JCL: it looks like I should make some clarifications.
First, I agree with you -- if the child was indeed still in the road, then it's debatable as to what the reasonable person would have done. First of all, how fast were the cars travelling? What kind of a road was it? Would it have been the normal human reaction to stop on the opposite side of the road rather than swerve back into the correct lane AFTER passing the child? I honestly don't know what I would do, but I can't imagine stopping in the oncoming traffic lane would be my default reaction upon passing the child. I don't know.
Additionally, I erred: ok so the citation wasn't for reckless driving, but rather for simply being in the oncoming lane.
I pulled up the statute:
Quote:
§ 1124. Limitations on overtaking on the left.
No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless authorized by the provisions of this chapter and unless such left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practicable and in the event the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, before coming within two hundred feet of any approaching vehicle.
|
Emphasis added.
Without researching the rest of NY's vehicle code, and going simply by the words of the statute pursuant to which the citation was issued, I do not see anything wrong with what he did.
On the one hand, if he stopped and remained in the oncoming lane, he would be in breach of the statute. On the other hand, returning to his original lane also got him the citation. What was he to do?
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE; IT MUST NOT BE INTERPRETED OR CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE; AND THIS CORRESPONDENCE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.