eWok13
New member
Just because you are a driver does not mean you're driving. Not arguing either way here, but just stating the facts.
-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
VC 23123A Phone Usage - What do you think i do?
- Thread starter CaliGuy2004
- Start date
Just because you are a driver does not mean you're driving. Not arguing either way here, but just stating the facts.
eWok13
New member
This is a little different. If you were drunk at a stoplight, this most certainly implies that you were drunk before the stoplight; the time you were actually driving the vehicle when its in motion. The OP picked up his phone while stopped, and I assume hung up while stopped.
If you are parked at a legal parking spot with the car on, you are still in control of the vehicle, would you consider that driving as well?
LOL
If you are inside a vehicle with the keys in your pocket you can be cited for DUI and it will be upheld in the courts.
"In control" of the vehicle is a broadly interpreted phrase.
eWok13
New member
mookiera
Riding is therapy. . .
I was stopped at a light yesterday and started getting high off the
skunk weed smoke the cute Asian chica in the car next to me had coming out of her sunroof.
I'm glad she wasn't talkin on the phone(and munchin a Twinkie) while she was hittin on that pipe, that would have really been dangerous!
My blood pressure used to rise a bit every time I would see someone
talking on their phone while I was riding the moto. Then I remembered
that I used to do it all the time, while also texting on a separate
Blackberry and eating lunch driving down the freeway. I was pretty
good at it and some other people are too. It is legal for LEOs because
they are well trained drivers with frequenty urgent needs, and for the most part handle multi-tasking very well. I have seen a lot of drivers who also
handle the multi-tasking very well. OTOH, a lot of drivers are
teh suck @ any and every task when they get behind the wheel.
So, OP, tell us the truth, isn't the worst part of the whole thing knowing
that you picked up the phone when you were sitting in plain view of a LEO?
Maybe you need to work on your situational awareness skills.
skunk weed smoke the cute Asian chica in the car next to me had coming out of her sunroof.
I'm glad she wasn't talkin on the phone(and munchin a Twinkie) while she was hittin on that pipe, that would have really been dangerous!
My blood pressure used to rise a bit every time I would see someone
talking on their phone while I was riding the moto. Then I remembered
that I used to do it all the time, while also texting on a separate
Blackberry and eating lunch driving down the freeway. I was pretty
good at it and some other people are too. It is legal for LEOs because
they are well trained drivers with frequenty urgent needs, and for the most part handle multi-tasking very well. I have seen a lot of drivers who also
handle the multi-tasking very well. OTOH, a lot of drivers are
teh suck @ any and every task when they get behind the wheel.
So, OP, tell us the truth, isn't the worst part of the whole thing knowing
that you picked up the phone when you were sitting in plain view of a LEO?
Maybe you need to work on your situational awareness skills.
mookiera
Riding is therapy. . .
There are some exceptions for non LEOs to use their cell phone
while driving, such as making an emergency call. Since many
texting devices are also cell phones, the following(from dmv.gov)
is another exception and, if true, might be your best defense in this case.
"Q: Are there exceptions for dialing?
A: This law does not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name in an electronic wireless device for the purpose of making or receiving a phone call. Drivers are strongly urged not to enter a phone number while driving. "
However, you may still be cited for distracted driving and that is probably
a more expensive ticket.
Your best defense in the future is to either not use the phone while driving,
or get a good blue tooth or headset.
while driving, such as making an emergency call. Since many
texting devices are also cell phones, the following(from dmv.gov)
is another exception and, if true, might be your best defense in this case.
"Q: Are there exceptions for dialing?
A: This law does not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name in an electronic wireless device for the purpose of making or receiving a phone call. Drivers are strongly urged not to enter a phone number while driving. "
However, you may still be cited for distracted driving and that is probably
a more expensive ticket.
Your best defense in the future is to either not use the phone while driving,
or get a good blue tooth or headset.
CaliGuy2004
aka ZackAttack
Thats why i think the word driving and its definition is important.
I was at the light, and its a 2 lanes to make a left turn and 2 to make a right turn.. I was the 1st car and the light is a long light usually. It just turned red for me so i stopped. Answered the phone, when a chp pulls in the farthest lane and honks his horn, i roll my window down and he says to go ahead of him into that parking lot to my right. So still on the red light i cross 4 lanes in the crosswalk into the parking lot. He ticked me and left.
