Flashing lights in the rear view mirror

December 27 2008

A few weeks ago, a driving trip to a customer in central Illinois was interrupted by a representative of the Illinois law enforcement community.  This was more than a bit surprising to me, as it has been many years since I was pulled over for much of anything.  I was further confused since I was driving less than the speed limit, wearing my seat belt (as always), not holding a cell phone, and operating a car in normal working condition.  In fact, I couldn't think of anything I had done incorrectly as I slowly passed the police vehicle on the shoulder of Interstate I-55 south of Joliet.

Well, it seems that I had violated State of Illinois code 625 ILCS 5/11-907(c), also known as "Scott's Law".  Illinois and many other US states have a "move over" law, which requires you to move at least one lane away from a stopped emergency vehicle if possible.  I didn't know this law.  Of course, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".  I hoped that my honest admission would suggest to the officer that only a warning was necessary....unfortunately, he was a man of few words, and issued me a citation on the spot.  OK -- I did something wrong, I should be cited.

If only that were the whole story.

It turns out that "Scott's Law" is not a simple traffic violation.  You are required to appear in court, the fine is variable between US$100 and US$10,000, and your license can be suspended.  Officer Friendly (I didn't get his name, so we'll call him that) handed me the ticket, which ordered me to appear in court in Morris, Illinois (80 miles from home) on December 24th -- yes, Christmas Eve -- at 7 AM.  

The more I read up on this law, the more I was stunned at the abuse of legal authority.  The law's intent makes perfect sense.  Emergency personnel are in a hazardous situation where they are outside their roadside vehicles, and errant drivers have injured or killed in collisions resulting from this situation.  But there are no shades-of-gray in the Illinois statute -- in my case, it was a clear day, I slowed down as I approached the stationary police car, I moved far enough away to be safe (but not far enough), and I was aware of where the policeman was as I passed.  There was no real hazard to the situation -- not in the same way as if someone drives recklessly at 85 MPH.  Still, no matter, the law is the law, I guess.  

The threat that my license could be suspended for this incident left me stunned for days, and I eventually did some research on the web and hired a lawyer.  What I learned was that the State Police are quite fond of writing this violation (especially to drivers ignorant of the law, like me), and the Illinois courts have just as much fun handing out fines.  Though Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn got off with a warning, none of his readers did.  It seems that our Illinois state government, while not busy with other activities, realizes the penalty is too harsh, though.  Effective next week, Illinois won't suspend driver's licenses arbitrarily for this violation.

As for me, hiring a lawyer was the best thing I could have done.  She handled the court appearance and negotiations for me, so that I didn't have to drive back to Grundy County on Christmas Eve.  I ended up pleading guilty (to lesser charges), which chafes me to no end -- but a law is a law.  My fine was $185, and I'm on court supervision for six months.  Guess I won't be trying any 212 km/h maneuvers here at home anytime soon, but the case is closed.  

I wrote this blog entry for two reasons -- 1) because I think many, many drivers in the US do not know this law and others like it, as evidenced by how many whizzed by in the right lane while I was pulled over, and 2) because in preparing to publish a year in review, I found several comments throughout the blog reminding me that it is OK to write about my personal life here.  Admitting I violated a traffic law may be a little more on the personal side, but hopefully others will learn from my mistake.  Besides, the customer I was visiting that day already heard this story -- it got the meeting started on a much more human level, and set up a really good interaction for the hours to come.

Ed Brill | Highland Park, IL USA Category:  People  Add/View Comments [37]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Fred Janssen  | 12/27/2008 1:42:05 PM

    Thanks for the heads up!

    I'll keep this in mind for my next visit to the US (unfortunately not Lotusphere. :-( )

  1. 2  david http://www.geekyramblings.org | 12/27/2008 1:54:20 PM

    Sadly, when it comes to traffic law, the reality is that you are guilty until proven innocent.

