CHP Ticket help/advice needed

[George Schilling]

Just got a call from one of my employees. He just got a cell phone ticket. Don't cops have anything better to do? What a waste of time.

Maybe so, but it's a law on the books. There was plenty of warning. Bluetooth headsets and plug in headsets are cheap. I bought mine a year before the law went into effect. I have no sympathy. Riding a bike to work and always being concerned about being seen, people holding a cell phone to their head with their hand are definitely less observant of the road. Maybe they are hands free too, but not as much as far as I can see.

I love my hands free system for the motorcycle...........I shove the phone between my ear and the helmet. Works great under 45 or so, then the wind noise becomes too great.

[Kurt Rahn]

I don't mind nuisance drivers being ticketed, but what about the vast majority who can talk on the cell phone and drive safely at the same time?

Similar line of logic, as I hear it:
"I don't mind the really sloppy drunks being cited, but what about the vast majority of people who know how to hold their liquor?"

A few other notes: First, someone who drifts into my lane at 70 mph or changes lanes without bothering to look because they're talking on their phone is considerably more than a nuisance. When they're driving a 5000 lb weapon, they're called a threat. Whether you get killed by someone who's drunk or someone who is preoccupied with their phone, the end result is the same. Second, I'd wager that 90-95% of the people who're on cell phones can't handle talking and driving safely at the same time. Third, who's going to determine which driver is capable of using a cell phone and driving at the same time? Are we going to have to set up a subdivision of the DMV who tests people to see if they can talk and drive at the same time, then issues certification stickers to those who pass? Sounds like more bureaucracy to me.

And what about cops? They are some of the worst offenders of driving while distracted. They have a cabin filled with electronics that they are constantly goofing with. How is that not a distraction?

When cops start causing accidents and killing people because of all their gadgets, or people start gathering statistics comparing how a cop distracted by his radar equates to a drunk trying to drive, then I'll take that one on. Meantime, I'm happy dealing with the cell-phoning a-holes.

[Greg Peng]

Are we going to have to set up a subdivision of the DMV who tests people to see if they can talk and drive at the same time, then issues certification stickers to those who pass?

That wouldn't work anyway. We do this already to certify people for driving, yet look at how many people you encounter everyday breaking the same rules that the DMV tests are based on.

[Kurt Rahn]

Are we going to have to set up a subdivision of the DMV who tests people to see if they can talk and drive at the same time, then issues certification stickers to those who pass?

That wouldn't work anyway. We do this already to certify people for driving, yet look at how many people you encounter everyday breaking the same rules that the DMV tests are based on.

Bingo. Easier to just assume all drivers are incompetent. It's a lot lessy messy that way, and most of the time the assumption is right. Hence the cell phone law.

[George Schilling]

First, someone who drifts into my lane at 70 mph or changes lanes without bothering to look because they're talking on their phone is considerably more than a nuisance. When they're driving a 5000 lb weapon, they're called a threat. Whether you get killed by someone who's drunk or someone who is preoccupied with their phone, the end result is the same.

We already have a law for this. It's called reckless driving. I could care less what causes their recklessness, weather it be cell phone use, looking for a CD, changing the channel, etc., they should be cited.

Second, I'd wager that 90-95% of the people who're on cell phones can't handle talking and driving safely at the same time.

See my comment above

Third, who's going to determine which driver is capable of using a cell phone and driving at the same time?

See my comment above

When cops start causing accidents and killing people because of all their gadgets, or people start gathering statistics comparing how a cop distracted by his radar equates to a drunk trying to drive, then I'll take that one on. Meantime, I'm happy dealing with the cell-phoning a-holes.

You're under the mistaken impression that laws are passed to correct injustices or problems. Laws are passed to make a name for the politician who is first to jump on the particular outrage of the day. Cops are constantly wrecking cars because of distractions. The numbers are comparatively small do to the small number of cops compared to the general population. What politician is going to propose a law to take away a cops tools?

Again, I'm not opposed to citing drivers who are impaired and/or driving recklessly. But why cite a driver who is driving in a safe manner, whether they are talking on a cell phone, picking their nose, getting a BJ, or whatever? Really, don't you see how intrusive this is?

