WARNING: Illinois' enforcement of Scott's Law is abusive and is entrapment (Rockford: safe, moving)

[allydriver]

Originally Posted by AJohnston_STL

The people who lost their family member, who was volunteering his service as a rural firefighter on the highway by a careless Greyhound bus driver, would probably disagree.

I think you missed the point of this post entirely.
Nobody is contesting the legitimacy of the law, but rather the lack of discretion on how it was applied in this instance.

[Swampmonster]

Originally Posted by allydriver

I think you missed the point of this post entirely.
Nobody is contesting the legitimacy of the law, but rather the lack of discretion on how it was applied in this instance.

[TabulaRasa]

Yep, I sincerely doubt that the families of dead firefighters and EMTs would find professional abuses of a law intended in their honor to be very respectful.

[AJohnston_STL]

^ I'm sorry that you who disagree with me do not understand the law, and why it should be followed. Let's go back to the original statement;

The trooper's vehicle was stopped, well off on the side of the road, with lights flashing, no other cars around or any people around -- it did not look like an emergency situation. I normally slow down and move to an alternate lane if the situation looks hazardous but this one did not. I just thought this was some sort of "friendly" warning to keep to the speed limit, which I did. Also, I try to minimize lane changing for safety reasons.

He admits that he could make a lane change, but he "tries to minimize lane changing." It is not only a courtesy to the emergency personnel, but a safety issue. Doesn't anyone watch World's Wildest Police Videos, or any other police video show for that matter? It's not all that uncommon that a cop gets his car, the suspects car, or the actual cop/suspect themselves to get nailed on the side of the road.

I'm sorry, I had a run-in with a cop who was a complete jerk today, but it gets kind of old when someone doesn't obey the law and then whines about getting a ticket for it. Then of course everyone else jumps on board with how the cop MUST be abusing his power. Please, get over it.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by AJohnston_STL

Then of course everyone else jumps on board with how the cop MUST be abusing his power. Please, get over it.

Traffic cops routinely abuse their power.

[JCL01]

Originally Posted by AJohnston_STL

^ I'm sorry that you who disagree with me do not understand the law, and why it should be followed. Let's go back to the original statement;
He admits that he could make a lane change, but he "tries to minimize lane changing." It is not only a courtesy to the emergency personnel, but a safety issue. Doesn't anyone watch World's Wildest Police Videos, or any other police video show for that matter? It's not all that uncommon that a cop gets his car, the suspects car, or the actual cop/suspect themselves to get nailed on the side of the road.

I'm sorry, I had a run-in with a cop who was a complete jerk today, but it gets kind of old when someone doesn't obey the law and then whines about getting a ticket for it. Then of course everyone else jumps on board with how the cop MUST be abusing his power. Please, get over it.

Agreed. It's pretty simple: if you see a cop (or any other motorist) on the side of the road, whether the lights are on or not, and whether or not you think it's an "emergency situation," just move over unless you are blocked in by vehicles in the other lane. It's both more safe and more courteous - regardless of what the law says, or what state you are in. "Changing lanes" is not a big deal, and "minimizing lane changes" can itself be dangerous depending on the circumstances.

[AJohnston_STL]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

Traffic cops routinely abuse their power.

I don't doubt that one bit, but this case does not appear to be an abuse of power. The point I was making is that even GOOD cops are probably "routinely" accused of "abusing" their power because someone who was breaking the law didn't like getting a ticket.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by AJohnston_STL

^ I'm sorry that you who disagree with me do not understand the law, and why it should be followed.

Here's the deal: nobody understands the law because it is completely vague and arbitrary. Move over or slow down? OK, so far so good. How far do I have to move over? 10 feet? Half a lane? An entire lane? I can't practically move over, how do you know if I've slowed down enough for their liking? Does it count if I reduced my speed by 2MPH? Or do I have to slow down to a specific speed? Or do I have to slow down to a percentage below my original speed? Or do I have to try to divine the speed that would make the officer feel comfortable, and what happens if I divine incorrectly? It would help to have some guidelines as to what the law actually is and what actions will or will not trigger enforcement. Oh, and what a practical name too: "Scott's Law." It might have helped the awareness campaign to name it something like "Move Over or Slow Down Law."

Scott's Law was an overreaction to an officer being hit not by a careless driver, but by a drunk driver. It was already illegal to drive drunk or to hit police officers on the roadside. Now in addition to that they've made it illegal to be unable to read the police officer's mind.

[AJohnston_STL]

Originally Posted by Drover

Here's the deal: nobody understands the law because it is completely vague and arbitrary. Move over or slow down? OK, so far so good. How far do I have to move over? 10 feet? Half a lane? An entire lane? I can't practically move over, how do you know if I've slowed down enough for their liking? Does it count if I reduced my speed by 2MPH? Or do I have to slow down to a specific speed? Or do I have to slow down to a percentage below my original speed? Or do I have to try to divine the speed that would make the officer feel comfortable, and what happens if I divine incorrectly? It would help to have some guidelines as to what the law actually is and what actions will or will not trigger enforcement. Oh, and what a practical name too: "Scott's Law." It might have helped the awareness campaign to name it something like "Move Over or Slow Down Law."

Scott's Law was an overreaction to an officer being hit not by a careless driver, but by a drunk driver. It was already illegal to drive drunk or to hit police officers on the roadside. Now in addition to that they've made it illegal to be unable to read the police officer's mind.

Your questions are pointless, because the OP admits he didn't move over at all. But again, we are all the victims of law enforcement, so I don't expect you to agree.

A very simple search of Google for "Scott's Law" turns up a PDF provided by the Ill. State Police as the first result.




Scott's Law, 625 ILCS 5/11-907(c),
mandates that upon approaching a
stationary authorized emergency vehicle,
when the authorized emergency vehicle
is giving a signal by displaying alternately
flashing red, red and white, blue, or
red and blue lights or amber or yellow
warning lights, a person who drives an
approaching vehicle shall:
• proceed with due caution, yield
the right-of-way by making a
lane change into a lane not
adjacent to that of the authorized
emergency vehicle, if possible
with due regard to safety and
traffic conditions, if on a highway
having at least 4 lanes with not
less than 2 lanes proceeding in the
same direction as the approaching
vehicle.
• proceed with due caution, reduce
the speed of the vehicle, maintain
a safe speed for road conditions, if
changing lanes would be impossible
or unsafe.



BUT WAIT! Let me guess. Now you want a chart telling you exactly what speed to slow down to...like


70mph --> 45mph
69mph --> 45mph
68mph --> 44mph

Right?

Instead of questioning the law, I think this kind of falls under a common sense umbrella.

If you are on a side street doing 30mph in a 30 zone, slow down to 20. If you are doing 75 in a 70 zone, slow down to 55. It's not that hard to decide if you aren't too busy questioning the validity of the law instead of just following it.

[Drover]

I guess you prefer redundant, unnecessary, overbroad, vague, arbitrary laws and believe that "common sense" is an ascertainable legal standard. That's nice for you, I suppose, until you get caught up in the enforcement of a vague and arbitrary law because you and the enforcement body have different ideas of what constitutes "common sense." If you expect people to respect the law and the people that enforce them, you'll have to do better than "common sense."