Isn't this just common sense?

[UserRemoved1]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news...83/detail.html

The guy got hit by a drunk driver. How does that make it necessary to make a new law?

I for one always move out of the right lane if I see a cruiser pulled over with it's lights on. If I can I do. Common sense?

I sense someone trying to make themselves smell like roses.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Problem is there's a SERIOUS lack of common sense nowadays.....both you and I may take it easy when we see them but I guarentee there are plenty of nitwits that don't....sad that you actually have to have laws for common sense nowadays.

I still say the turning point in america came when someones coffee was too hot....ever since that lawsuit its been one stupid rule or lawsuit after another.

I think thats why Iced Coffee is so popular....Then again maybe I can sue from an ice ream headache if I chug it too fast....I mean that is the coffee's fault, right

[GonnaCatchABig1]

i agree with you. to a point. except i dont think he is trying to make his stuff smell good. i thin he is trying to make a precedent to get a big cash settlement if the law is passed.

i respect what officers do, even if on occasion i dont agree with it. buuuuut...

when they sign up for the job accept certain risks. and being officers they knwo full well the risks involved with being on the side of the road (or in the middle). thus why they ask people to get off the road. they also know, no matter how careful or how by the book there is room for failure. it' s part of the job.

to push for a law that would cause EXTREME bottlenecks during peak hours is ridiculous.

again there is respect there for riskin their lives. nut that part of the job description.

personally i think they are already OVER protected (from people with common sense) at this point in time it is almost illegal to look at a cop the wrong the wrong way.

it isnt entirely cops faults so much as the governments new no tolerance laws. but if you jsut keep letting them pass more and more laws to protect them, especially common sense laws. ou open the flood gates. cause, guns are a threat to them... so they would logicaly have to go completely. which of course then enables the government to have COMPLETEL military control over the people.. but blah blah blah.. be a good american.

[Raven]

i don't think in many places there is sufficient room for a motorist to pull over on the break down lane....
without risking injury to themselves or a police officer
who's rendering assistance or pulling them over.

you only have to drive the mass pike or other highways to see someone driving 20 miles over the speed limit
weaving in and out of traffic and crossing three lanes
taking enormous chances to themselves and endangering everyone else on the road.

and your saying to yourself "where's the cops now?"

There should be more places every mile or so where you could actually "change a tire" or make some other emergency repairs without worrying about being rear ended... then these same places could be used for
stopping a motorist without placing the officer at risk.

But since that's probably too costly to do.... a law saying reduce your speed and give them wide berth
if possible ........isn't a bad alternative.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Am I missing something in this article....who's trying to cover who's ass....I don't see it.

And I think the Military control is a bit of a stretch on this one....unless its just sarcasm that I'm not reading correctly.

[Swimmer]

The cops would just appreciate if some of the laws on the books are upheld. We do not need any more rules. Just a common sense aproach to enforcing the current ones on the books.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by GonnaCatchABig1

i agree with you. to a point. except i dont think he is trying to make his stuff smell good. i thin he is trying to make a precedent to get a big cash settlement if the law is passed.


when they sign up for the job accept certain risks.

to push for a law that would cause EXTREME bottlenecks during peak hours is ridiculous.

again there is respect there for riskin their lives. nut that part of the job description.

personally i think they are already OVER protected (from people with common sense) at this point in time it is almost illegal to look at a cop the wrong the wrong way.

it isnt entirely cops faults so much as the governments new no tolerance laws. but if you jsut keep letting them pass more and more laws to protect them, especially common sense laws. ou open the flood gates. cause, guns are a threat to them... so they would logicaly have to go completely. which of course then enables the government to have COMPLETEL military control over the people.. but blah blah blah.. be a good american.

The cops would only appreciate the current laws on the book be upheld in a reasonable manner. Thier are enough rules now without adding anymore. No officers or organization connected with police officers have anything to do with a proposed law to make people move over for a police vehicle with its lights on. Thats probably why this proposal never moved out of the committee with any fervor.

Further, your remark about a "big cash settlement" is way off base. I have been hit five times by the motoring public and never hired a lawyer. Don't know of any officer who has. Municipalities sue driver's who hit officers and cruisers to recover lost wages and medical cost associated with this type of injury. That happens quite often.

[Swimmer]

One more thing, there is currently a law on the books which probably pertains more towards a construction site along side a roadway than a cruiser stopping a vehicle for an infraction. It was under the old so-called Articles and Section part of motor vehicle law, which mostly only troopers dealt with. It was called "men and equipment in road", A4-Sec. 20, I think, it directed under this law that vehicle traveling in the same lane had to slow down to 20 m.p.h., which incidently is the same speed your suppose to slow to while traveling through and intersection. These laws would swallowed up and can still be enforced under another group of rules. I think though, that a cruiser stopped in a roadway for any reason would come under this law.