  1. 3  Jerry Carter  | 12/27/2008 1:56:42 PM

    Wow. That's not cool. Glad you got a lawyer involved though. I get the feeling many traffic courts run merrily over folks rights due to the general desire to be out of or over with whatever strife is being dished out. Just so you know, we have a similar law here in Ohio. At least here they have been courteous enough to display signs which say "State Law - move over or slow down for stopped emergency vehicles". It doesn't say anything about fines though so I don't know if it's the same here. I've passed stopped troopers doing about 60 mph when they are stopped and haven't had any troubles. Maybe just nicer guys or just my good luck.

    In any case - glad you shared and didn't get ganked too hard on the fine, sorry to hear they are riding you on this. Definitely a miscarriage of justice.

  1. 4  Ben Rose http://www.jaffacake.net | 12/27/2008 2:00:58 PM

    So, if you don't get pulled over for this, do you get away "Scott Free"?

    I'm wondering if there is any link?

  1. 5  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/27/2008 2:01:08 PM

    @3 similar signs in Illinois, displayed at the exit of rest stops (so not quite visible from the main roadway). The use of the word "or" is interesting, since I *did* slow down.

    Also, while the lawyer was immensely helpful, I did have to pay her fee as well, so this was much more than a $185 lesson. I looked at it as worthwhile if only for the court appearance aspect, not to mention that she handled the issue professionally and to my benefit.

  1. 6  Joe Litton http://www.joelitton.net/ | 12/27/2008 2:25:49 PM

    Florida is quite similar. PLEASE pay attention all who might be coming to Lotusphere and driving in the Orlando area!

    Florida law states that if there is an emergency vehicle with lights flashing on the side of the road, one must either move over a lane (leaving a blank lane between one's own vehicle and the emergency vehicle), or, if that is not possible, then one must slow to at LEAST 15 miles an hour BELOW the posted speed limit. So if the posted limit is 55 mph, and you cannot move over a lane, you must slow to 40 mph or slower while passing the parked emergency vehicle.

    Every few months we'll see traps set up in Tampa where I-4 and I-275 merge. I absolutely understand the reason for the law and I support measures to help ensure the safety of the men and women who work every day to ensure OUR safety. And I definitely support the fair application of the law and the prudent use of common sense.

    The ONLY reason I know of this law is that the local newspapers run articles periodically explaining why so many are being pulled over.

  1. 7  Don McNally http://dmcnally.blogspot.com | 12/27/2008 2:56:18 PM

    We've gotten reminders of a similar Michigan law in the last couple of years, unfortunately because of trooper deaths. I'm not sure of the specifics but I always try to get over a lane if I see a police car with lights on. I've just been lucky in those cases where I haven't been able to get over, though I did slow down then.

    Good information in any case, but an expensive lesson.

  1. 8  Jim Casale http://www.jimcasale.net | 12/27/2008 3:09:15 PM

    I dare say we will see more vigorous enforcement of all types of traffic laws (not just Scott's law) since many local and state governments see it as a source of revenue. And since local and state governments are short on cash these days...well you get the picture.

    While I whole heartedly agree on enforcing Scott's law (within reason), other types of traffic enforcement are just a cover for revenue generation. You know...like when New York City changed parking rules but didn't change the signs..and then promptly handed out parking tickets even though it was legal to park.

  1. 9  Dennis Heinle http://www.dinkinctech.com | 12/27/2008 4:52:23 PM

    Thanks for posting this Ed. I live in IL and didn't know this law existed! They should have this law in MO as well. Those drivers don't pull over for any emergency vehicles!

  1. 10  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 12/27/2008 5:01:14 PM

    Ouch. What an expensive lesson.

  1. 11  Kurt B  | 12/27/2008 6:02:23 PM

    In Ontario Canada, your second offense for this can land you in jail for 6 months...

    You were probably stopped by a sting looking for this exact infraction. Have you seen any signs posted anywhere about this on the highways?

  1. 12  Luis Guirigay http://lguiriga.blogspot.com | 12/27/2008 9:07:34 PM

    The day we moved from Austin, TX to Chicago to start my new job my wife was driving around 9 PM and she got pulled over, since she was driving our "Officer Friendly" wanted to talk to her, I explained to him she wasn't fluent in English and then he decided no more words were necessary and we got a 350 US$ ticket plus court appearance in Pulaski County, IL - the same day I was suppose to start my new job. I called Pulaski Court and they said I could avoid court by paying an additional 350US$, so I ended up paying a 700 US$ fine.

