Summit County Pursuit

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimmnn

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
14,370
Location
Colorado
Bet it helped to have moved to Denver CSP Dispatch on DTRS April 1st.

SUMMIT COUNTY - A 22 year-old man was jailed and his 17 year-old passenger was transferred to foster care early Saturday morning after fleeing from police. Sean Richey, 22, of Breckenridge, was called in as a possible drunk driver to authorities at approximately 1:45 a.m on Colorado 9 northbound between Frisco and Breckenridge. Frisco police attempted to stop Richey when he failed to yield to their flashing lights and sirens.

The Colorado State Patrol immediately took command of the incident as Richey's car began traveling eastbound on Interstate 70. The vehicle traveled at speeds of around 70 miles per hour toward the Eisenhower Tunnel as it attempted to ram into innocent motorists along the way. The vehicle traveled through the tunnel and into Clear Creek County. At 2 a.m., approximately two miles east of the tunnel, troopers were able to use a tire-deflation device to stop the vehicle and take the driver into custody. The driver was armed with a large knife, but never attempted to use it against anyone. He was suspected to be under the influence of cocaine during the time of the incident.

CSP reported that during the pursuit, vehicles in the area failed to move to the right and stop, creating a hazardous situation. A move over/slow down law was enacted by state statute last year and went into effect on July 1, 2005. It requires drivers nearing stopped emergency vehicles with emergency lights activated to vacate the lane closest to the stopped emergency vehicle if the road has multiple lanes traveling in the same direction. If drivers do not have an adjacent lane, or the lane is blocked, they should reduce and maintain a safe speed.
 

letarotor

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,050
Location
Arlington, TX
What does the "move-over, slow-down" law have to do with an active pursuit? Geeze, your dumb-a** reporters in Colorado have no more clue than our reporters here in Texas about traffic laws! Sounds like your drivers are about the same also. Hasn't pulling over to the right and stopping for an oncoming emergency vehicle been the law since before the invention of seat-belts in autos?
 

abqscan

DataBase Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
2,877
Location
AOA
letarotor said:
What does the "move-over, slow-down" law have to do with an active pursuit??
It has everything to do when the pursuit is over! Our reporter was reporting what the CSP wanted to get out into the public. To remind the motorist of Colorado about the new law.

Geeze, your dumb-a** reporters in Colorado have no more clue than our reporters here in Texas about traffic laws!
Thanks for letting us know how clueless your reporters are in Texas


But read the law again... it has nothing to do with pulling over to the right or stopping.
It requires drivers nearing stopped emergency vehicles with emergency lights activated to vacate the lane closest to the stopped emergency vehicle if the road has multiple lanes traveling in the same direction.
 

Troop

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
613
letarotor said:
What does the "move-over, slow-down" law have to do with an active pursuit? Geeze, your dumb-a** reporters in Colorado have no more clue than our reporters here in Texas about traffic laws! Sounds like your drivers are about the same also. Hasn't pulling over to the right and stopping for an oncoming emergency vehicle been the law since before the invention of seat-belts in autos?

The problem is that they have not been informing the public of the law, you've already got their attention telling a hot pursuit story, why not throw that in. I'm sure that they were probably having problems with it up there with it, cars probably not moving to the right as the pursuit was moving through and once it stopped their probably wasnt any cars moving to the left.....I've lost track of how many times I just about had to jump in the car that i've stopped to avoid being sucked to my death!
 

rick521

Member
Joined
May 25, 2003
Messages
1,529
Location
Salina KS
Kansas Law

Troop said:
.....I've lost track of how many times I just about had to jump in the car that i've stopped to avoid being sucked to my death!

That is why Kansas passed it's law a few years back. Trooper working a semi-truck check was killed by a driver who stayed in her lane.
 

scanlist

Scanning since the 70's to today.
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
2,109
Location
Greeley, CO
Here we go with the out of staters again. Gotta love the new "Similiar Threads" links in the forums at the end of the discussion threads. The idea for bumping up the message boards activity is nice but the 2% always seem to prevail.

Anyhow I would love to see more idiots busted for "Left Lane Law" violations. Rolling speed enforcement by non law enforcement has been increasing lately. And the people who get stuck behind them seem to go borderline psycho.

Phil.
 

BobWeb

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
434
Location
Thornton, CO
I actually didn't know this was a law, but I've always done so out of concern for the LE folks involved. I do the same for a guy changing a tire by the side of the road. You'd think this would be human nature, but not for those two percent who are just too busy to be bothered.
 

letarotor

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,050
Location
Arlington, TX
ABQSCAN,

Read the first sentence in the paragraph below again, then read what is written after:

"CSP reported that during the pursuit, vehicles in the area failed to move to the right and stop, creating a hazardous situation. A move over/slow down law was enacted by state statute last year and went into effect on July 1, 2005. It requires drivers nearing stopped emergency vehicles with emergency lights activated to vacate the lane closest to the stopped emergency vehicle if the road has multiple lanes traveling in the same direction. If drivers do not have an adjacent lane, or the lane is blocked, they should reduce and maintain a safe speed."

Was anything said in the article about what happened after the pursuit? No. The two laws are not the same and completely different violations. The point I was trying to make is that the reason why there is so much confusion about the new law is because reporters don't understand the law and therefore are incapable of writing about it in a coherent manner. The writer jumps from one point to the other, all in the same paragraph. I agree with Troop that the word has not been put out, and this is yet another reason why, lousy reporting.

Mark
 
M

mpg0515

Guest
Texas?

letarotor said:
ABQSCAN,

Read the first sentence in the paragraph below again, then read what is written after:

"CSP reported that during the pursuit, vehicles in the area failed to move to the right and stop, creating a hazardous situation. A move over/slow down law was enacted by state statute last year and went into effect on July 1, 2005. It requires drivers nearing stopped emergency vehicles with emergency lights activated to vacate the lane closest to the stopped emergency vehicle if the road has multiple lanes traveling in the same direction. If drivers do not have an adjacent lane, or the lane is blocked, they should reduce and maintain a safe speed."

Was anything said in the article about what happened after the pursuit? No. The two laws are not the same and completely different violations. The point I was trying to make is that the reason why there is so much confusion about the new law is because reporters don't understand the law and therefore are incapable of writing about it in a coherent manner. The writer jumps from one point to the other, all in the same paragraph. I agree with Troop that the word has not been put out, and this is yet another reason why, lousy reporting.

Mark

I think that I am in the wrong state forum again?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top