are misusing this law, or worse flat out make illegal traffic stops. knowingly and on purpose!
Quote:
so, the vehicle isn't moving and it is displaying visual signals that only an emergency vehicle is allowed to have on their vehicle. Not sure why you see that as so difficult to determine.
i posted § 545.157. PASSING AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE as a reference. as this is the citation. I agree if a police, fire or ambulance are actively engaged in one of the situation listed it is cut and dry. the question is when they decide to leave there light's on and the situation is over, example ( A police officer pulls some one over for speeding. after the suspect has received the citation and continued on the officer leaves there lights on. from what i read that is not a lawful use of emergency lights. that is not the only problem.
Quote:
Sec. 541.201. VEHICLES. In this subtitle:
in particular "
(C) a municipal department or public service corporation emergency vehicle that has been designated or authorized by the governing body of a municipality;"
does it have emergency signals? Are they being displayed? If so, move over.
the reason i bring this up is that it was deemed unconstitutional for a police chief to do this because there was no guidance. now the law says the city management can make the decision but still no guidance. why is this important because if a city was low on funds they could make every one of there vehicles authorized emergency vehicles. and use them as bait. or cut a deal to a friend so they could take advantage of exemptions given to authorized emergency vehicles. as i see it there is no differance between the police chief and the city manager as regards to this opinion. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/40daniel/op/1948/pdf/pd0580.pdf
Quote:
Seriously, not only is it not difficult to determine which vehicles it applies to, when driving, you are expected to understand the drive with due caution so as to avoid accidents or such. Err on the side of caution and there should never be a problem.
lets break this down
it is easy to understand witch vehicle it applies to. it is also easy to understand that it is easy for the police to simply leave there light's on when there is no emergency.
most people do slow down or move over. but it has become a problem sense the law enforcement agency's have decided to push the limits of this law. this law was created to protect them but now it seems they are putting them selfs in more danger just to right this ticket. I question that they are breaking the law to enforce it a majority of the time. As stated in this study
page 14 seems to raise a few questions
http://d3koy9tzykv199.cloudfront.net...TTI-2009-4.pdf
Quote:
"also it seems that there should be some distance from the road that would make this law unusable."
Seriously? If the vehicle is not on the highway, the law doesn't apply. If it is, you
this was my thoughts too.
But i have personal seen. A ems vehicle being use for administrative purpose. With light's flashing 20 feet off the pavement and 10+ police either waiting to pull someone over or already have someone pulled over. I should add the ems vehicle was not part of the fire department but run my city managment. Now that is just wrong.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
To make something unconstitutional, it must impinge upon your rights. You do not have a RIGHT to drive.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
lets break this down
it is easy to understand witch vehicle it applies to. it is also easy to understand that it is easy for the police to simply leave there light's on when there is no emergency.
It matters not if you believe there is an emergency or not. If their lights are on, you must treat it as there is. Since when do you get to decide whether there is an emergency situation or not?
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
this was my thoughts too.
But i have personal seen. A ems vehicle being use for administrative purpose. With light's flashing 20 feet off the pavement and 10+ police either waiting to pull someone over or already have someone pulled over. I should add the ems vehicle was not part of the fire department but run my city managment. Now that is just wrong.
but an ems response vehicle is an authorized emergency vehicle. Look it up.
So, do you have the outcome of such a situation? Know anybody that actually contested the ticket and lost?
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Just wondering why the poster gets to decide what's a legitimate use of an emergency vehicle and what isn't. Do you have access to the 911 calls and the dispatch records? If not, on what basis are you deciding when an emergency vehicle is being used appropriately and when it's not?
ETA: great minds, jk
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
It matters not if you believe there is an emergency or not. If their lights are on, you must treat it as there is. Since when do you get to decide whether there is an emergency situation or not?
I dont get to decide the decision has already been made.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/TN.546.htm
Quote:
To make something unconstitutional, it must impinge upon your rights. You do not have a RIGHT to drive.
please read this opinion
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/...pdf/pd0580.pdf
but an ems response vehicle is an authorized emergency vehicle. Look it up.
