The interpretation would need to be reasonable. The main problem lies with the people that write these laws. They should make them more clear. Here is this new law in California that we're talking about:
"23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and
configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in
that manner while driving."
It is pretty clear to me! You are allowed to use the phone as long as it has handsfree listening and talking
It says nothing about not being allowed to dial or hit the send button or hit the receive button.
How could this be any less clear?
This is why cops should not be interpreting the law it is not their job. They should be following what the CA DMV and the CHP determine to be the definition.
Excuse me, but the last time I checked, CHP was a bunch of Cops, so why is their interpretation any more correct. CA DMV can't get their act together on issuing an RV license, so again why should they be making any decision that affects the public. Also, you need to read a few definitions of the language used in the law, specifically the words, shall not and using. LAPD has a much better grip on this than the other agencies, IMHO.
Bob & Betsy - USN Ret'd '78 & FL LEO Ret'd '03 FMCA #F203528 '05 HR Endeavor, 40PRQ w/400 Cummins - With -'05 GMC Sierra LT, CC Z-71, the pusher '07 Arctic Cat 500A & Wilderness Kayak, riding in the pusher - Our Current Location
The interpretation would need to be reasonable. The main problem lies with the people that write these laws. They should make them more clear. Here is this new law in California that we're talking about:
"23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and
configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in
that manner while driving."
It is pretty clear to me! You are allowed to use the phone as long as it has handsfree listening and talking
It says nothing about not being allowed to dial or hit the send button or hit the receive button.
How could this be any less clear?
This is why cops should not be interpreting the law it is not their job. They should be following what the CA DMV and the CHP determine to be the definition.
Excuse me, but the last time I checked, CHP was a bunch of Cops, so why is their interpretation any more correct. CA DMV can't get their act together on issuing an RV license, so again why should they be making any decision that affects the public. Also, you need to read a few definitions of the language used in the law, specifically the words, shall not and using. LAPD has a much better grip on this than the other agencies, IMHO.
Maybe you missed the post earlier where the LAPD stated the same policy as the CHP and DMV but that some cops are taking it themselves to determine their own interpretation of the law.
If the LAPD Brass defines the law as what the DMV has then the fieldlings should be following the official position
"The great challenge of adulthood is holding on to your idealism after you lose your innocence."
– Bruce Springsteen
The interpretation would need to be reasonable. The main problem lies with the people that write these laws. They should make them more clear. Here is this new law in California that we're talking about:
"23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and
configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in
that manner while driving."
It is pretty clear to me! You are allowed to use the phone as long as it has handsfree listening and talking
It says nothing about not being allowed to dial or hit the send button or hit the receive button.
How could this be any less clear?
This is why cops should not be interpreting the law it is not their job. They should be following what the CA DMV and the CHP determine to be the definition.
Excuse me, but the last time I checked, CHP was a bunch of Cops, so why is their interpretation any more correct. CA DMV can't get their act together on issuing an RV license, so again why should they be making any decision that affects the public. Also, you need to read a few definitions of the language used in the law, specifically the words, shall not and using. LAPD has a much better grip on this than the other agencies, IMHO.
Maybe you missed the post earlier where the LAPD stated the same policy as the CHP and DMV but that some cops are taking it themselves to determine their own interpretation of the law.
If the LAPD Brass defines the law as what the DMV has then the fieldlings should be following the official position
What is your source that LAPD cops are doing something different? I looked at your original post on this and it says a friend told you so. Is that what you are relying on, or is there a news source someplace that says LAPD is using a different set of rules than what CHP and DMV put out?
2004 National Tropi-Cal T-350, Class A, Triple slide, 330 HP Cat DP. 2006 Dodge Dakota 4x4 or
2002 Harley FLSTF Fat Boy on a Trailer or
2004 Polaris Quad on the Trailer
Yes, the cop that pulled my friend over. He has a parrot bluetooth system and the cop still gave him a ticket. Told him that is the law.
Meanwhile with the parrot bluetooth system it is automatic when you make or receive a call.
I rely on my friends or they would not be my friends. Have rode in the vehicle with him many times and he only uses the parrot. I know because he got the same one I bought after he saw it in my HHR last year
BTW this kept going because it was you who determined every cop needs to interpret the law him/herself and not listen to the stated/posted rules
jcapps wrote: Yes, the cop that pulled my friend over. He has a parrot bluetooth system and the cop still gave him a ticket. Told him that is the law.
Meanwhile with the parrot bluetooth system it is automatic when you make or receive a call.
I rely on my friends or they would not be my friends. Have rode in the vehicle with him many times and he only uses the parrot. I know because he got the same one I bought after he saw it in my HHR last year
BTW this kept going because it was you who determined every cop needs to interpret the law him/herself and not listen to the stated/posted rules
I determined that? Please show me where. I simply tried to educate you on how and why laws are interpreted and how poorly written laws cause problems. It was my fault for assuming you were talking about some wide spread issue, instead of hear-say information from one friend. The way you were writing it was a crisis of huge proportions that was going to cost the tax payers millions.
.jpg)
Offline
