Skip to main content

legalese - Is the usage of the idiom "Move Over" in this passage clear on what side to move over to?


Consider this passage in the Georgia DDS 2010 Driver’s Manual: on page 40:



The Georgia Move-Over Law requires drivers to move over one lane when possible if an emergency vehicle with flashing lights is parked on the shoulder of the highway. If traffic is too heavy to move over safely, the law requires drivers to slow down below the posted speed limit AND to be prepared to stop.



Without knowing why to move over, does the "Move-Over" usage above make it clear to where?


This law is a safety law, but if someone doesn't know that, is there a grammatical support to it?


If instead of "Emergency vehicle... of the highway" it was "an Emergency vehicle is flashing its lights behind you" it might have been understood as move to the left, Therefore the only clue to the understanding of where to move to is common sense and meaning and not sentence grammar.


Note that it is phrased "Move-Over ... if an emergency vehicle ..." and not "Move-Over ... for" one


So can it be understood by any reader, that it requires to Move Over to the right and not the left?



Answer



In the passage you cited, there is no indication whatsoever as to which -direction- to move over.


There is no real semantic difference between 'if' and 'for' here (other than 'for' is not grammatical in place of the 'if').


I would presume that such a manual would have general rules like 'Carry out further rules in the safest manner possible', and 'safest' would involve some judgement and common sense (yes, the rule book is sort of a list of common sense things). For example, a general rule might be 'Do not pass on the right' but an unstated common sense exception would be 'unless you're passing a stopped vehicle in the left most lane'. For the instance you're thinking of, maybe if you're in a multi-lane traffic, the default is to move over/pull over to the right, but if you're closer to the left side you might be expected to pullover to the left. This is pure speculation, and I have no idea of the particulars of your situation.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more