[Kurt Rahn]

Again, I'm not opposed to citing drivers who are impaired and/or driving recklessly. But why cite a driver who is driving in a safe manner, whether they are talking on a cell phone, picking their nose, getting a BJ, or whatever? Really, don't you see how intrusive this is?

My immediate response is that if they were driving safely, they wouldn't have attracted the cop's attention. Intrusive is trying to dictate what I do behind my own front door. It's not telling me not to do something that endangers other drivers on a public road. Sorry, but people don't get to do whatever they want wherever they want. Paraphrasing the old cliche, I completely support your right to do what you want, until it impinges on someone else's rights. I have the right not to have to constantly dodge idiots on cell phones, just like I have the right not to have to try to avoid drunk drivers.

If 90% of drivers (or 80 or 70 or 60 or 50 or 40 or 30 or even 20%) of drivers can't drive safely while engaging in a given activity (drinking, using the phone, getting a BJ, picking their nose, whatever), then that activity needs to be illegal and enforced by the cops. Just be glad the cell phone law is so flaccid ($40 for first offense, and never a moving violation? BS!). If I had my druthers, you'd see my fascist side come out in spades.

George, there are enough horrible drivers on the road. Why would you try to justify allowing those drivers to engage in something that makes them even worse? Move on to an argument you can win.

[George Schilling]

Again, I'm not opposed to citing drivers who are impaired and/or driving recklessly. But why cite a driver who is driving in a safe manner, whether they are talking on a cell phone, picking their nose, getting a BJ, or whatever? Really, don't you see how intrusive this is?

My immediate response is that if they were driving safely, they wouldn't have attracted the cop's attention. Intrusive is trying to dictate what I do behind my own front door. It's not telling me not to do something that endangers other drivers on a public road. Sorry, but people don't get to do whatever they want wherever they want. Paraphrasing the old cliche, I completely support your right to do what you want, until it impinges on someone else's rights. I have the right not to have to constantly dodge idiots on cell phones, just like I have the right not to have to try to avoid drunk drivers.

If 90% of drivers (or 80 or 70 or 60 or 50 or 40 or 30 or even 20%) of drivers can't drive safely while engaging in a given activity (drinking, using the phone, getting a BJ, picking their nose, whatever), then that activity needs to be illegal and enforced by the cops. Just be glad the cell phone law is so flaccid ($40 for first offense, and never a moving violation? BS!). If I had my druthers, you'd see my fascist side come out in spades.

George, there are enough horrible drivers on the road. Why would you try to justify allowing those drivers to engage in something that makes them even worse? Move on to an argument you can win.

Just to reiterate, I don't condone unsafe driving. I think I've been pretty clear on that. The problem with you're argument is you're treating everyone as if they're the same. They're not. I'm curious as to why you are so opposed to charging people with reckless driving if they are reckless? Why do you find it necessary to cite people who are not reckless? It's logic like yours that is taking away our freedoms, from lawn darts, to the pleasure of riding a bike without a helmet, to not being able to take shampoo on an airplane. The list goes on and on. Enough is enough. What about all the other causes of accidents? What about a child crying in the back seat? What about siblings fighting in a car? What if the check engine light becomes a distraction? Do we need special laws for these instances? If someone is driving recklessly, give 'em a ticket. If they're not, I say leave 'em alone.

[Kurt Rahn]

The problem with you're argument is you're treating everyone as if they're the same.

I agree, they're not the same. But the question is, how do you weed out the good drivers from the morons? Do we have tiered licences?

I'm curious as to why you are so opposed to charging people with reckless driving if they are reckless?

I think you left a crucial "not" out there. Otherwise, I'm completely in favor of charging reckless drivers with being reckless.

Why do you find it necessary to cite people who are not reckless?

Like I've stated, most people can't handle talking on a cell phone and driving at the same time. That would qualify as "reckless" in my book. Like I said, unless you're willing to support a sub-division of the DMV that can certify who is qualified to talk on a cell phone while driving and who is not, I'm willing to assume everyone using a cell phone while driving is an idiot and shouldn't be using it while driving. That's backed up by my experience driving every day. Guessing a lot of other people have the same experience.

It's logic like yours that is taking away our freedoms, from lawn darts, to the pleasure of riding a bike without a helmet, to not being able to take shampoo on an airplane. The list goes on and on. Enough is enough.

