# Move-Over Laws



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

A relatively recent (maybe the last 10 years or so) phenomenon in the U.S. (some states) is “move-over laws”: If you see an emergency vehicle (police, ambulance...) with its flashing lights on on the shoulder, and you’re in the lane next to the shoulder, you should shift out of that lane, if you can do it safely, to give the police officer of whoever may be walking around there a safe margin.

Does this sort of thing exist elsewhere? Particularly in the lands of lane discipline?


----------



## sponge_bob (Aug 11, 2013)

I have heard of a few _pull over_ laws in rural US states, if you have N number of cars stuck behind you then you are going too slow and have to pull over and let them pass. 

I have not heard of a mandatory _move over_ to the fast lane law on a 4 laner,anywhere, though. Not every country has hard shoulders for starters. I think France mandates a slow down to 60kph if you pass a static flashing blue light on the HS and most countries 'advise' you to slow down if you see blues up ahead but non compliance is not ticketable. .

You could not implement this safely on a 2 laner as there is a risk of a head on collision then, even if US roads are notably straight by normal international standards.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

sponge_bob said:


> I have heard of a few _pull over_ laws in rural US states, if you have N number of cars stuck behind you then you are going too slow and have to pull over and let them pass.
> 
> I have not heard of a mandatory _move over_ to the fast lane law on a 4 laner,anywhere, though. Not every country has hard shoulders for starters. I think France mandates a slow down to 60kph if you pass a static flashing blue light on the HS and most countries 'advise' you to slow down if you see blues up ahead but non compliance is not ticketable. .
> 
> You could not implement this safely on a 2 laner as there is a risk of a head on collision then, even if US roads are notably straight by normal international standards.


I’m not sure exactly what classes of roads it applies to, I think divided highways (dual carriageways) at minimum.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

I think an emergency vehicle gunning it on the hard shoulder would cause an accident in the Netherlands. I've never seen them do that. People expect fast moving things (including emergency vehicles) to travel in the fast lane and, yes, when you see them in your rear view mirror, you move over into a slower lane.

I think the only time emergency vehicles will use the hard shoulder is when they have to go past a traffic jam. They won't do it at crazy high speeds, though.


----------



## sponge_bob (Aug 11, 2013)

Slagathor said:


> I think the only time emergency vehicles will use the hard shoulder is when they have to go past a traffic jam. They won't do it at crazy high speeds, though.


I think he means a static plod who has just pulled someone and is flashing his blues.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Slagathor said:


> I think an emergency vehicle gunning it on the hard shoulder would cause an accident in the Netherlands. I've never seen them do that. People expect fast moving things (including emergency vehicles) to travel in the fast lane and, yes, when you see them in your rear view mirror, you move over into a slower lane.
> 
> I think the only time emergency vehicles will use the hard shoulder is when they have to go past a traffic jam. They won't do it at crazy high speeds, though.


I mean getting out of the lane adjacent to the shoulder when they’re stopped on it.

EDIT:
More than you could possibly want to know:






AAA Exchange – Advocacy. Communication. Education.







drivinglaws.aaa.com


----------



## sponge_bob (Aug 11, 2013)

Penn's Woods said:


> AAA Exchange – Advocacy. Communication. Education.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is some fcuking mess of different laws that.....even if the intent is good. 

The Wyoming version can be interpreted as _*slow down to 60mph in the slow lane, even in a blizzard*_..... because their speed limit on interstates is 80mph and it may not be safe to pull out. In other states it is a 20mph hard limit which is more like it.

As well as that plod normally use blue lights and maintenance use orange lights as do recovery trucks, everywhere. Move over rules should treat both equally.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

The 'move over law' is sometimes interpreted in the Netherlands for being an alternative for the 'keep-your-lane' system. Well, there is no such thing as keep-your-lane as a traffic rule and the move over law doesn't mean you need to move over to the right lane after passing. Keep-your-lane is a Dutch invention for something that doesn't exist and some think that the move over law is related to that. 

The Netherlands doesn't have a true move over or slow down law, though they routinely close lanes on the motorway to create a buffer zone between traffic and emergency services. This is sometimes criticized for being excessive (closing down 2 lanes because of a broken down truck on the shoulder). Lane closures in the Netherlands are easy to implement because most of the motorway system has active traffic management systems.


