I doubt that the station attendant knows anything about price setting. How would you find out if the owner laid the entire price increase off to taxes? I would not take the attendant’s word for it.
Also, gas prices have a thin margin. Is an addition $0.001 per gallon all that big a deal? For each million gallons sold that’s $1000 of excess profit. I doubt it’s worth it for a class action suit.
As I wrote,“If I was a lawyer, I might consider…”
When did the possibility of losing a case really deter an “ambulance chasing shyster”? Many cases the lawyer is merely hoping for a payout to go away.
There is` a lawyer, Erik Bashian, in New York City, who with his “Client” a Bronx man, Jermaine Deleston. have sued at least 79 other businesses alleging violations of the federal law, which requires businesses to be accessible to the disabled. He and his client go around the city looking for small Mom 'n Pop shops and restaurants that are in old buildings that do not have handicap access and sues them (a step too high, a bathroom too small, etc…). They had gotten away with it many, many times, forcing the small shops to pay rather than risk a long and expensive litigation…
Sometimes you still lose when you win the battle…
PS, I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever sued anyone (individually)… It’s just a thought, maybe because I have been a party some small class action law suits (the TFT Video computer screens from the late 1990s – $25; the Toro mower–under powered engine – $50 and a two-year extended warranty; the under weight StarKist Tuna – projected payout, coupon for 50 cans or $25… so many folk joined in, the payout was only a coupon for 6-cans — lawyers got rich; and most recently, the RoundUp Week Killer – payout ws $26, and a few others…)
First of all nobody crashes in to a stopped emergency vehicle or any other stopped vehicle on purpose.
If the move over law was about safety, it would be a slow down law. It would state that motorist must reduce speed to half the speed limit or by 20 MPH or such when passing a stopped vehicle on the side of the road only when in the lane next to it. Drivers would take it upon themselves to change lanes if safe to do so in order to not have to slow down. The cars which slowed would force the cars behind to slow as well, including anyone who wasn’t paying attention. The law wouldn’t say anything about moving over.
The way it is now where the law says move over. People move over, but someone who isn’t paying attention won’t know to move over, neither will they have cars in front of them to make them slow down and they’ll actually speed up. This doesn’t mention all the hazards involved with cars trying to change lanes at the last moment. So the way it is written it makes the danger to the stopped vehicle worse, and it creates huge traffic jams.
It is a slow down law, change lanes if safely possible. Move over laws have been around for 20 years.
I sure hope this is not going to turn into a “Your rights end where my rights begin…”
I never suggested that folk crash into any vehicle: emergency response, police, or privately owned disabled vehicle on purpose… it most, most, most probably a distracted driver. But so many drivers think that they “Own the lane” and they do not have to give an inch to anyone.
I wrote a couple of months ago about a blown time (sidewall ripped out), when I hit something. It was a quiet two-lane road and I pulled over onto the shoulder and put on the flashers, and even tossed a flare on the side of the shoulder of the road about 50-feet back.
I had about 10 or so cars pass and only one actually moved into the other lane. When a car approached, my wife warned me and I got out of the way, even though I was on the shoulder, they just did not care if someone was next to the car or not…
This law is intended to try to stop all the injuries and deaths caused by greedy, inconsiderate drivers who want to exercise “their right to own the lane…”
I know my friend was killed by a distracted driver, inattentive, whatever driver. There was speculation that the driver had been drinking, even drunk, but back in the '60s, there were cases that where someone was “not responsible” because they were drunk or had been drinking…
As for trying to enact a “slow down to a certain speed” would cause more accidents. The vehicles behind would not know why the vehicles ahead were slowing and it would probably lead to a pile-up.
When there is construction and the traffic needs to slow down due to lane changes, lane restrictions, workers, whatever, there are still a string of drivers who do not slow down and speed right up to the merge point.
As the various Department of Transportation signs say, “Give 'em a Brake”
It technically may be a slow down or move over law, but all the government propaganda on TV and the road signs about it focus on the move over part of it. In practice nearly every car will try to move over, even if it is a someone tight and dangerous last moment lane change.
That’s absolute rubbish. Every construction zone would have a pile up of cars going in to it if that were true.
In the past, we only had to switch lanes when we saw law enforcement or emergency vehicles on the side of the highway, but a new law expands that rule.
I don’t know if that was a law where I live (the state of Washington).
This includes cars that are straight-pipped?
