micbusathens
Registered
I hate their stupid glance, meaning......"I'm looking at you but I can't see you"
Cell Phone Users
- Thread starter icecreamman
- Start date
cellphone, booze, drugs or all the above
Ok first off lets not get side tracked by the LEO's get money from tickets issue. Just from the post on this thread I see a lot of area lawmakers are failling to address the cellphone impairment issue.
For the Areas that do have hands free only, such as Washington state, you must look at the Cop to Offender ratio. I ride over to Washington and see a bunch of people with phones glued to the side of their head. Oh and to make matters worse, Spokane County just laid off 23 officers.
Over here in Coeur d'Alene if you get in an accident and are useing a cellphone it is considered inattentinve and that person can be held liable if it is at an uncontrolled intersection. There is obvious issues with the cops proving it but it is a step in the right direction.
Now the hands free issue. That only addresses the simptom not the cause. People have trouble doing two things at the same time no matter what they say. Driving takes too much attention and with a 2 ton missile going 75+ there is a lot that can go wrong.
Just my two cents.
For the Areas that do have hands free only, such as Washington state, you must look at the Cop to Offender ratio. I ride over to Washington and see a bunch of people with phones glued to the side of their head. Oh and to make matters worse, Spokane County just laid off 23 officers.
Over here in Coeur d'Alene if you get in an accident and are useing a cellphone it is considered inattentinve and that person can be held liable if it is at an uncontrolled intersection. There is obvious issues with the cops proving it but it is a step in the right direction.
Now the hands free issue. That only addresses the simptom not the cause. People have trouble doing two things at the same time no matter what they say. Driving takes too much attention and with a 2 ton missile going 75+ there is a lot that can go wrong.
Just my two cents.
tegbusa
Registered
I notice the same thing here in DFW. I noticed it when in my car and I notice it a lot more now that I'm on my bike. When getting close to a car, the first thing I check is whether they are yakking on the cell. If so, I make every effort to get away from them as fast as possible. Some of the stupidest things I've seen on the road around here is usually done by somebody with a cell glued to their ear.
Last edited:
coreywiley
Registered
In DC you get $100 fine if they see you on your phone while driving
Too many distractions for drivers nowadays.
This has been discussed before......we feel you !!! I was coming up the freeway one night when I suspected that intoxicated-drift-shimmy-thing on a cager, so I basically was timing my pass as not to startle nor surprise this individual........he was texting.....
"I see ALL"..... :oldcool:
"I see ALL"..... :oldcool:
Asshats on cell phones are gonna get me arrested sooner or later. 2 incidents w/cellphone*******s ended in violent and physical actions. One hit me w/their mirror and took off. yeah right run from a busa. After I pulled him from the car -kicked his ass and stomped his cell while explaining it was he who was wrong for hitting me and running- my wife had the sense to cover the tag on escape. [Italian girls know the drill]
Note to self - double up on meds.
Note to self - double up on meds.
Lurch:
You are exactly right. If a LEO gives you a ticket, you are indeed guilty unless you can prove otherwise. That's just the way it is. The judicial system may sound different in theory, but in practice, the only thing needed to "prove" guilt of a moving viloation is a LEO's word. The ticket recipient's word carries no weight with the court. If the ticket recipient is able to produce compelling evidence to contradict the LEO, then he has a chance. However, in almost every case, the only "evidence" is the LEO's word.
Sorry: if you get a ticket, you are guilty. Simple as that.
MelodicMetalGod
Registered
It's been a law in DC for a while now. When the law was being considered/proposed, local news interviewed random drivers they found on phones and asked how the law would effect them. The vast majority responded by saying, basically, that the would continue to use the phone the same way, regardless of the law because they felt that using the cell phone while driving was too important to their job or personal life and they felt that it was perfectly safe to do so.
Since the law has been in effect, I've seen nothing to indicate that general behavior has changed. It will take consistent enforcment and harsh penalties before a difference is made.
MelodicMetalGod
Registered
Hmmm... I hear ya, and it does make sense, but...
Why then are tickets dismissed if the officer has misplaced the ticket or lost the radar data? Yes, I've had two tickets dismissed for these reasons and I didn't even have to open my mouth at the hearing.
My understanding and experience has been that when you are accused (let's say via a speeding ticket) that you have the following options:
1) Plead guilty/pay the ticket - No need for proof b/c your agreeing
2) Plead guilty w/explanation - Again no need for proof
3) Plead NOT guilty - Now the charges must be proven or case is dismissed. This is a risky choice since, if the charges are proven you potentially face perjury charges or, at the least, will get the full weight of the sentence.
In addition, I have read articles about red light running and stop sign running that had LEO's pretty much saying that it was just too much of a PITA to prove those cases in court.
Similar threads