Im a good driver and drive better and am much more aware then 95% of others even while on the phone, but i figured if i was not "driving" (in motion) than i was safe? Whats the difference when you pull to the side and answer your phone on a public street with the engine on?
A DUI is much different, because u cant even have the keys in a parked car. You can get a DUI for sleeping drunk in your car if the keys are inside.
Like someone said above, if the VC said "operate" rather then drive thats a different story.
Last edited:
moond0ggie
On a break
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
- Location
- Discovery Bay & Capitola
- Moto(s)
- '86 GSX-R1100 '82 Katana 1000 '81 Maico 490
- Name
- Ace S.
You could say that your car stalled at the light & you were calling a tow truck.......................& then miraculously when the light turned green you were able to get it started.
lunerkid
;D
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Location
- Newark
- Moto(s)
- '13 Daytona 675R, '05 Kawasaki 636, '07 GSXR600(gone), '08 Ninja250(sold)
- Name
- Edison
I recall some very long time ago,
to be considered not "driving" your car has to be in the actual PARKED gear.
If it is in anything but parked, including neutral, you are considered driving and operating the vehicle.
It was like the difference if you are double parked on the street, between a moving violation and a double parking violation, one being more expensive than the other.
to be considered not "driving" your car has to be in the actual PARKED gear.
If it is in anything but parked, including neutral, you are considered driving and operating the vehicle.
It was like the difference if you are double parked on the street, between a moving violation and a double parking violation, one being more expensive than the other.
some of our cars don't have park
rodr
Well-known member
Here's an interesting tidbit. While "driving" is not defined in the CVC, it is defined under case law. I found this at http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=304764&postcount=28 :
While not being a lawyer, I have to say the OP's case looks pretty solid, satisfying both the letter and spirit of the law.
However if the traffic court judge is anything like all the nay-sayers in this thread, the OP may have to appeal before finding a judge who actually applies some legal insight and common sense.
While not being a lawyer, I have to say the OP's case looks pretty solid, satisfying both the letter and spirit of the law.
However if the traffic court judge is anything like all the nay-sayers in this thread, the OP may have to appeal before finding a judge who actually applies some legal insight and common sense.
How many times have you been stuck behind some idiot making a quick call or sending a quick text while sitting at a red light who didn't realize the light turned green 30 seconds ago?? Obviously, you are not in control if you are not even aware of your surroundings and the green light (or the cop right next to you in this case). Learn your lesson and pay the Man.
B-Cuz
Honorably Discharged
Heaven forgive anyone that has a differing opinion then you; perhaps we all lack a degree of common sense.
OP, hope you didn't let up on the brake while at the light with the phone to your ear.
I’ve heard all the arguments on the street and in the courts. I was listening to voice mail, I was at a red light, I wasn’t talking, I even have people tell they were not on the phone just "holding it there out of habit" and have said the same thing to a judge. All violations and all guilty in court as the section requires any wireless communication device to be operated hands free, it does not require you to be talking or even on it. So all those that think holding it like a walkie-talkie on speaker, still a violation and still a ticket.
As for the OP, you can try but you will be found guilty.
As for the OP, you can try but you will be found guilty.
}Dragon{
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ ︵ ╯(°□° ╯)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/04/state/n100029D96.DTL&tsp=1
10:00 PDT Sacramento, Calif. (AP) --
Cell phones are causing fewer accidents since California outlawed the use of handheld devices behind the wheel, but the senator behind the law says too many people are still driving distracted.
A bill by Sen. Joe Simitian would create a bigger deterrent to keep drivers from texting or using a cell phone without a handsfree device.
"While I think compliance is pretty good, there's room to save even more lives and avoid even more collisions," said Simitian, D-Palo Alto.
His bill, scheduled for a hearing Tuesday before the Senate Public Safety Committee, would increase the fine for holding a cell phone from $20 to $50 for a first offense, and from $50 to $100 for repeat offenders. Texting-while-driving would draw a $100 fine, up from the current $20 for first offenders and $50 for repeated violators.
Court costs and fees drive up the actual cost beyond the fines themselves. Simitian's bill would also add a "point" on motorists' driving records for violations. The bill would devote $10 from each fine to a public awareness program. Simitian's bill also would extend both laws to bicyclists.
The prohibitions already in place seem to be reducing distracted driving, statistics show.