Quote:
So, do you have the outcome of such a situation? Know anybody that actually contested the ticket and lost?
a vast majority of people will not fight a ticket. rather they are guilty or not. the point is if this is also unconstitutional as was the ruled in this opinion then the ems vehicle would and could not be an authorized emergency vehicle unless it was owned my the fire department. or a law enforcement agency. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/...pdf/pd0580.pdf
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm not looking for definitions.
I pulled over for an emergency vehicle about an hour ago. I have no idea where he was heading but I also have no reason to believe that his purpose was not legitimate.
In any given situation, who gave you the authority to decide whether the emergency vehicle, whether in transit or parked, is not there for a legitimate purpose?
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm not looking for definitions.
I pulled over for an emergency vehicle about an hour ago. I have no idea where he was heading but I also have no reason to believe that his purpose was not legitimate.
In any given situation, who gave you the authority to decide whether the emergency vehicle, whether in transit or parked, is not there for a legitimate purpose?
lets start with my question about the validity of the law and the opinion from the attorney general in 1948 and then in 1968. I did a far amount of research on this you could at least read it and understand the original question. before posting your rants.
- - - Updated - - -
The law is what the law is right now. and most if not all of your statements are true. I am talking about changing the law. as some parts are or maybe unconstitutional. and other are or maybe unenforceable.
- - - Updated - - -
and the definition are what make up the law
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
I'm not ranting. I'm asking you a question. Which you are avoiding answering.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Believe it or not, over the course of the decades since 1948, Texas has changed its statutory definition of what constitutes an authorized emergency vehicle.
Quote:
Quoting Texas Transportation Code, Sec. 541.201. Vehicles. In this subtitle:
(1) "Authorized emergency vehicle" means:
(A) a fire department or police vehicle;
(B) a public or private ambulance operated by a person who has been issued a license by the Texas Department of Health;
(C) a municipal department or public service corporation emergency vehicle that has been designated or authorized by the governing body of a municipality;
(D) a private vehicle of a volunteer firefighter or a certified emergency medical services employee or volunteer when responding to a fire alarm or medical emergency;
(E) an industrial emergency response vehicle, including an industrial ambulance, when responding to an emergency, but only if the vehicle is operated in compliance with criteria in effect September 1, 1989, and established by the predecessor of the Texas Industrial Emergency Services Board of the State Firemen's and Fire Marshals' Association of Texas;
(F) a vehicle of a blood bank or tissue bank, accredited or approved under the laws of this state or the United States, when making emergency deliveries of blood, drugs, medicines, or organs; or
(G) a vehicle used for law enforcement purposes that is owned or leased by a federal governmental entity.
* * *
If you want to lobby your state's legislature to change the law, start by contacting your state representatives.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
Mr. Knowitall
Believe it or not, over the course of the decades since 1948, Texas has changed its statutory definition of what constitutes an authorized emergency vehicle.
If you want to lobby your state's legislature to change the law, start by contacting your state representatives.
yes i understand that the law has been changed sense 1948. but it seems to me that the opinion of the atterny general is still valid. as there still is no guidence.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
a vast majority of people will not fight a ticket. rather they are guilty or not. the point is if this is also unconstitutional as was the ruled in this opinion then the ems vehicle would and could not be an authorized emergency vehicle unless it was owned my the fire department. or a law enforcement agency.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/...pdf/pd0580.pdf
This opinion is 74 years old ... TX statute 541.201 indicates a private ambulance IS an "authorized emergency vehicle." And, an AG opinion does not have the force of law, it is only an opinion as to the interpretation of the law and can stand as policy at least until overturned by subsequent statutes or a court ruling. I'd say the law has probably changed in 70 years.
As previously mentioned, the statute is very clear as to what a passing driver should do when an emergency vehicle or a tow truck is on the side of the road displaying the proper "visual signals." The section does not state that the officer be engaged in a detention, an arrest, or anything else, only that the lights be active.
If you view the law as unnecessary or somehow vague, lobby your state legislature to change it. Trying to mount a Constitutional challenge will be a waste of time as there seems to be no clear issue to raise ... at least you have not identified any Constitutional issue here, and none is apparent.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
and if that is the case than any authorized emergency vehicle that is not owned by the fire department or law enforcement agency. would not be a lawful authorized emergency vehicle. and then their is the question of the actions of the law enforcement officers (leo's). if there actions in regards to this law are unlawful. Then what does that say.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
This opinion is 74 years old ... TX statute 541.201 indicates a private ambulance IS an "authorized emergency vehicle." And, an AG opinion does not have the force of law, it is only an opinion as to the interpretation of the law and can stand as policy at least until overturned by subsequent statutes or a court ruling. I'd say the law has probably changed in 70 years.
