When I was young and foolish, I swerved to miss a pheasant and almost totaled my '69 Camaro. Lesson learned. When something runs out on me my i nsting is NOT to swerve. You actually have to rehearse it in your mind while you drive.
Dash cam - driver stops on highway for birds
- Thread starter bubbatime
- Start date
- Status
I will make one basic point for this thread. It really doesn't matter if bubbatime was going to fast (a collision never happened in any event). Yes, generally speaking, you can stop on the highway as needed or as one perceives one needs to and one is generally not responsible for someone else rear ending one.
Of course, fault aside, it's incumbent upon one to not create a dangerous situation, since liability doesn't determine death or injury. I'm standing on my brakes if I see a moose on the road. If I see a few birds, I'm not even lifting off the gas unless it's an ostrich, or maybe a Canada goose - those things could take out a headlight or a radiator.
As was already pointed out in this thread, there have been criminal charges laid in this country in cases like this for creating dangerous situations on the roadway, particularly when there has been camera evidence, in situations that would otherwise simply be governed otherwise by the ordinary traffic regulations.
Of course, being the following car, one has no idea why the person ahead is stopping, so we have to follow carefully and pay attention. That being said, we don't need every car on the road coming to a screeching halt for every Styrofoam cup and chickadee on the highway, or because one's cell phone fell off the seat onto the floor. If you're on the highway, get driving. If you're too jumpy and can't tell a hazard from an annoyance, find someone else to drive.
Of course, fault aside, it's incumbent upon one to not create a dangerous situation, since liability doesn't determine death or injury. I'm standing on my brakes if I see a moose on the road. If I see a few birds, I'm not even lifting off the gas unless it's an ostrich, or maybe a Canada goose - those things could take out a headlight or a radiator.
As was already pointed out in this thread, there have been criminal charges laid in this country in cases like this for creating dangerous situations on the roadway, particularly when there has been camera evidence, in situations that would otherwise simply be governed otherwise by the ordinary traffic regulations.
Of course, being the following car, one has no idea why the person ahead is stopping, so we have to follow carefully and pay attention. That being said, we don't need every car on the road coming to a screeching halt for every Styrofoam cup and chickadee on the highway, or because one's cell phone fell off the seat onto the floor. If you're on the highway, get driving. If you're too jumpy and can't tell a hazard from an annoyance, find someone else to drive.
bubbatime,
I had to do what your birdstopper did two days ago...except it was an old lady...jaywalking! She saw that our light had changed about 30 yards from her (three lanes, two had traffic, right was empty) and STILL went ahead. Almost out of a cartoon, walking with tiny steps with no quick progress. I had to come to a halt. If someone on the right had come flying by, they'd have been pulling a body out of the roadside trees! I didn't want to honk, either, as that might have killed her, too!
I had to do what your birdstopper did two days ago...except it was an old lady...jaywalking! She saw that our light had changed about 30 yards from her (three lanes, two had traffic, right was empty) and STILL went ahead. Almost out of a cartoon, walking with tiny steps with no quick progress. I had to come to a halt. If someone on the right had come flying by, they'd have been pulling a body out of the roadside trees! I didn't want to honk, either, as that might have killed her, too!
From the start of the video I see that there's a consistent slowpoke in the left lane never going any faster than the car the OP is following in the right lane. This is a frustrating situation to be sure. The OP makes an aggressive move to take the left lane and gun it, maybe intimidate that slowpoke a little to speed up or move right, or if that doesn't happen, try to squeeze back cutting off car in the right lane and blow past Mr Slowpoke on the right.
None of those work out as expected.
None of those work out as expected.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Page 49 of the Florida Driver's Manual says break for animals:
"If you have time to avoid hitting an animal, reduce your speed, ... If there are no vehicles close behind you, brake hard without locking your wheels."
Says nothing about it's illegal to come to a complete stop on any road because of animals in the road. This is all going to depend on who's driving, as each person will have their own idea of what's prudent about avoiding animals on the road.
https://www.flhsmv.gov/handbooks/englishdriverhandbook.pdf
A driver's manual isn't the same as uniform traffic code ...