----------



## Stuu (Feb 7, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> A relatively recent (maybe the last 10 years or so) phenomenon in the U.S. (some states) is “move-over laws”: If you see an emergency vehicle (police, ambulance...) with its flashing lights on on the shoulder, and you’re in the lane next to the shoulder, you should shift out of that lane, if you can do it safely, to give the police officer of whoever may be walking around there a safe margin.
> 
> Does this sort of thing exist elsewhere? Particularly in the lands of lane discipline?


It's not a thing in the UK, even informally. The highway authority is very quick to close lanes if there is a need to though (and many people will say they close lanes when there is no need)


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

Penn's Woods said:


> A relatively recent (maybe the last 10 years or so) phenomenon in the U.S. (some states) is “move-over laws”: If you see an emergency vehicle (police, ambulance...) with its flashing lights on on the shoulder, and you’re in the lane next to the shoulder, you should shift out of that lane, if you can do it safely, to give the police officer of whoever may be walking around there a safe margin.
> 
> Does this sort of thing exist elsewhere? Particularly in the lands of lane discipline?


Finland: No such explicit rule is in place, and it would be problematic on a typical 2+2 motorway. Instead, there is a general rule to adapt the driving speed and style to traffic conditions.

The police vehicles carry equipment to close lanes whenever needed.


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

Some European countries have an emergency corridor law – stating that if there is a traffic congestion, vehicles have to move to the left or to the right (depending on the lane), to create an empty corridor for emergency vehicles to pass.

It's something else than a move-over law, but with a similar idea behind.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

An emergency corridor is not really the same as a move over law.

An emergency corridor is required to provide quick access through a traffic jam for emergency services.

The move over law means you move over, or slow down significantly, when there are emergency services or roadside workers present (usually on the shoulder). So you don't speed by a tow truck driver at 120 km/h and 1 meter distance. You move over to the left lane or slow down substantially.


----------



## ParadiseRacer32 (Aug 3, 2016)

In Victoria, Australia, traffic is required to slow to 40km/h when passing stopped emergency vehicles with flashing lights. Yes, even on the freeway...
In South Australia it is even worse, 25km/h. 😵
Recently New South Wales changed their rule regarding stopped emergency vehicles; on multi-lane roads with a speed limit over 80km/h, you only need to slow down and move over to the next lane. Much more sensible in my opinion. Going from motorway speeds to 40km/h in a short space has caused quite some rear-end collisions and have gotten close to causing many more.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

I don't think it's a law here but I do tend to move over if there's someone stopped in the shoulder.


----------



## browntown (Jul 28, 2015)

So far as I know this has always been the law in the US. I've even known people who have been pulled over for not moving over for the cops. Although generally speaking it's like most other traffic laws in the US in that most people interpret it more as a ":suggestion".


----------



## Eulanthe (Dec 29, 2006)

DanielFigFoz said:


> I don't think it's a law here but I do tend to move over if there's someone stopped in the shoulder.


I do it if I can, simply because it's a courtesy to whoever is there. If I'm passing at 120-130km/h, giving them space seems reasonable.


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

ChrisZwolle said:


> You move over to the left lane or slow down substantially.


Can't a substantial slowdown on a motorway be dangerous?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

It depends on what you define as substantial. I meant more than just the foot off the gas, but slowing down to like 40 or 50 km/h is dangerous.

In the U.S. the slow down part means* reducing the speed by 20 mph under the posted limit. So 55 mph (90 km/h) on a freeway that otherwise has a 75 mph (120 km/h) speed limit.

* could vary by state?


----------



## x-type (Aug 19, 2005)

I do it, but I've never heard about law about it. If there isn't heavy traffic, I move at least with half of my vehicle out of my lane with my left direction indicator turned on. Not only when emergency vehicles are stopped at shoulder, but also when there are usual vehicles. Actually if there is an emegency vehicle with blue flashing lights on, I will slow down max and probably wil turn on emergency indicators.

i am also noticing each day more and more vehicles doing it.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Kpc21 said:


> Can't a substantial slowdown on a motorway be dangerous?


Hence the “when it can be done safely.”


----------

