What would you like me to tell you? All I can say is a DMV interpretation and a CHP interpretation hold no weight of law. If Los Angeles has somehow interpreted the law differently then it's up to the courts to decide. In my reading of the law I tend to think DMV and CHP are wrong in their interpretation. But then again I go back to what I've said twice now, it's a poorly written law. Maybe you should send your complaints to the legislature who wrote it.
I will try again. I think each cop should not read the law and determine what they think it should cover. I think they need to listen to what Officially is being stated by the DMV and CHP and stick with that.
Personally the law does not go far enough
"The great challenge of adulthood is holding on to your idealism after you lose your innocence."
– Bruce Springsteen
Dick A wrote: As most every state has a inattentive driving and / or negligent driving statute it seems these new laws are just "do gooder" type things that do little more than adding more weight and wasted space to the lawbooks. Why not just enforce the current laws already on the books?
Yeah, I know....them legislative numskulls have to look like they are actually accomplishing something.
Dick, I can't speak for other states, but California does not have a distracted or inattentive driving law. That is until now with the cell phone law. But if you want to put on make-up, shave, pick your nose, read a book, or eat a cheese burger while driving, it's all perfectly legal until you commit some traffic violation. And then you are only cited for the traffic violation and not for being distracted. In the case of the cell phone law, the point is law enforcement doesn't have to wait now until you commit some other violation or get in a wreck, you can now be cited simply for talking on the phone without any other violation.
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
What would you like me to tell you? All I can say is a DMV interpretation and a CHP interpretation hold no weight of law. If Los Angeles has somehow interpreted the law differently then it's up to the courts to decide. In my reading of the law I tend to think DMV and CHP are wrong in their interpretation. But then again I go back to what I've said twice now, it's a poorly written law. Maybe you should send your complaints to the legislature who wrote it.
I will try again. I think each cop should not read the law and determine what they think it should cover. I think they need to listen to what Officially is being stated by the DMV and CHP and stick with that.
Personally the law does not go far enough
I'm glad you feel that way and it is in fact required of cops to do that when the "courts" have made a binding ruling. But DMV and CHP are not the courts and their rulings are not binding on LAPD. I personally agree with you that LAPD probably should listen to what CHP and DMV are saying, but I question where they got their interpretation from as I don't think it matches what the law says. Maybe our attorney general should weigh in and publish an opinion, but even that is not binding, but it is given significant weight by the courts.
I totally agree with the new law. Do not be fooled, the California Highway Patrol, and every other law enforcement is taking fast action. "Zero Tolarance". Even living in a very small town, a lot of people got ticketed the very first day. I hope they catch every cell phone user and text messaging person out there doing it. Also applys to anyone, who is distracted doing anything, they will be ticketed also. It should have been put into effect many years ago. A lot of dead drivers would still be alive today, if they passed this law sooner. I hope the law becomes even toughter on all sorts of distracted drivers. Even the speeders, the zig-zagers, and those that always make unsafe lane changes. The DW and I were both born in California. Both of us also have spotless Driving Records. I also had a spotless Driving Record, driving OTR Semi's for 15 year. Not so much as a parking ticket. We would love to see our highways become safe places to drive again. People are totally out of control on the roads today, every where. Speed and Stupidy Kills. Good Luck. Happy Camping, Dan & Jill
1997 Ford F-250, H.D. Extended-Cab, Short Bed, 7.3 PSD, K&N Air Filter, 5000 lbs air bags w/on board compressor w/guage, SuperChips Tuner/Programer. 1996 Nash 24fter 5er, 15K "Lil" Rocker Hitch w/BedSaver, Twin EU2000i Gen's W/Kit. Nam-Vet, 33 Months.
jcapps wrote: Well then therein lies the problem, any traffic cop who wants to get a law book and become a legal beagle can decide what he wants to interpret
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."
DMV says you can use it as a speaker phone as long as you don't put it up to your ear. Where in the law does it say that? I don't see it. It says hands-free. The way I read that means you can use the speaker phone, but you can't be holding the phone at all when you do it.
DMV and CHP says the law doesn't ban text messaging. Again I don't see that in the law. The law says you can't "use" the phone unless it's hands free. Isn't text messaging "using" the phone? Don't you have to use your hands to text message while you're "using" the phone? Sure seems to me like the law bans that. I have no idea why CHP and DMV are saying it doesn't.
As I said earlier, it appears LAPD has it right and the others are reading to much into the law. Hopefully the 1st few court cases will be before a Judge with a spine and the outcome will back the LAPD Officers.
Bob & Betsy - USN Ret'd '78 & FL LEO Ret'd '03 FMCA #F203528 '05 HR Endeavor, 40PRQ w/400 Cummins - With -'05 GMC Sierra SLT, 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.
When everyone starts to interpret the law the way the say it, the courts will be even more congested.
.jpg)