  1. 13  David Vasta http://www.iSeriesAddict.com | 12/27/2008 10:22:33 PM

    Man, that just scotts, I mean sucks. We have gotten entirely to LAW happy in the US. We need less laws and the punishment in this case does not fit the crime. A verbal warning would have been good for most of us.

  1. 14  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 12/27/2008 10:58:02 PM

    A $10000 fine and a license suspension if you don't yield an entire lane to a trooper issuing someone else a speeding ticket, but if some poor guy is changing a flat tire with his hazards on at 2am... well, tough cookies for him.

    Yeah... there's no ruling class in the US. Nope, none at all. The law applies fairly across all races, creeds and occupations.

    Amen.

    Isn't there a name for it when someone threatens to steal from you or harm you if you don't pay a certain dollar amount? I could swear there was a term for that.... hmmmmm.

  1. 15  phil west  | 12/28/2008 12:45:58 AM

    "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

    Often stated and yet completely unjust. Laws are enacted all the time behind closed doors with no dissemination of information. It is practically impossible to walk down to the shops to buy milk without breaking some obscure law, and every region is different. It is a completely ridiculous arrangement.

  1. 16  LongLiveLotus  | 12/28/2008 4:22:48 AM

    Reminds me of a couple of Lotuspheres ago - I was going a little above the limit quite close to Disney on the way in to the sphere at abbout 615 in the morning (nothing on the roads, wanted to get to a BOF And grab a coffee, like to stay offsite as a miles&points whore). Officer Friendly on realising my cute accent meant I was English changed tone immediately and gave me a lecture that speed limits in the USA are in mph and not KMh...!! Go figure, but I just played dumb (yes, I know..) and nothing came of it.

    Whilst I realise the reasons for some laws such as the one Ed so scandalously broke the penalties can be draconian for even minor matters. The 70mph motorway limit in the UK is widely ignored and most people cruise the land at 90mph with relative impunity. Uk law (speed cameras, grr) is off topic though, I didnt know about Scotts law so I learned something for today.

    LLL

  1. 17  Palmi  | 12/28/2008 6:25:50 AM

    I have had driving licence in 4 states in USA and they all have this law. - Ed you did the right thing getting a lawer. But everyone that lives in FL knows that the officers have Quota to fullfill , Will it be you jan 2009?

  1. 18  John Turnbow http://www.recondite2.com | 12/28/2008 2:25:09 PM

    We have a similar law in Texas. Watch for "traps" though.. There was some abuse here in Texas I heard of, where one cop was on the side of the road with lights on - no one pulled over and another "runner cop" to chase those who did not pull to next lane or slow to 40 mph. There was a lot of commercials and ads in the newspaper about the new law, so in Texas, if you did not know about the law you either could not read or were deaf (all over tv and radio).

    In any case I believe it's a good law as too many officers have been hurt by idiots not having common sense to move over. It's another "common sense" law for the idiots out there.

    Sounds like you did make an effort which should have been realized by the court and officer. Defensive driving requirement should have been sufficent.

  1. 19  John C. Cummins  | 12/28/2008 3:46:34 PM

    So, for this you could lose your license but most drunk drivers don't for a first offense...can anyone explain this? (not sure on the Illinois law)

  1. 20  Roy Rumaner  | 12/28/2008 4:25:39 PM

    John,

    Starting Jan. 1, Illinois is launching a new effort to stop people who drink and drive repeatedly. Right now, Illinois drivers with two or more DUI convictions must install an ignition interlock device, which is hooked into the car and prevents someone who has been drinking from driving the car. As of Jan. 1, all first-time offenders in Illinois will be forced to install such a device if they want to request permission to drive while their license is suspended after a DUI arrest. (By the way, those automatic suspensions also double starting Jan. 1—to six months if you fail a breath test, one year if you refuse to take it.)