As previously mentioned, the statute is very clear as to what a passing driver should do when an emergency vehicle or a tow truck is on the side of the road displaying the proper "visual signals." The section does not state that the officer be engaged in a detention, an arrest, or anything else, only that the lights be active.
If you view the law as unnecessary or somehow vague, lobby your state legislature to change it. Trying to mount a Constitutional challenge will be a waste of time as there seems to be no clear issue to raise ... at least you have not identified any Constitutional issue here, and none is apparent.
But it does say when using lights is permisable.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
and if that is the case than any authorized emergency vehicle that is not owned by the fire department or law enforcement agency. would not be a lawful authorized emergency vehicle.
Read 541.201.
Quote:
and then their is the question of the actions of the law enforcement officers (leo's). if there actions in regards to this law are unlawful. Then what does that say.
The section requiring actions of the drivers does not add any element requiring the officer be actively engaged in issuing a citation, affecting an arrest or detention, etc. The section and supporting section on the use of emergency lights stand silent on that. The passing driver is legally obligated to move over when it sees the pretty flashing lights. It is that simple ... at least until the legislature or some court ruling somewhere decides to change the interpretation as it is written.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
and it does not say when they are not permissible. and private ambulance is covered but all ems vehicles are not ambulances. they are assigned the athoratiy to be emegency vehicle by the city manager witch there is not guidence. in the definition the same as the 1948 ruling by judge
In the case of Walsh v.
Dallas Railway and Terminal Company, 167 S.w.213. 1018, the very
same language was in question in the form of a city ordinance of
the City of Dallas. In placing his interpretation upon the or-
dinance, Chief Justice Alexander said:
"It will be noted, however, that while the or-
dinance attempts to grant permission to the chief
of police to designate what vehicles shall have the
privilege of an 'authorized emergency vehicle', and
thus be exempted from many of the provisions of the
ordinances regulating others, it sets up no stand-
ard by which the chief of police is to be guided in
making such a designation. It is left to his uubrid-
led discretion to say to whom the law shall be appli-
cable, and to whom it shall not be applicable. For
that reason, Section 1 of said ordinance, insofar as
it applies to public service corporations to be des-
ignated by the chief of police is invalid. crossman
v. City of Galveston, 112 Tex. 303, 247 S.W. 810,
Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350, 235 S.W.
513; Continental Oil Co. v. City of Wichita Falls,
Tex.Com.App., 42 S.W. (2d) 236; 30 Tex.Jur. 117,
n. 18; 37 ~m.~ur., page 778, sec. SO; annotations
in 54 A.L,R. 1104."
There can be no doubt but that the reasons invalidat-
ing the city ordinance in turn invalidate that portion of the
act herein in question. Under its saving clause, however, the
remaining portion of the section under consideration is consti-
tutional; and all questions here answered are viewed in light
of this interpretation.
ArttcLe 1, Subdivision 1, Secticm2 (a), of the
Uniform liigbway Act insofar as it perteins to public
service corporat5ons is unconstitutional
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
kennagle;650770]lets start with my question about the validity of the law and the opinion from the attorney general in 1948 and then in 1968. I did a far amount of research on this you could at least read it and understand the original question. before posting your rants.
You do realize that the law, in its currrent form, was written in 2003, right? Just what effect do you believe opinions that are from at least 5 years prior to the current law would be?
Quote:
The law is what the law is right now. and most if not all of your statements are true. I am talking about changing the law. as some parts are or maybe unconstitutional. and other are or maybe unenforceable.
so, show me what part of the 2003 law is unconstitutional or unenforceable.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
The case law you indicate has to do with vehicles designated by a chief of police and utilizing a city ordinance. Current TX law designates these authorized vehicles by state statute, not be chief's designation via ordinance. As such, it would seem that this 74 year old case decision would be quite outdated and irrelevant.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
The case law you indicate has to do with vehicles designated by a chief of police and utilizing a city ordinance. Current TX law designates these authorized vehicles by state statute, not be chief's designation via ordinance. As such, it would seem that this 74 year old case decision would be quite outdated and irrelevant.
