☢ test - Í

bring his vehicle to a stop when given a visual or audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop.’” Accusation did not “allege that Spence was eluding a police officer or vehicle when he failed to stop in response to visual or audible signals (2) to specify the signals to which he failed to respond, only alleging that they were either visual or audible or (3) even to allege that the signals were given by police. Thus, even if Spence admitted the allegations as charged, he would not be guilty of any crime and the accusation was fatally defective.” “We find in this case that merely reciting a description of the statute, along with some, but not all, of the elements of the crime was insufficient given the deficiencies in the allegations noted above.” English v. State, 261 Ga.App. 157, 582 S.E.2d 136 (May 6, 2003). Evidence was sufficient to establish fleeing and eluding an officer where it showed that officer was on patrol, in his patrol car, with blue lights flashing and siren sounding, notwithstanding that it did not specifically address whether officer was in uniform, wearing badge, or particular markings of vehicle. Weir v. State, 257 Ga.App. 387, 571 S.E.2d 191 (September 13, 2002). Defendant acknowledged in his trial testimony “that he heard the police siren, saw the emergency lights, and understood that the officer was trying to effect a traffic stop.” Nevertheless, defendant “did not stop until he had traveled about one-half mile to his ultimate destination.” Evidence was sufficient to convict. Distinguished from Johnson,below. Carter v. State, 249 Ga.App. 354, 548 S.E.2d 102 (April 25, 2001). Defendant and an accomplice hijacked a van. The accomplice was the driver. They were stopped and charged with, among other things, fleeing and attempting to elude. Defendant contends that only the driver can be charged with this motor vehicle offense. Held, there is no evidence that the passenger did anything other than occupy the passenger seat of the van while the other defendant drove the vehicle and attempted to elude police. There was no evidence that the passenger attempted to dispose of evidence during the chase, nor did he flee or resist arrest after the van stopped. Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to grant the passenger/defendant’s motion for a directed verdict as to this charge. Johnson v. State, 246 Ga.App. 197, 540 S.E.2d 212 (October 2, 2000). Officer activated his blue lights but defendant did not stop his vehicle. Officer noticed defendant look back at him in his rear view mirror, then officer activated his siren. Defendant stopped his car within five to ten seconds. Held, this evidence was insufficient to convict of fleeing and attempting to elude. Davidson v. State, 237 Ga.App. 580, 516 S.E.2d 90 (April 9, 1999). “Officer Kreher’s testimony that defendant twice pulled over in response to the flashing blue lights but then drove off again, seeking refuge in his mother’s driveway, is sufficient to authorize the jury’s verdict that defendant willfully fled and attempted to elude a police officer after receiving the visual signal to stop. Ray v. State, 233 Ga.App. 162, 163-164(1), 503 S.E.2d 391 (1998).” 16. FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY Sevostiyanova v. State, 313 Ga.App. 729, 722 S.E.2d 333 (January 12, 2012). Hit and run and related convictions affirmed; defendant could be convicted of following too closely another vehicle stopped at a traffic light. Lesh v. State, 259 Ga.App. 325, 577 S.E.2d 4 (January 9, 2003). “ Bicycles are considered ‘vehicles’ for purposes of traffic law enforcement. [see OCGA § 40-6-291] In that regard, OCGA § 40-6-49(a) states that ‘[t]he driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.’” 17. IMPEDING FLOW OF TRAFFIC Shell v. State, 315 Ga.App. 628, 727 S.E.2d 243 (April 12, 2012). Cocaine trafficking conviction affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress, as officer had articulable suspicion for stop of vehicle and search of containers found therein. Facts supported stop based on impeding flow of traffic where officer testified that “Shell's car ‘was the lead car in the center lane. There were no vehicles in front of him and there were no obstructions in front of him to cause him to slow down to the speed he was traveling. The tractor-trailers were building up behind him and the longer that continued, the more traffic caught up to that pack and the pack [was] growing the longer that this [went] on.’ When Shell reduced his speed, ‘[t]he tractor-trailers that were directly behind him began to brake.... [I]t caused the trucks to have to decelerate to keep from hitting each other and hitting Mr. Shell's vehicle.’” Distinguishing Whelchel (July 23, 2004), below, “where the undisputed facts showed that other vehicles on the road were at a safe distance from the defendant's vehicle and nothing prevented them from maneuvering into the right lane to pass the defendant. Id. at 315–316. Here, however, the officer