  1. 21  Vaughan Rivett  | 12/28/2008 4:40:42 PM

  1. 22  Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 12/28/2008 4:42:40 PM

    Hey - when a country produces more lawyers than engineers, then in a downturn, expect more lawyer friendly laws. Sucks, but someone's got to pay the green fees.

    And I can see exactly *why* they have this law - no-one can possibly complain about that. Its just the dammed implementation. Lawyer friendly. I guess.

    I'll make sure the folks at the Lotusfear hog ride and roast hear about this.

    I'm glad I still live in rural Scotland, where there's about three traffic cops in 80 miles and 25 cameras. Which dont move around. ;-) If only the broadband didnt suck.

    Happy Hogmany!

    ---* Bill

  1. 23  David Vasta http://www.iSeriesAddict.com | 12/28/2008 4:59:53 PM

    @Bill - Well said. We sadly are in a pickle and no sign it's going to get any better. There are way to many lawyers and FREEDOM as we know it is being trampled. The "Scotts Law" is a abuse of power and waste of resources. While I think we should yield to a police officer when on the side of the road, the fact that officers are trapping for it is truly sad.

    On the same note, I can't recall how many times an officer in Chicago or any place else I have lived has pulled someone over on a busy street place himself and the other person in harms way, when 100 yards up the road is a parking lot and no one would get hurt. I say police should pull the person off to the next safe exit and do business there, if they are issuing s speeding ticket or citation and if you have a flat tire drive to the next exit and replace it unless it's miles away. Pulling of a 70+MPH freeway is the wrong place to change a tire any day.

  1. 24  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 12/28/2008 11:44:26 PM

    Way too harsh a penalty -- but otherwise its a good law. It should be moving violation with an appropriate fine and points -- and nothing more.

    One reason Cops would be eager to give this out, frankly, is self preservation.

    I've spent plenty of time at car accidents on the sides of busy highways and it is damn dangerous. The #2 cause of firefighter fatality is traffic related accidents and this kind is one of the most common.

    At a "Real" incident, we pull the 35,000 pound fire truck out so that it blocks the first lane of traffic, so we can safely work "in the lee" that creates. State cops really hate this as they're under a lot of pressure NOT to close lanes.

    @Vasta - When the cop puts the blue lights on, as long as you slow down and put your blinker on he's going to give you a lot of leeway as to where and how quickly you pull over. You're in the front though, so if you decide to do it just below the crest of a hill where the breakdown lane is narrow and then not pull your car onto the soft shoulder -- leaving him 3" between your door and the white line, you're going to really piss him off.

  1. 25  Bill Geimer  | 12/29/2008 12:15:33 AM

    Ed, while I was on vacation this past summer, I took a long drive through Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Iowa and back. Most of them had similar laws and I knew about it because they advertised it on big signs along the highway. Yet until I read your blog post about it, I had no idea that Illinois had a similar law. Seems a shame that they could not find a better way to make it public knowledge than posting it the rest stop exits. Evidently not all of them, or perhaps I just missed them.

    It seems to me that it would be much more beneficial to the police and other people whose jobs place them on the edge of the highway if the state actively educated the masses - they have so many opportunities, from the electronic sign boards on the toll roads, the various DMV, Secretary of State and other web sites, and thousands of billboards along the highway. Of course, that could save lives but not make money.

    I agree its a good law. I have unknowingly practiced it here in Illinois since learning about it in other states this summer without knowing it was State of Illinois code 625 ILCS 5/11-907(c). I don't blame offices for enforcing it, but its just plain stupid for the State not to work to make it well known. Ticketing you and a few hundred others is not going to modify behavior of a few million drivers, or save a single life.

    +1 on hiring the lawyer.

  1. 26  Bill Malchisky http://www.EffectiveSoftware.com | 12/29/2008 12:25:38 AM

    @25 They should also publish the law at all rental car counters--especially airports. As many states provide signage as you indicated (they do in MN, where I reside), but if one is a tourist or on a business trip and land in the state, you would not see the roadsigns, and thus, would be oblivious to the law.

    Learning is very expensive.

    Good post, Ed. Glad you got out of the event unscathed--mostly.

