304.017. Distance at which vehicle must follow, penalty. — 1. The driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonably safe and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the roadway. Vehicles being driven upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district in a caravan or motorcade, whether or not towing other vehicles, shall be so operated, except in a funeral procession or in a duly authorized parade, so as to allow sufficient space between each such vehicle or combination of vehicles as to enable any other vehicle to overtake or pass such vehicles in safety. This section shall in no manner affect section 304.044 relating to distance between trucks traveling on the highway.
2. Violation of this section shall be deemed a class C misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
29
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2024 · leading case:
State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. 2005).
State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. 2005).
· cites it 3× “017, RSMo 2000, which states: “[t]he driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonably safe and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the roadway.”
Binion v. Armentrout, 333 S.W.2d 87 (Mo. 1960).
· cites it 12× “However, plaintiff had sought to also charge the violation of Section 304.017 (all statutory references herein are to RSMo 1949, P.”
Thebeau v. Thebeau, 324 S.W.2d 674 (Mo. 1959).
· cites it 12× “044 and section 304.017 are adaptations of § 31 of the Uniform Motor Vehicle Law.”
State v. Petrone, 836 S.W.2d 484 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Mercury for the reason that he observed the violation of a traffic law being committed in his presence, namely, the offense described as “following too closely,[”] proscribed by Section 304.017 RSMo. 2. The stop was not a pretextual stop as the evidence .”
State v. Collins, 72 S.W.3d 188 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “See Section 304.017. Officer Poulson then followed Defendant and saw her vehicle cross the center line and go onto the shoulder of the highway, which was a violation of state law for failing to drive in the right-hand lane.”
O'NEAL v. Pipes Enter., Inc., 930 S.W.2d 416 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “§ 304.017, RSMo 1986. An instruction for failure to swerve requires proof of a failure to swerve despite an opportunity to do so.”
State ex rel. Lang v. Hodge, 608 S.W.2d 432 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 8× “2 Relator had been charged previously with a violation of § 304.017, 3 relating to motor vehicles other than trucks and buses.”
Gooch v. Avsco, Inc., 337 S.W.2d 245 (Mo. 1960).
· cites it 4× “) Defendants say that the first paragraph of the instruction does not meet the requirements of Section 304.017 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. (to which revision all statutory references herein are made), in that it does not contain the precise wording set forth in the statute that the…”
State v. O'TOOLE, 83 S.W.3d 622 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “120, and one count of following another vehicle too closely (Count III), a Class C misdemeanor in violation of Section 304.017. At the close of all the evidence at trial, Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied.”
Sundermeyer v. Lentz, 386 S.W.2d 16 (Mo. 1964).
· cites it 5× “Faller concerning the speed and distance between the two vehicles, together with all the other facts and circumstances in evidence, we hold that plaintiff made a submissible case against both defendants under said § 304.017. See Binion v. Armentrout, Mo., 333 S.”
Warriner v. Eblovi, 485 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 3× “21, mentioned by plaintiff in her brief.) Suffice it to say that there exists no appreciable difference between the substantive laws of Kansas and Missouri as contained in KSA 8-543 and Section 304.”
State v. Welch, 701 S.W.2d 770 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The charge was “following another vehicle too closely” in violation of § 304.017 RSMo Supp.1984. The judgment of the court was a fine of $50.”
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.