I have no problem with people killing themselves for stupid reasons. I'm a firm believer in the Darwin code. Whatever thins the herd, 'cuz we certainly need it. But killing yourself is one thing. Killing someone else is something else entirely.

What about all the other causes of accidents? What about a child crying in the back seat? What about siblings fighting in a car? What if the check engine light becomes a distraction?

I'm sure we could all come up with 5,000,000 other potential reasons for people to have an accident. Cell phone use is one consistent reason, just like drunk driving is. There aren't many drivers who haven't had a mishap with a cell-using driver. Like I said, pick a battle you can win. You're not gonna get much popular support with that one in this crowd.

[George Schilling]

Here's a partial list of all the distractions that can cause an accident from the California DMV itself.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fa ... ffdl28.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice that is says that studies show that holding a phone while driving is no more dangerous than using a hands free device. Yet according to the law, you can use a hands free device even though the state itself says there is no safety advantage. So this reveals the real reason for the law as I stated earlier.....some politician wanted to make a name for himself and passed this BS law that has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to people for political gain. This is a needless stupid law. :gpower:

Oh, in addition, there are exceptions in the law for "trained professionals" like tow truck drivers and big rig drivers. Or if you're a cop talking to your wife while monitoring your radio gear while chasing a criminal at high speeds.

Here's a helpful hint: If you think you're being pulled over for cell phone use, immediately hang up and dial 911. There's an exception for this. }:)

Oh, one more thing.......the most dangerous part of using a cell phone while driving, you know, looking up number and dialing......not against the law.

This law is not only BS, it's arbitrary, discriminatory, and appears to be unenforceable in a court of law. But this is how traffic laws work. They just hope you pay. They need the money.

[Steve Ekstrand]

Politicians don't fix problems.

They "do something" in response to headlines.

That's why my big fear when Santa Claus roasted the chestnuts with "dangerous Racing Fuel". I fully expected 100 octane unleaded to get banned. Luckily the news cycle moved on.

[Kurt Rahn]

My seat-of-the-pants experience tells me differently. Whenever someone is driving like an idiot, I predict that they're using their cell phone, and lo and behold, they are. I have absolutely no sympathy for people that get caught, and I wish the penalty was more than a slap on the wrist. There's just too much at stake...ask Steve. When it comes to driving I have no sense of humor whatsoever. As they say, it's a privilege, not a right, and if I had my druthers, there's be a whole lot less people who had the privilege, and cell phones that's just one more reason to give someone a big fat red X.

[George Schilling]

My seat-of-the-pants experience tells me differently. Whenever someone is driving like an idiot, I predict that they're using their cell phone, and lo and behold, they are. I have absolutely no sympathy for people that get caught, and I wish the penalty was more than a slap on the wrist. There's just too much at stake...ask Steve. When it comes to driving I have no sense of humor whatsoever. As they say, it's a privilege, not a right, and if I had my druthers, there's be a whole lot less people who had the privilege, and cell phones that's just one more reason to give someone a big fat red X.

I'm on the road all day too. It's been my experience that when I see people driving poorly they fall into on of three categories:

1. Asians
2. The elderly
3. Young black males who can barely see over the dashboard driving like they just stole the car.

These are undeniably the three main categories of bad drivers. They deserve to be thrown in jail for life, yet I don't want special laws targeting them.


So just to be clear Kurt, we seem to be in agreement. By saying you wish the penalty were greater, apparently you agree with me that citing people who are driving recklessly and using the reckless driving charge is more appropriate because it does in fact come with a penalty substantially more than $20.

Despite the tragedy that happened to Steve and his family, I'd be willing to bet he'd agree with me on this issue. Most people recognize there's a vast difference between getting blasted and driving and making a call. Maybe you should move on and find an argument you can win Kurt.

[Stephen Yeoh]

Again, I'm not opposed to citing drivers who are impaired and/or driving recklessly. But why cite a driver who is driving in a safe manner, whether they are talking on a cell phone, picking their nose, getting a BJ, or whatever?

George, I was cited even though IMO I wasn't driving unsafely. Just towing an empty trailer home, staying in lane and doing 65.

[Rick Brown]

Again, I'm not opposed to citing drivers who are impaired and/or driving recklessly. But why cite a driver who is driving in a safe manner, whether they are talking on a cell phone, picking their nose, getting a BJ, or whatever?