§ 541.201. VEHICLES. In this subtitle:
(1) "Authorized emergency vehicle" means:
(A) a fire department or police vehicle;
(B) a public or private ambulance operated by a
person who has been issued a license by the Texas Department of
Health;
(C) a municipal department or public service
corporation emergency vehicle that has been designated or
authorized by the governing body of a municipality;
(D) a private vehicle of a volunteer firefighter
or a certified emergency medical services employee or volunteer
when responding to a fire alarm or medical emergency;
(E) an industrial emergency response vehicle,
including an industrial ambulance, when responding to an emergency,
but only if the vehicle is operated in compliance with criteria in
effect September 1, 1989, and established by the predecessor of the
Texas Industrial Emergency Services Board of the State Firemen's
and Fire Marshals' Association of Texas; or
(F) a vehicle of a blood bank or tissue bank,
accredited or approved under the laws of this state or the United
States, when making emergency deliveries of blood, drugs,
medicines, or organs.
the only diff in sec c is they change the person/persons that give the authority. but never added any guidance.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
and if that is the case than any authorized emergency vehicle that is not owned by the fire department or law enforcement agency. would not be a lawful authorized emergency vehicle.
what are you making up now? There are several vehicles specifically listed that are not owned by the fire department or law enforcement agency.
Quote:
and then their is the question of the actions of the law enforcement officers (leo's). if there actions in regards to this law are unlawful. Then what does that say.
It does not address that in this law. It is not an issue within this law.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
If you want to sue and establish your beliefs in court, you are free to do so or retain counsel to help you do so. Knock yourself out.
The 1968 AG's opinion simply recognizes FBI vehicles as falling under the definition; it has no relevance to your argument.
The 1948 opinion, to the extent that it is either still followed by the AG's office or not superseded by subsequent ruling or case law, provides that the municipality cannot defer to certain officials (police commissioner or fire chief) when designating what is or is not an authorized emergency vehicle. There is no similar delegation in the present statute.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
this is a statement from the study link in the first link.
"Many local-level agencies are constrained by limited financial resources that can be applied
toward increasing TMOA awareness in their communities, and by limited personnel resources
that can be applied toward increasing enforcement of the TMOA. Enforcement of this law is
logistically not a simple matter for many agencies. For a single law enforcement officer (LEO),
going after a TMOA violator that passes the traffic stop would require the officer to interrupt the
traffic stop. Officers can work in groups on specific roadway segments to ‘leap-frog’ each other.
At least one officer observes another officer’s traffic stop to identify and pull over TMOA
violators. As each officer finishes their traffic stop they continue to observe other traffic stops
for TMOA violators, etc. These sorts of activities are simply beyond the scope of traffic
enforcement efforts in many communities given the number of officers required and nature of
traffic and patrol operations. In addition, comments made by LEOs to the project team suggest
that not all LEOs are fully aware of the law’s requirements, given its recent history and
complexity, although this can be corrected through briefings and other education tools.
Another potential enforcement mechanism is for LEOs to work as a single vehicle for TMOA
violations. The law requires that drivers slow down or move over anytime a stationary,
authorized emergency that is using visual signals discussed in Chapter 1. Thus, all that is needed
is for a LEO to be stationary, on the roadway shoulder (for example), with its lights on, and
observing traffic for TMOA violators. Although this enforcement can be conducted with one
vehicle, the degree to which it is implemented will depend on the local agency’s desire to assign
these activities as part of traffic officers’ efforts."
so the leo creates an envirment in witch he can issue a citation. He puts him self in the same danger that this law is ment to protect him from.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
this is a statement from the study link in the first link.
this is the first link:
http://law.onecle.com/texas/transpor...45.157.00.html
am I missing something?
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
i must have been mistaken I thought this was a place to discuses and pool ideas about traffic laws.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Yes, you were mistaken. This is a place to ask legal questions and receive general legal information.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
You failed to note the part where the STATE refers to a public or private ambulance in subsection (b).