It will become a Class 6 felony to purchase, sell, or offer for sale, a catalytic converter that was detached from a vehicle, unless the sale is being made by a scrap metal purchaser following all the required provisions (and there are a lot of hoops to jump through…).
I want to say to the Prius catalytic converter thieves, “In your face!”
I am surprised that you have never been through a construction zone and noticed the multitude of signs warning motorist of all sorts of hazards: soft shoulders, narrow lanes, lane changes, machinery ahead, mowing, new traffic pattern, workmen, survey crews, slow traffic, etc…
So much to see and you’ve never noticed that these warning signs are posted hundreds, even thousands of feet ahead of the hazard…
That is why we “usually” do not have pile ups are at construction zones, I had to put “usually” in quotes because there are drivers who do not “see” these signs, or choose to ignore them, or are so “entitled” that they only slow down at the last moment and force their way in and sometimes, this uncivilized, “I own the lane mentality” does cause a pile up…
But, that single disabled vehicle, that police officer alongside a disabled (or stopped) vehicle, that tow-truck driver, that highway courtesy officer, that stranded motorist, none of whom has a warning sign to put out hundreds of feet back has the luxury to give you a heads up that there is a hazard ahead and to please move over of slow down…
So, please do not accept this as a challenge to see how close you can get to that car, do not blow your horn to scare them, and remember; one day, that might be you…
[quote=“LoudThunder, post:52, topic:191304”]
I see the [[[[[ SNOWMAN ]]]]] spouting nonsense once again. 
My experience on the highway is that people tend to follow the leader. If one car or truck sees a car on the side of the road they move over. Then a whole line of cars do the same. Once in a while there will be a driver that doesn’t get it until the last moment but is becoming rare.
I’ll just throw in that I think cars in the northern states don’t seem to break down on the road as often as in warm weather areas. In the winter, a break down can mean death instead of a nice wait on the side of the road. I’ve also noted more break downs from week end drivers. If you only use your car for short trips during the week and take it on the road on the week end, failures are more likely. No stats or facts, just my observations. A shop in Florida told me that people wait for their tax refunds before fixing their cars. You don’t do that in Minnesota.
The cars in the south are a bit older due to the lack of rust. They may be driven until mechanically unable to drive anymore.
See I don’t care about feeling safe. The extra empty lane could be a false sense of security. If the cars next to me sees me and knows to move over, they can also see me and be careful to not hit me.
During heavier traffic times, what the move over law does do is usually it brings the whole highway to a crawling stand still. This actually is quite safe for the vehicle stopped on the side! Before this happens and cars are trying to quickly merge left is what is scary to me. It doesn’t take much for a car in the far lane to come over and hit me.
How is that new law working?
A Virginia State Police trooper was observing traffic while positioned in a crossover — a short, paved roadway between northbound and southbound traffic for authorized vehicles — on I-81 when a 2011 Honda Pilot lost control and collided with the trooper’s patrol vehicle. Police said the impact caused both vehicles to flip.
Like others have said, rapidly slowing traffic and/or merging traffic can cause a level of commotion that increases the likelihood of an accident. A cop in a crossover also raises such commotion, such as a line of traffic rapidly slowing on a 70 mph highway. The trouble with the law is that it takes away my responsibility to decide what is the best action in such a situation. And, I am sure that before this law, if I had caused an accident, there were plenty of laws that I would be nailed with. In general, moving over is good, but sometimes it is terrible. Does the law recognize that?
The move over law has been in place since 2002, it has been recently revised. Hasn’t there been enough time to tell if this is hazardous to police, rescue and tow truck drivers?
Those accidents involving police, maintenance, anybody pulled to the side of the road are definitely worrying. Not a uncommon accident in this area. There’s also a new move-over law (started January 2023) that pertains to conflicts between cars & bicycles sharing the road. It says car drivers must maintain a certain minimum distance between their car and the bicyclist they are driving past. I haven’t noticed any differences in driver’s behavior myself.
California law AB 1909
“Existing law requires the driver of a motor vehicle that is passing or overtaking a bicycle to do so in a safe manner, as specified, and in no case at a distance of less than 3 feet.
This bill would additionally require a vehicle that is passing or overtaking a vehicle to move over to an adjacent lane of traffic, as specified, if one is available, before passing or overtaking the bicycle.”
If there’s no lane free, motorists should slow down and only pass the cyclist when it’s safe to do so. This would mean proceeding only when it’s possible to allow at least three feet of space between a vehicle and a rider.