The California Highway Patrol blamed 612 accidents on handheld cell phone use in the six months before the handsfree law took effect on July 1, 2008. It recorded 315 such accidents in the first six months after the law took effect, a nearly 50 percent reduction.
On the other hand, accidents blamed on drivers distracted by their handsfree devices increased from 40 in the six months before the law to 69 in the six months thereafter. Simitian said the jump reflects the increase in handsfree calling.
Collisions and fatalities dropped about 20 percent from the previous five-year average after California's handsfree law took effect. The ban on texting-while-driving took effect Jan. 1, 2009, and as of July 1, 2008, it was illegal for drivers under age 18 to use a cell phone even with a handsfree device.
"It means that somewhere in California, a couple of people are going to sit down with their families tonight who wouldn't have without this law. To me that's very satisfying," Simitian said.
The CHP issued nearly 234,000 tickets through 2009 for violating the three laws.
Nationally, the nonprofit National Safety Council blames 28 percent of traffic accidents annually on motorists talking or texting while driving.
"Driving a car is not the time to be multitasking," said CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader.
The patrol has not taken a position on the bill, she said.
There was little organized opposition to Simitian's previous bills, though the cell phone industry and some lawmakers noted that tuning the radio, eating, or attending to children or pets can be at least as distracting. All are listed in the CHP statistics, but none approach the number of accidents blamed on cell phones.
Among other bills scheduled for hearings this week:
_ Registered sex offenders would be banned from online social networking Web sites under a bill by Assemblywoman Norma Torres, D-Ponoma. While many social networking sites already ban sex offenders, they can skirt the rules by using a false identity. The bill set for debate Tuesday in the Assembly Public Safety Committee would make violations a misdemeanor.
_ Executions would be blocked if a court rules that the convict's race was a significant factor in imposing the death penalty, under a bill set for a Senate Public Safety Committee hearing Tuesday. The bill by Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would apply the prohibition even to inmates already on death row if attorneys show with statistics or other evidence that persons of some races are more likely to be sentenced to die.
_ In a state that often is on the front lines of the gay rights debate, the law books are out of date, says Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach. Her bill, to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee Tuesday, would remove a law requiring the state Department of Mental Health to research the causes and cures of "sexual deviation," specifically including homosexuality. The research was meant to help identify potential sex offenders.
_ The national health care overhaul will extend insurance coverage to millions of Americans. One California lawmaker wants to take those protections farther: to man's best friend. Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, would prohibit the pet insurance industry from denying coverage to an animal based on a pre-existing condition. His bill will be heard Wednesday in the Assembly Insurance Committee.
_ Undocumented immigrants and individuals who do not identify with their birth sex could get local identification cards, under an Assembly bill before the Senate Local Government Committee on Wednesday. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, would let counties issue ID cards to anyone who can provide proof of identity and residence, regardless of immigration status or gender identity. Recipients could use the cards for services including filing police reports and opening bank accounts.
_ The California Air Resources Board would lose its power to launch a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, under a bill by Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga. The board is crafting a carbon market as a way to regulate emissions as it carries out California's global warming law. Dutton's bill would permit a state only if a national program was already in place or as part of a regional program among six other Western states and four Canadian provinces. The measure is scheduled to be heard Monday in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
10:00 PDT Sacramento, Calif. (AP) --
Cell phones are causing fewer accidents since California outlawed the use of handheld devices behind the wheel, but the senator behind the law says too many people are still driving distracted.
A bill by Sen. Joe Simitian would create a bigger deterrent to keep drivers from texting or using a cell phone without a handsfree device.
"While I think compliance is pretty good, there's room to save even more lives and avoid even more collisions," said Simitian, D-Palo Alto.
His bill, scheduled for a hearing Tuesday before the Senate Public Safety Committee, would increase the fine for holding a cell phone from $20 to $50 for a first offense, and from $50 to $100 for repeat offenders. Texting-while-driving would draw a $100 fine, up from the current $20 for first offenders and $50 for repeated violators.
Court costs and fees drive up the actual cost beyond the fines themselves. Simitian's bill would also add a "point" on motorists' driving records for violations. The bill would devote $10 from each fine to a public awareness program. Simitian's bill also would extend both laws to bicyclists.
The prohibitions already in place seem to be reducing distracted driving, statistics show.