I'm not sure that there have been any cites issued because of a water truck on the side of the road, have there? And, if there has, it appears that state law gives the municipal government the authority to make that designation - that's different from a city ordinance discussed in the 1948 case you posted. In the 1948 case the authority was apparently derived solely from a local ordinance. In 2012 it is state law that grants the city that authority to make the designation. And, apparently, they intended to leave it up to the local governing body to decide what should be given that designation. If they feel the vehicle needs a flashing light to safely warn traffic that it is a hazard, so be it.
As a result, we as drivers should always yield as proscribed by law rather than try instantly evaluate whether or not the vehicle in question SHOULD be an "authorized emergency vehicle."
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
i must have been mistaken I thought this was a place to discuses and pool ideas about traffic laws.
There are sites where you can discuss what you believe the law SHOULD be. This is primarily a place to ask questions about what the law IS. If you seek partners in some TX advocacy, then you will likely have to search elsewhere.
Out of curiosity, what IS your goal or hope? A repeal of any such move over law? Or, simply seeking to limit it to police, fire, EMS or something else?
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
With AG opinions it's important to recall that they have limited precedential effect - they can provide guidance to government agencies, and can reasonably be relied upon pending a court decision, but they are not binding on courts.
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
i must have been mistaken I thought this was a place to discuses and pool ideas about traffic laws.
If you want to debate the issues, scroll down to the forum called "debate the issues".
When you ask a question in a forum meant for legal Q&A, people will try to answer it. Go figure.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
this is a statement from the study link in the first link.
"Many local-level agencies are constrained by limited financial resources that can be applied
toward increasing TMOA awareness in their communities, and by limited personnel resources
that can be applied toward increasing enforcement of the TMOA. Enforcement of this law is
logistically not a simple matter for many agencies. For a single law enforcement officer (LEO),
going after a TMOA violator that passes the traffic stop would require the officer to interrupt the
traffic stop. Officers can work in groups on specific roadway segments to ‘leap-frog’ each other.
At least one officer observes another officer’s traffic stop to identify and pull over TMOA
violators. As each officer finishes their traffic stop they continue to observe other traffic stops
for TMOA violators, etc. These sorts of activities are simply beyond the scope of traffic
enforcement efforts in many communities given the number of officers required and nature of
traffic and patrol operations. In addition, comments made by LEOs to the project team suggest
that not all LEOs are fully aware of the law’s requirements, given its recent history and
complexity, although this can be corrected through briefings and other education tools.
Another potential enforcement mechanism is for LEOs to work as a single vehicle for TMOA
violations. The law requires that drivers slow down or move over anytime a stationary,
authorized emergency that is using visual signals discussed in Chapter 1. Thus, all that is needed
is for a LEO to be stationary, on the roadway shoulder (for example), with its lights on, and
observing traffic for TMOA violators. Although this enforcement can be conducted with one
vehicle, the degree to which it is implemented will depend on the local agency’s desire to assign
these activities as part of traffic officers’ efforts."
so the leo creates an envirment in witch he can issue a citation. He puts him self in the same danger that this law is ment to protect him from.
And there appears to be nothing within current law that prohibits this from happening as the statute does not specify that the officer need be actively engaged in a detention or the creation of a citation or any other activity. In most instances an officer will be unable to pull away from his stop simply to catch a new violator who passes without yielding ... a cover (backup) officer could do so if it was prudent. And, it also creates the situation where agencies can create stings to catch violators by staging phony scenes to see who will fail to yield when the opportunity is present. Again, nothing in the current statutes appear to prohibit that activity.
If you do not like the law, change it. Though I am still curious what it is you want to change about it, or if you simply feel that there is no need to move over for the safety or police, EMS, road crews, etc. If you feel there is no need, let me ask, how often do YOU stand on the side of the road with cars whizzing by only inches away at speeds of 55 MPH or greater? And, have you seen what happens when a roads worker, officer, or EMS technician gets tagged by a vehicle at 55?
There are reasons for these laws and it is "safety."
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Out of curiosity, what IS your goal or hope? A repeal of any such move over law? Or, simply seeking to limit it to police, fire, EMS or something else?