    --Bill

  1. 27  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 12/29/2008 12:26:50 AM

    Scotland, isn't that where you have only one lane? For both directions. And turnouts if you happen to meet another chap going the other way. And suicidal sheep, of course. SCNR, Bill. ;-)

  1. 28  Todd Carpenter http://www.embraer.com | 12/29/2008 11:15:03 AM

    Florida enacted this law a while ago, so as mentioned above please be careful when driving to Lotusphere. I have tried obeying this law in South Florida where if you put your signal on to move over a lane you can be damn sure someone will not let you in. It's so much fun! Thanks Joe for clarification of the slow down rule, it's common sense, but you don't see many of that down here.

  1. 29  Kevin Mort http://www.theglobalmind.com | 12/29/2008 1:47:34 PM

    As several have mentioned this type of law is in effect all over the US, in many states. Florida included.

    @28 is dead right here in South Florida where you need to be driving a monster truck to get over a lane many days. Thus the reason for having the OR clause in that verbiage.

    I generally support the law, but am no fan of setting up traps for it. That's rather weak.

    We also have these lovely 15mph school zones. And they pop up all over the place. So, watch yourselves if you're driving around early AM in Orlando for those staying off property.

  1. 30  Charles Robinson http://www.cubert.net | 12/29/2008 1:58:28 PM

    Here is a good roundup of the laws on a state-by-state basis: { Link }

  1. 31  Ian Scott  | 12/29/2008 4:04:52 PM

    @27 - single track roads. Mostly in the West Highlands.

    I once came across one being repaired and there's no way out - you have to wait until the job is done before you can continue your journey. At least it was a nice day and I wasn't in a hurry!

  1. 32  Timothy Briley  | 12/29/2008 4:17:27 PM

    I decided to do some research of my own and found this to be pretty interesting:

    { Link }

  1. 33  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/29/2008 8:28:11 PM

    @32 I am not sure I wanted to read all that. Spending any time in that forum is sure to support positions like Nate's ... police who seem to be out to write tickets for tickets' sake. The number of officers who scoff in that forum at ignorance is amazing to me. I am a pretty smart guy and simply didn't know this was the law in Illinois. Neither did my dad who is a law professor. Should I have instinctively moved? Well, I had just come over a hill, the pavement was wet, I don't know if I had clearance -- I just didn't react that way. Speeding, parking, seat belts, drunk driving all have very clear public awareness efforts...this one, at least in Illinois, has signs at rest stops. Never saw it on the amber alert signs, at the DMV, or anywhere else.

  1. 34  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 12/31/2008 7:28:45 AM

    @33 - LOL. You do realize what you just effective said, right, Ed? In order to avoid agreeing with me, you choose to avoid information about actual LEO behavior. If you became informed, you would also become incensed. ;-)

    I'm not suggesting you do anything differently. I just think it's interesting that you made that deliberate choice.

  1. 35  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/31/2008 8:18:42 AM

    Dude, I am incensed and I am agreeing with you -- just saying that my views aren't normally *that* cynical.

  1. 36  Jon Raslawski  | 12/31/2008 1:19:00 PM

    Hi Ed -- as a fellow Illinoisan -- thanks for the education. I agree with your anger and surprise. But; also look at it from purely a revenue generating opportunity perspective -- just like the stop light cameras and their associated $100 USD "re-education fee" ($125 if you choose to waste the "hearing officer's" time in-person). I really don't want to turn this into a political rant -- but, please -- it's Illinois of all places -- everything is either "for sale" or there is "fee" associated with it. Ignorance-of-the-law or not, the state, city, county, village, local dog catcher want to get paid. Apologies for the 2008 cynicism -- 2009 should be more positive.

    Peace, love, and prosperity to one and all.

    Jon …

  1. 37  C. Rushing http://www.healthylittleones.com | 1/5/2009 10:31:00 AM

    I combine "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and "posession is 9/10ths of the law" into a single phrase:

    Ignorance is 9/10ths of the law.

    We have a similar law in Michigan and I would have thought that slowing down would have been sufficient.