The California Highway Patrol blamed 612 accidents on handheld cell phone use in the six months before the handsfree law took effect on July 1, 2008. It recorded 315 such accidents in the first six months after the law took effect, a nearly 50 percent reduction.
On the other hand, accidents blamed on drivers distracted by their handsfree devices increased from 40 in the six months before the law to 69 in the six months thereafter. Simitian said the jump reflects the increase in handsfree calling.
Collisions and fatalities dropped about 20 percent from the previous five-year average after California's handsfree law took effect. The ban on texting-while-driving took effect Jan. 1, 2009, and as of July 1, 2008, it was illegal for drivers under age 18 to use a cell phone even with a handsfree device.
"It means that somewhere in California, a couple of people are going to sit down with their families tonight who wouldn't have without this law. To me that's very satisfying," Simitian said.
The CHP issued nearly 234,000 tickets through 2009 for violating the three laws.
Nationally, the nonprofit National Safety Council blames 28 percent of traffic accidents annually on motorists talking or texting while driving.
"Driving a car is not the time to be multitasking," said CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader.
The patrol has not taken a position on the bill, she said.
There was little organized opposition to Simitian's previous bills, though the cell phone industry and some lawmakers noted that tuning the radio, eating, or attending to children or pets can be at least as distracting. All are listed in the CHP statistics, but none approach the number of accidents blamed on cell phones.
Among other bills scheduled for hearings this week:
_ Registered sex offenders would be banned from online social networking Web sites under a bill by Assemblywoman Norma Torres, D-Ponoma. While many social networking sites already ban sex offenders, they can skirt the rules by using a false identity. The bill set for debate Tuesday in the Assembly Public Safety Committee would make violations a misdemeanor.
_ Executions would be blocked if a court rules that the convict's race was a significant factor in imposing the death penalty, under a bill set for a Senate Public Safety Committee hearing Tuesday. The bill by Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would apply the prohibition even to inmates already on death row if attorneys show with statistics or other evidence that persons of some races are more likely to be sentenced to die.
_ In a state that often is on the front lines of the gay rights debate, the law books are out of date, says Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach. Her bill, to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee Tuesday, would remove a law requiring the state Department of Mental Health to research the causes and cures of "sexual deviation," specifically including homosexuality. The research was meant to help identify potential sex offenders.
_ The national health care overhaul will extend insurance coverage to millions of Americans. One California lawmaker wants to take those protections farther: to man's best friend. Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, would prohibit the pet insurance industry from denying coverage to an animal based on a pre-existing condition. His bill will be heard Wednesday in the Assembly Insurance Committee.
_ Undocumented immigrants and individuals who do not identify with their birth sex could get local identification cards, under an Assembly bill before the Senate Local Government Committee on Wednesday. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, would let counties issue ID cards to anyone who can provide proof of identity and residence, regardless of immigration status or gender identity. Recipients could use the cards for services including filing police reports and opening bank accounts.
_ The California Air Resources Board would lose its power to launch a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, under a bill by Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga. The board is crafting a carbon market as a way to regulate emissions as it carries out California's global warming law. Dutton's bill would permit a state only if a national program was already in place or as part of a regional program among six other Western states and four Canadian provinces. The measure is scheduled to be heard Monday in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
Since it's not a moving violation, try the TBD and see what happens. Don't get your hopes up too high because you are probably going to lose this one unless the officer doesn't repond to the TBD.
boney
Miles > Posts
I think you should stop talking on the phone while you're driving.
Seriously. No wait, I mean are you serious?
"I was stopped at a stop light" is your excuse? Puh-leeze. People need to get off their phone while they're in a car, hands-free or not.Hang up. Man up. Pay the fine.
rodr
Well-known member
So the judge thinks that stopped at a light = driving? Or didn't believe the defendants used it only when stopped?
Really, if the LEO testifies that the defendant was indeed stopped during the entire use of the phone, for reasons already stated I can't see how the conviction would survive appeal. But if that fact is disputed it's a different story.
Last edited:
eWok13
New member
Law aside, people who drive badly with a phone in their hand, drive just as badly while talking with a bluetooth device. So if you're (not directly you guys) one of those people, then it doesn't make a difference either way.
It's just like speeding...SOME people can drive safely going 66mph, while others just shouldn't really be driving.
It's just like speeding...SOME people can drive safely going 66mph, while others just shouldn't really be driving.