A. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent and shall have due regard for the speed of the vehicles on, the traffic on and the condition of the highway.
B. The driver of a motor truck or motor vehicle that is drawing another vehicle when traveling on a roadway outside of a business or residence district and that is following another motor truck or motor vehicle drawing another vehicle shall leave, if conditions permit, sufficient space so that an overtaking vehicle may enter and occupy the space without danger. This subsection does not prevent a motor truck or motor vehicle drawing another vehicle from overtaking and passing any like vehicle or other vehicles.
C. A person who is driving a motor vehicle in a caravan or motorcade on a roadway outside of a business or residence district, whether or not towing other vehicles, shall allow sufficient space between each vehicle or combination of vehicles to enable any other vehicle to enter and occupy the space without danger. This subsection does not apply to funeral processions.
D. This section does not apply to a demonstration project that the department of transportation conducts if both of the following apply:
1. The demonstration project is on a state highway.
2. The director consults with the department of public safety before the demonstration project is implemented.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1964–2024 · leading case:
State v. Sweeney, 227 P.3d 868 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Sweeney, 227 P.3d 868 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 12× “Initial Traffic Stop ¶ 36 Appellant contests the validity of the traffic stop, asserting that A.R.S. § 28-730 (2008) requires only that a "driver of a motor vehicle .”
State v. Blevins, 623 P.2d 853 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “§ 28— 701; following too closely, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-730; and driving while intoxicated, in violation of A.”
State v. Orendain, 916 P.2d 1064 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Jury Instructions Defendant also asserts that the trial court erred because jury instructions defining "possession" and "constructive possession" relieved the state of its burden of proving all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. He contends the instruction…”
United States v. Douglas Suing, 712 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 2013).
“The deputy stopped the vehicle to issue a warning ticket to the driver for following too closely, a violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 28-730. After stopping the vehicle, the deputy identified Suing as the driver.”
Newman v. Piazza, 433 P.2d 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 2× “The jury was instructed that the plaintiff would be guilty of contributory negligence if he failed to meet the test of a reasonably prudent and careful person, in the stock language used in all negligence cases, and was further instructed that it would be negligence per se to…”
State v. Nixon, 423 P.2d 718 (Ariz. 1967).
· cites it 2× “One complaint charged the defendant with violation of A.R.S. § 28-730, following too closely and the other complaint charged the defendant with violation of A.”
Santanello v. Cooper, 468 P.2d 390 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 3× “The trial court instruct *130 ed the jury from A.R.S. § 28-730, subsec. A which reads as follows: “The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon and…”
Rosales v. Rollag (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 11× “” A.R.S. § 28-730(A). However, drivers “shall not turn a vehicle at an 3 intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position on the roadway.”
State v. Paul (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “¶14 Accordingly, the record reflects that the deputy had reasonable suspicion that Paul had violated § 28-730, and the superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying Paul’s motion to suppress on this basis.”
State v. Law (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “” See A.R.S. § 28-730(A) (“The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent and shall have 4 STATE v.”
State v. Moses (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “” For that stop to be valid, the State had to show, by sufficient evidence, that the Trooper had “reasonable suspicion” that a violation of A.R.S. § 28-730 occurred. State v. Starr, 222 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-730(A) — 6 cases
State v. Orendain, 916 P.2d 1064 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“Jury Instructions Defendant also asserts that the trial court erred because jury instructions defining "possession" and "constructive possession" relieved the state of its burden of proving all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. He contends the instruction…”
Rosales v. Rollag (D. Ariz. 2024).
“” A.R.S. § 28-730(A). However, drivers “shall not turn a vehicle at an 3 intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position on the roadway.”
State v. Law (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“” See A.R.S. § 28-730(A) (“The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent and shall have 4 STATE v.”
State v. Paul (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶14 Accordingly, the record reflects that the deputy had reasonable suspicion that Paul had violated § 28-730, and the superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying Paul’s motion to suppress on this basis.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.