I don't think that this law should be used as a public safety education program via citation as it is not a public safety issue. nor do i think it should be used as a money raiser. hmm they are one in the same in most cases. I do think that everyone should slow down or pull over for not only authorized emergency vehicles but all vehicles on the shoulder. In witch case this law is not needed. further more I dont think any LEO LEA or city county or any other local governing body should be able to just make any vehicle an authorized emergency vehicle. It leaves to much room for manipulation. and LEO's and LEA's should have some restiction on when they can use there lights and sirens.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
I don't think that this law should be used as a public safety education program via citation as it is not a public safety issue. nor do i think it should be used as a money raiser. hmm they are one in the same in most cases. I do think that everyone should slow down or pull over for not only authorized emergency vehicles but all vehicles on the shoulder. In witch case this law is not needed. further more I dont think any LEO LEA or city county or any other local governing body should be able to just make any vehicle an authorized emergency vehicle. It leaves to much room for manipulation. and LEO's and LEA's should have some restiction on when they can use there lights and sirens.
as a matter of fact I broke down on a two lane over pass, 100ft plus up in the air just a few weeks ago. I called 911 and stated that i was broke down and that the shoulder was just wide enough for my car to fit between the rail and the first lane of traffic. This was during the afternoon rush hour and it was over a mile to walk off the over pass. If someone would have veered out of the lane of travel i would not have had any where to go but down. 911 said we will see if we can get some one out there 45 min later still now LEO 20 min later the tow truck showed up still no LEO. so ya i know what it is like to stand on the side of the road with know where to go and traffic zipping buy.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
and LEO's and LEA's should have some restiction on when they can use there lights and sirens.
there are
Quote:
I do think that everyone should slow down or pull over for not only authorized emergency vehicles but all vehicles on the shoulder. In witch case this law is not needed.
If everybody did act in that manner, I suspect the laws would never have been written. The fact is; not everybody does.
Quote:
I don't think that this law should be used as a public safety education program via citation as it is not a public safety issue.
If you use a broad brush it is. It educates everybody that they should be alert while driving..
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Good luck advocating for a change in the law. I don't think it will happen, but you are free to give it a whirl.
As for the broken down car, sorry you had to experience it that one time. Of course, your situation may not have required a law enforcement presence hence the reason none arrived. And if your state is like so many others, there is insufficient staffing to roll to every low priority incident that might arise. Understand, though, that such incidents are the greatest cause of death for road workers and often in the top three for law enforcement and medical personnel ... we don't just do it once in a blue moon. And, as was pointed out, not everyone slows, stops or yields to vehicles on the side of the road. Some people are sufficiently arrogant that they do not believe these situations pose a public safety risk and see nothing wrong with zipping past at 55+.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Understand, though, that such incidents are the greatest cause of death for road workers and often in the top three for law enforcement and medical personnel
i realy dont think that 150 over 20 years is that great. and on top of that out of those numbers how many where arrogant people trying to hit the LEO
- - - Updated - - -
and out of that 150 how many where the fault of the officer?
- - - Updated - - -
and it sure is ironic that there would be a LEO trying to give advise on a site like this. know i understand why there are so many un helpfull posts. talk about arrogant.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
If you use a broad brush it is. It educates everybody that they should be alert while driving..
If you paint anything with a broad brush you can make it look diff than it realy is.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
and it sure is ironic that there would be a LEO trying to give advise on a site like this. know i understand why there are so many un helpfull posts. talk about arrogant.
OK, let's talk about your arrogance.
As far as Carl's; honestly one of the straightest cops I have met. When he gives advice, if he thinks some other cop screwed up, he says so.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
If you paint anything with a broad brush you can make it look diff than it realy is.
in the end it is irrelevant. The can do what they are. There is no law against it.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
i realy dont think that 150 over 20 years is that great. and on top of that out of those numbers how many where arrogant people trying to hit the LEO
Oh, is that number just in TX? Is it those hit and killed? Or does it include ALL of those struck?
I don't know how many were "arrogant people trying to hit the LEO." Neither do you. What they were was either reckless, not paying attention, or impaired. The point being that such laws DO tend to enhance the safety of those who must be on the side of the road because they add a level of awareness that might not otherwise be present. And, for some people, if there is no potential penalty they just won't do anything. Sad, but there are people who think they know everything believe that their driving a couple of inches away from an officer, medic, or highwaty worker on the side of the road is perfectly safe.
Quote:
and out of that 150 how many where the fault of the officer?