I'm not familiar with FL code.
IN code specifically has TWO codes that directly make it clear you just cannot whack your brakes for any ol' reason:
IC 9-21-8-24
Sec. 24. A person may not:
(1) slow down or stop a vehicle;
(2) turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway; or
(3) change from one (1) traffic lane to another;
unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety.
IC 9-21-8-26
Sec. 26. A person may not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to a person who drives a vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give a signal.
There is some manner of "reasonable application" that would be considered here, by any officer, judge or jury.
Is it reasonable to stop a car in an emergency manner, on a high-speed road, risking damage to property or injury to another human, if one was stopping to keep from running over a small child that had run out in front of you? Most will agree yes.
Is it reasonable to stop a car in an emergency manner, on a high-speed road, risking damage to property or injury to another human, if one was stopping for some small birds that would otherwise do little damage to the involved if only the birds were struck? Most will agree no.
You just don't get to slam on your brakes for any ol' reason. It has to be a prudent reason, in an attempt to avoid specific harm that would otherwise outweigh the concerns of others injured, considering the totality of the circumstances. It's not prudent to risk human lives, or many thousands of dollars in property damage, for an aviary distraction.
Had this guy caused an accident in our jurisdiction, he likely would have been cited. I've actually written tickets, successfully prosecuted, for such.
Also, people who like to "brake check" folks out of spite, are also guilty of the aforementioned violations and would be cited as well. Often if there are credible witnesses, we've cited those too.
Page 49 of the Florida Driver's Manual says break for animals:
"If you have time to avoid hitting an animal, reduce your speed, ... If there are no vehicles close behind you, brake hard without locking your wheels."
Says nothing about it's illegal to come to a complete stop on any road because of animals in the road. This is all going to depend on who's driving, as each person will have their own idea of what's prudent about avoiding animals on the road.
https://www.flhsmv.gov/handbooks/englishdriverhandbook.pdf
A driver's manual isn't the same as uniform traffic code ...
I'm not familiar with FL code.
IN code specifically has TWO codes that directly make it clear you just cannot whack your brakes for any ol' reason:
IC 9-21-8-24
Sec. 24. A person may not:
(1) slow down or stop a vehicle;
(2) turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway; or
(3) change from one (1) traffic lane to another;
unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety.
IC 9-21-8-26
Sec. 26. A person may not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to a person who drives a vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give a signal.
There is some manner of "reasonable application" that would be considered here, by any officer, judge or jury.
Is it reasonable to stop a car in an emergency manner, on a high-speed road, risking damage to property or injury to another human, if one was stopping to keep from running over a small child that had run out in front of you? Most will agree yes.
Is it reasonable to stop a car in an emergency manner, on a high-speed road, risking damage to property or injury to another human, if one was stopping for some small birds that would otherwise do little damage to the involved if only the birds were struck? Most will agree no.
You just don't get to slam on your brakes for any ol' reason. It has to be a prudent reason, in an attempt to avoid specific harm that would otherwise outweigh the concerns of others injured, considering the totality of the circumstances. It's not prudent to risk human lives, or many thousands of dollars in property damage, for an aviary distraction.
Had this guy caused an accident in our jurisdiction, he likely would have been cited. I've actually written tickets, successfully prosecuted, for such.
Also, people who like to "brake check" folks out of spite, are also guilty of the aforementioned violations and would be cited as well. Often if there are credible witnesses, we've cited those too.
Last edited:
Some good points in this thread.
YES I was following the car in the right lane too closely. There should have been more space between me and him. The guy in the left lane was doing the speed limit for several miles, in the passing lane, and the cars were getting stacked up behind him. My intent was to move to the left (in front of the white car) and get past the slow poke in the left lane, which is why I was following a bit too closely. The speed limit on this road is 55, but I routinely set my cruise to 60-62 on average.
Originally Posted By: GSCJR
I'm just glad it wasn't another one of those dumb Canadians. We would never hear the end of it.
