Each motor vehicle shall be equipped with a mirror attached to and so located and adjusted on such vehicle as to give the operator thereof a clear reflected view of the highway directly to the rear of or on a line parallel to the left side of the body of such motor vehicle. Any person operating a motor vehicle with a commercial registration so constructed or which may be so loaded that the operator is prevented from having a free and unobstructed view of the highway immediately to the rear and at the left side of the same shall, by means of such mirror, make frequent observations of the approach of vehicles from the rear. When operating at below the posted speed limits and when so approached or overtaken, the operator of such motor vehicle shall drive to the extreme right of the traveled way as promptly as safety will permit, giving the vehicle approaching from the rear opportunity to pass. Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction.
(1949 Rev., S. 2446; February, 1965, P.A. 448, S. 11; P.A. 75-577, S. 56, 126; P.A. 90-263, S. 64, 74.)
History: 1965 act added the word “left” in the first and second sentences, changed the duty of constant observation to one of frequent observations, removed the words “in safety” from the end of the last sentence and deleted a penalty provision; P.A. 75-577 provided that violation of section is an infraction; P.A. 90-263 substituted “motor vehicle with a commercial registration” for “commercial motor vehicle”.
See Sec. 14-230 re driving in right-hand lane.
See Sec. 14-285 re use of mirrors by vehicles other than motor vehicles.
Allegation that driver did not keep a constant observation of approach of vehicles from rear is sufficient to raise issue of compliance with statute. 119 C. 595, 596. Requires driver to keep such a regularly recurring observation of mirror as will make him aware of vehicles approaching in rear. 122 C. 216. Cited. 129 C. 13; 134 C. 644.
Cited. 30 CA 263.
Secs. 14-99a to 14-99e. Reserved for future use.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1993–2010 · leading case:
State v. Cyrus, 1 A.3d 59 (Conn. 2010).
State v. Cyrus, 1 A.3d 59 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 4× “[1] We granted the state's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the state police did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the defendant for driving with…”
State v. Cyrus, 959 A.2d 1054 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 3× “1 Although the information referred to General Statutes § 14-99, the parties acknowledge that Trooper Mattioli stopped the defendant for violating General Statutes § 14-99f (c), which provides: “No article, device, sticker or ornament shall be attached or affixed to or hung on…”
Pinheiro v. Bd. of Educ., 620 A.2d 159 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 2× “for operation on the highways of the state of Connecticut and can not be registered for such purpose for the following reasons: (1) It does not satisfy the minimum speed requirements set by department of motor vehicle regulations; (2) it is not equipped with turn signal lights…”
Phinney v. Casale, 671 A.2d 851 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).
“unreasonable rate of speed having due regard for the traffic on and near the road, the width of the road and the intersection of streets and parking areas; (h) In that he was operating his vehicle with object(s) or material placed, displayed, or affixed in such a manner as to…”
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.