Probably not a whole lot ... but, it would also depend on what you mean by the term "fault." Then I would have to ask, how many could have been avoided had the driver complied with a move-over law? My guess would that all of them would have been avoided .. or nearly so.
Quote:
and it sure is ironic that there would be a LEO trying to give advise on a site like this. know i understand why there are so many un helpfull posts. talk about arrogant.
Wow. You don't even know me, and you call ME arrogant?
Please point out where I have erred. When I post I tend to post something that contributes to a thread. Sometimes I add my own opinion, but most of the time the goal is to add something to to the topic. Further, where is it written that a law enforcement officer is less capable of providing direction in justice matters than, say, an electrician, an engineer, a teacher, or most anyone else? Do we leave our minds, education, training and experience at home when we go online? Suddenly nothing I might have to say might be relevant in spite of many years of training, formal and vocational education, and life experience?
Huh ... I suppose you just don't like it when someone actually disagrees with you.
Quote:
If you paint anything with a broad brush you can make it look diff than it realy is.
As you have tried to do?
The statutes you posted support the move-over law and do not recognize any element that defines the activity of the emergency vehicle on the side of the road. You seem to disagree with a law that might force you to slow down or move over. I can only speculate whether that position comes from a sense of selfishness, a need for speed, or a general disdain for anything government, but I can say that your position will almost certainly see little or no support in your state legislature. But, the beauty of our system is that anyone can bring their idea before their state representative - no matter how misguided or unlikely it might be to pass. My state has many bizarre and counterproductive laws and we add more every year ... be thankful you do not have a full-time legislature like we do!
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
I think i need to request clarifacation from the attorney generals office on the definition of "Authorized emergency vehicle"
SUBCHAPTER C. VEHICLES, RAIL TRANSPORTATION, AND EQUIPMENT
Actually, an individual citizen would not qualify to submit a request for an opinion or (same thing as an opinion, isn't it?) a request for clarification from the A.G. (see Who Can Request an Attorney General Opinion? , I suspect that your request to clarify will be rejected or ignored.
I presume the one way for an individual to receive clarification, you would have to have been cited, plead not guilty, take your case to trial, and if you lose based on your incorrect definition, appeal the judgment, and wait for the appeal to provide you with the needed clarification. Or you can simply consult with a few attorneys and you're likely to get the same or a similar definition.
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Wow. You don't even know me, and you call ME arrogant?
your right I dont know you. and therefore i don't know you are arrogant. and it was probably the wrong choice of a word.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Oh, is that number just in TX? Is it those hit and killed? Or does it include ALL of those struck?
here are the actual numbers from the study i ref.
" According to information from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 184 law
enforcement officers were killed between 1997 and 2008 after being struck by a vehicle in the
line of duty. The annual number of deaths range from 10 in 1999 to 24 in 2001, with an average
of 15.3 deaths per year. According to the National Fire Protection Association, 26 fire fighters
were struck and killed by motorists in the line of duty from 1990 through 1999. According to the
American Automobile Association, the organization saw six deaths and two injuries among their
emergency roadside service providers who were struck while assisting stranded motorists in
2008; the number of deaths is twice as many as the number of emergency roadside service
providers (three) who were killed in auto accidents during the same period.
A study was completed in Florida for the years 1996 through 2000, which estimated 1793
crashes into working law enforcement vehicles, resulting in 419 injuries and 5 deaths. Florida’s
Move Over Law was passed in 2002. The Florida Highway Patrol identified a total of 1068
crashes from 2002 through 2006 where parked emergency vehicles were hit (an average of 214
per year), resulting in 212 injured drivers (an average of 42 per year), 38 injured pedestrians (an
average of 8 per year), and 1 killed pedestrian. These data suggest a large number of move overrelated incidents nationally and in the state of Texas. However, we were unable to identify a
comprehensive national information source of emergency responder injuries or deaths or injuries
to vehicle occupants resulting from move over law violations."
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
kennagle
WTF does that have to do with you not having a RIGHT to drive?
-
Re: Are Laws Against Passing Emergency Vehicles Unconstitutional
Quote:
Quoting
Speedy Gonzalez
To make something unconstitutional, it must impinge upon your rights. You do not have a RIGHT to drive.
You have a right to travel, so yes, you do have a right to drive .. IMO