HAHA, you northern folks all bundled up in your igloos sure have a good memory. And YES, there were at least 5 Canadians (Quebec) in the passing lane today impeding my driving and refusing to travel in the driving lane with their 47 mph in a 55 mph zone. (Winking at you Canucks!)
YES I was following the car in the right lane too closely. There should have been more space between me and him. The guy in the left lane was doing the speed limit for several miles, in the passing lane, and the cars were getting stacked up behind him. My intent was to move to the left (in front of the white car) and get past the slow poke in the left lane, which is why I was following a bit too closely. The speed limit on this road is 55, but I routinely set my cruise to 60-62 on average.
Originally Posted By: GSCJR
I'm just glad it wasn't another one of those dumb Canadians. We would never hear the end of it.
HAHA, you northern folks all bundled up in your igloos sure have a good memory. And YES, there were at least 5 Canadians (Quebec) in the passing lane today impeding my driving and refusing to travel in the driving lane with their 47 mph in a 55 mph zone. (Winking at you Canucks!)
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Page 49 of the Florida Driver's Manual says break for animals:
"If you have time to avoid hitting an animal, reduce your speed, ... If there are no vehicles close behind you, brake hard without locking your wheels."
Says nothing about it's illegal to come to a complete stop on any road because of animals in the road. This is all going to depend on who's driving, as each person will have their own idea of what's prudent about avoiding animals on the road.
https://www.flhsmv.gov/handbooks/englishdriverhandbook.pdf
A driver's manual isn't the same as uniform traffic code ...
I'm not familiar with FL code.
IN code specifically has TWO codes that directly make it clear you just cannot whack your brakes for any ol' reason:
IC 9-21-8-24
Sec. 24. A person may not:
(1) slow down or stop a vehicle;
(2) turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway; or
(3) change from one (1) traffic lane to another;
unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety.
IC 9-21-8-26
Sec. 26. A person may not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to a person who drives a vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give a signal.
There is some manner of "reasonable application" that would be considered here, by any officer, judge or jury.
I'm just showing what the Florida driver's manual says. If there is Florida "traffic code" that goes opposite of what they are teaching people to do in the driver's manual with an animal situation then there's a problem with rules/laws alignment.
The traffic codes you cited probably don't take into account people slowing way down or even completely stopping for an animal, a human or major debris, etc in the road. IC 9-21-8-26 would be satisfied with appropriate brake lights.
Some people will slow way down or even stop for almost any animal crossing the road, and some people will only stop for big animals that could total their car (deer, cows, moose, etc). I highly doubt there are any laws that distinguish or lay out in detail who has the legal right to stop or not to stop based on what animal is in the road, or what animals should be ran over instead of slowing or stopping.
Personally I would not come to a complete stop on a road unless I knew it was safe to do so. With traffic around I would most likely slow down significantly and then weave around the danger if possible. Only stop if absolutely required. But lots of people aren't always aware of what's going on in front of them, let alone what's going on behind them. Part of being a good defensive driver is to assume everyone around you is going to be making bone head moves ... something you learn as a motorcyclist, and it's a valuable way to think also while driving a car.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Page 49 of the Florida Driver's Manual says break for animals:
"If you have time to avoid hitting an animal, reduce your speed, ... If there are no vehicles close behind you, brake hard without locking your wheels."
Says nothing about it's illegal to come to a complete stop on any road because of animals in the road. This is all going to depend on who's driving, as each person will have their own idea of what's prudent about avoiding animals on the road.
https://www.flhsmv.gov/handbooks/englishdriverhandbook.pdf
A driver's manual isn't the same as uniform traffic code ...
I'm not familiar with FL code.
IN code specifically has TWO codes that directly make it clear you just cannot whack your brakes for any ol' reason:
IC 9-21-8-24
Sec. 24. A person may not:
(1) slow down or stop a vehicle;
(2) turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway; or
(3) change from one (1) traffic lane to another;
unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety.
