mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski) (05/16/85)
T.C. Wheeler is of course correct, Maryland Highway PATROL is doing
just that. However, I think Maryland hasn't really gone far enough
in this approach. First, there is no reason for these guys to go out
with .357 magnums, shotguns, radar units, and all that other neat
cop stuff any more. They are no longer out there to enforce laws, but
rather to block traffic. All this extra gear will only hurt their
fuel economy. My second suggestion is that they use one patrol car
to straddle two lanes. Thus, they can send out even more patrol cars
to block even more traffic. Finally, the Maryland Highway Patrol
should be renamed "Maryland Errand Boys" to properly dignify
their new activity.
Actually, I hope one of these rolling roadblocks turns into a massive
chain collision. The resulting lawsuits (which could conceviebly be
filled against the state itself) should eliminate their desire for such
nonsense.
Now for the fast lane hogs.... From New Jersey Statues Annotated
(NJSA) Volume 27 (Highways):
27:12C-37, Operation of vehicles; conditions; violations; penalties
(D) No person shall operate a vehicle on any project at such a slow
speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement
of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation thereof.
(E) No person shall operate a vehicle on any project in violation of
any speed limit designated by regulation adopted by the authority
as hereinafter provided.
It would appear that from (D), driving slowly and blocking traffic
is illegal provided you are driving below the speed limit and conditions
are clear. Less clear is the case of driving at the speed limit.
Although it would be nice to say rule (E) superceeds rule (D), if my
experience with the LSAT is any indication of the way law works, it
is not necessarily so. The basic problem is that the phrase "normal
and reasonable" implies that there is an accepted rate at which traffic
will flow. It may become accepted because the police tolerate some
range of speed beyond the posted limit, allowing for human impatience
and the lack of precision of car speedometers. Also, these laws do
not exist in a vacumn. Other archiac laws may limit the right of a
governing body to establish speed limits well below former limits.
Indeed, the governing body of the highway may not have formally approved
the speed limit, so rule (E) may not apply. So, you could conceviably
be pulled over for going 57 in the fast lane and be charged with
a violation of 27:12C-37(D). You could go to court and say: "Your
honor, how can I be charged with blocking traffic when I was doing
just a hair over the limit?" The judge might reply: "Typically, people
are not pulled over for speeds up to 67 MPH. Therefore, I must conclude
that this is the normal and reasonable speed of traffic as enforced by
the police. Guilty."
This is, of course, not the only way such a case could go. The judge
could also say: "Yes, 55 is the limit so you could not be blocking
traffic. Innocent."
The point is that those net.auto writers who claim it is DEFINITELY
a crime or DEFINITELY legal to drive the limit in the left lane are
both equally wrong. The law is not a binary decision machine. It is
a complex mess of contradictory rules.
-- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z
Zaleski@Rutgers [ allegra, ihnp4 ] pegasus!mzal