George, I was cited even though IMO I wasn't driving unsafely. Just towing an empty trailer home, staying in lane and doing 65.

While I agree it's not unsafe (cars pulling trailers and trucks limited to 55 on a road with a speed limit of 70 for cars is unsafe in my opinion), again it's the law. I virtually never tow at 55 (I do stay in the right lanes), I accept the risk that I can be cited, but I'd fight it using some of the techniques mentioned here. How unsafe is it to tow above 55 a trailer with a kart that has a total weight around 350? Less than having a couple of passengers in the car. Has virtually zero effect on braking, acceleration and gas mileage. Wonder if Calif will ever get with the majority of the country and fix that.

[Kurt Rahn]

I'm on the road all day too. It's been my experience that when I see people driving poorly they fall into on of three categories:
1. Asians
2. The elderly
3. Young black males who can barely see over the dashboard driving like they just stole the car.

I ain't touchin' that with a ten foot pole. I hope Art's not reading this.

So just to be clear Kurt, we seem to be in agreement. By saying you wish the penalty were greater, apparently you agree with me that citing people who are driving recklessly and using the reckless driving charge is more appropriate because it does in fact come with a penalty substantially more than $20.

By that reasoning, why don't we just rid of the entire vehicle code and write every ticket for reckless driving? Because it's too subjective and the law doesn't work that way. So while I wish cops would write people using cell phones while driving a reckless driving ticket, I know that's not going to happen and I'll settle for the cell phone ticket.

Despite the tragedy that happened to Steve and his family, I'd be willing to bet he'd agree with me on this issue.

He's already made it clear that he does agree with you. I used that example to demonstrate that cars are not toys, and when things go wrong, lives are at stake.

Most people recognize there's a vast difference between getting blasted and driving and making a call.

I disagree, and Christine's research seems to disagree as well. They're both conscious choices and they both lead to dangerous driving that puts other drivers at risk.

[KJ Christopher]

The problem with you're argument is you're treating everyone as if they're the same.

I agree, they're not the same. But the question is, how do you weed out the good drivers from the morons? Do we have tiered licences?

No need at all. You ticket based on actions. The overall point is that you can easily accomplish the very punishment you seek using the existing set of laws. A new law wasn't necessary - it only made the politicians look/feel better. Not sure why we're disconnecting on this, as we seem to be looking for the same result (punishment of unsafe/bad drivers). The drivers have to be observed acting in an unsafe manner to get a ticket, being seen wasn't dependent on a new, over-reaching law.

[Kurt Rahn]

LOL. If you told me five years ago that I'd join a group where I looked like the pinko commie liberal, I'd have told you to put the pipe down.

[Steve Ekstrand]

You can change Kurt... I was a member of the ACLU and the token white dude in MEChA... Though that was mostly a ploy to score with radical hot Latina babes at UCSB while I was still in HS. :king:

[George Schilling]

LOL. If you told me five years ago that I'd join a group where I looked like the pinko commie liberal, I'd have told you to put the pipe down.

Hey, every group needs a pinko commie liberal to play with. While I am serious in trying to change your mind, it is all in fun.

[Craig Naylor]

After learning that the extension was given to the officer, I wondered what the envelope from the Pasadena courthouse was all about in today's mail.

"Not Guilty". Today's a good day!

Then I kept reading, it was checked off that I would receive my entire bail back in 60 days. But the reprinted 60 was lined out, and 90 was written in hand above it.

I guess another way the state is going to balance the budget, interest free loans on funds found no to be theirs, for longer than prescribed in law. No my $273 isn't much, but multiplied by the number of people statewide on a daily basis funds from many different sources are held, over time that adds up to real money. (On the otherside who's going to sue them, for not meeting their own time tables, right? That's just another filing fee back to the same source, which if won money out of my, and all of our pockets; and another extension of time for those funds before refunding......)

[Giovanni Jaramillo]

"Not Guilty". Today's a good day!

Feels good doesn't it? Forget that it was an interest-free loan. You got every penny back!

[Kurt Rahn]

I haven't looked up any research, but I can't imagine being on a phone while driving (especially those morons who try to text) is dramatically better than being drunk.

Ha! I found something!
http://tinyurl.com/ljqx4x

I'd love to see them do the same test while using a phone to talk, both with a hands-free device and with a normal handset.