IC 9-21-8-26
Sec. 26. A person may not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to a person who drives a vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give a signal.
There is some manner of "reasonable application" that would be considered here, by any officer, judge or jury.
I'm just showing what the Florida driver's manual says. If there is Florida "traffic code" that goes opposite of what they are teaching people to do in the driver's manual with an animal situation then there's a problem with rules/laws alignment.
The traffic codes you cited probably don't take into account people slowing way down or even completely stopping for an animal, a human or major debris, etc in the road. IC 9-21-8-26 would be satisfied with appropriate brake lights.
Some people will slow way down or even stop for almost any animal crossing the road, and some people will only stop for big animals that could total their car (deer, cows, moose, etc). I highly doubt there are any laws that distinguish or lay out in detail who has the legal right to stop or not to stop based on what animal is in the road, or what animals should be ran over instead of slowing or stopping.
Personally I would not come to a complete stop on a road unless I knew it was safe to do so. With traffic around I would most likely slow down significantly and then weave around the danger if possible. Only stop if absolutely required. But lots of people aren't always aware of what's going on in front of them, let alone what's going on behind them. Part of being a good defensive driver is to assume everyone around you is going to be making bone head moves ... something you learn as a motorcyclist, and it's a valuable way to think also while driving a car.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'm just showing what the Florida driver's manual says. If there is Florida "traffic code" that goes opposite of what they are teaching people to do in the driver's manual with an animal situation then there's a problem with rules/laws alignment.
Remember though that the wording isn't too precise. You are expected to panic stop for an elephant on the highway. A Canada goose, you would likely want to stop. When you start getting lower down, that stopping business is no longer applicable. Grasshoppers are animals, yet I've never stopped for one, as my windshield in the summer will attest.
I'm just showing what the Florida driver's manual says. If there is Florida "traffic code" that goes opposite of what they are teaching people to do in the driver's manual with an animal situation then there's a problem with rules/laws alignment.
Remember though that the wording isn't too precise. You are expected to panic stop for an elephant on the highway. A Canada goose, you would likely want to stop. When you start getting lower down, that stopping business is no longer applicable. Grasshoppers are animals, yet I've never stopped for one, as my windshield in the summer will attest.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Sounds like you were following too closely.
Exactly. Anyone might stop for any reason on any semi-highway like that road. What if they were stopping because they were having a seizure or a bee flew through the window into their eye and stung them? You gonna blame them for "negligent driving" because they can't see or lost situational awareness? What's the difference if it's birds or bees or a medical emergency like a stroke? You need to be able to stop if following behind them....that's what I learned in driver's ed and on my driver's test many years ago. No doubt people will litigate anything when they're probably at fault too. That's today's world...sue someone else when you made a bad or hasty decision...like following too close when driving too fast.
And there's no panic stop here...except the birds. The driver in front was slowing down over approx 50-100 yds - giving you plenty of time to react. That car was still moving at around 5 mph when they tapped the brakes for the last time. looks like 8-9 of the center dashed lines went by as you come up on their rear. That's a lot of space to react.
Sounds like you were following too closely.
Exactly. Anyone might stop for any reason on any semi-highway like that road. What if they were stopping because they were having a seizure or a bee flew through the window into their eye and stung them? You gonna blame them for "negligent driving" because they can't see or lost situational awareness? What's the difference if it's birds or bees or a medical emergency like a stroke? You need to be able to stop if following behind them....that's what I learned in driver's ed and on my driver's test many years ago. No doubt people will litigate anything when they're probably at fault too. That's today's world...sue someone else when you made a bad or hasty decision...like following too close when driving too fast.
And there's no panic stop here...except the birds. The driver in front was slowing down over approx 50-100 yds - giving you plenty of time to react. That car was still moving at around 5 mph when they tapped the brakes for the last time. looks like 8-9 of the center dashed lines went by as you come up on their rear. That's a lot of space to react.
I agree, the driver shouldn't have stopped in that situation. Slowing down and steering to avoid if possible were the safer options.
- Status
Similar threads
