new & interesting places for your GPS

Ticket for Cell phone in California

 

No, I did not get a ticket-- but someone else did. I thought everyone would get a kick out of this-- Money hungry California.

By JIM RADCLIFFE
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Comments 0| Recommend 1

Q. I got cited for using a cell phone without a hands-free device. I was told by the officer that the ticket was only $20, and the DMV site also says $20 (but that other fees may be included). My other fees were $80 or so. I agree with the law, but that seems excessive. Where do the other fees go?

– Joan Tompkins, Cypress

A. That $20 figure is as misleading as a sub-prime lender.

All traffic citations carry other monetary burdens besides the fine itself. Voters, state lawmakers and county supervisors can add assessments to a fine to raise funds or cover costs for various governmental programs.

Carole Levitzky, a spokeswoman for Orange County Superior Court, provided ol' Honk with the breakdown of actual costs for a citation for driving and talking on a cell phone that is not hands-free:

•Base Fine: $20

•State Penalty Assessment: $14

•County Penalty Assessment: $20

•DNA Penalty Assessment: $4

•Court Construction: $3

•State Surcharge: $4

•Emergency Medical Services Penalty Assessment: $4

•Night Court: $1

•Court Security: $20

In all, 90 clams.

--
NUVI 680, NUVI 5000, MS S&T,
Page 1>>

and who do we have to thank.

and who do we have to thank. The ignorant lawmakers of California. Everyone knows that accidents that are caused by Cell Phones are due to the conversation itself and not by holding a cell phone.

We have so many ridiculous laws out here in california. Such as those parking signs or handicap signs that hang from the rearview mirror. I driven with one of those for years and never had a problem with obstruction of view, then all of sudden they passed a law indicting no object shall be hang from the rearview while the car is in motion, and the list can continue on and on.

Califor ni yeas Obstructed vision laws

WorldDrknss wrote:

We have so many ridiculous laws out here in california. Such as those parking signs or handicap signs that hang from the rearview mirror. I driven with one of those for years and never had a problem with obstruction of view, then all of sudden they passed a law indicting no object shall be hang from the rearview while the car is in motion, and the list can continue on and on.

The obstructed vision laws date back to the late 60's and early 70's. I was a Reserve Officer in San Diego between 1970 and 72 and we used to stop and ticket drivers for obstructed vision back then. The problem in those days were fuzzy dice and love beads. Some cars had 4 or 5 pair of the 3" square dice in different colors hanging from the mirror, others hung love beads and beaded necklaces. One we stopped - and I remember this after almost 40 years - had ribbons hanging from the headliner with a hole directly in front of the driver.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

WorldDrknss

WorldDrknss

and who do we have to thank.????

Well I guess...We have to thank God !!!It's about time!!! mrgreen

Not just Calif

Washington states law took effect the same day as Californias. I for one am happy with the law, after being stuck behind some pinhead on the phone not noticing that the light is green.

Outlaw all conversations?

WorldDrknss wrote:

Everyone knows that accidents that are caused by Cell Phones are due to the conversation itself and not by holding a cell phone.

I've always thought that the accidents are generally due to dialing, texting, and otherwise diverting attention away from the task at hand. Technically, shouldn't a conversation on the phone be no more dangerous than a conversation with someone in the car? Kind of hard for them to outlaw talking to the other passengers in the car.

The thing that makes you go hmmmmm, is when you see some bonehead that's reading a book while he's commuting. How stupid is that?

--
Nuvi 2595 / Nuvi 680 / Nuvi 650

Wow

Cali has gone overboard. Cell phones cause accidents. I do not think so. I see cell phones driving down here in Louisiana all of the time. Blackberry has the worst traffic record. OOPS, that's right there is a person holding that phone. People cause accidents.

--
Garmin street pilot C330 and Nuvi 650 South Louisiana in the heart of Acadiana! "If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score" Lombardi

California should change it's name to the Do Gooder State.

WorldDrknss wrote:

and who do we have to thank. The ignorant lawmakers of California.(edit)

Actually, the "Ignorant Voters" that voted liberal Lawmakers and Judges in office in the first place are to blame.

If it wasn't for California the rest of us would have nothing to laugh about, during this time of gloom for our economy!

Here is an example wastefulness used for California Proposition 65, and Arnold is begging Washington for money to operate the state, just look at the bottom line below.

This draft, proposed research plan would address two issues related to leaf blower usage in California: First, what is the nature and quantity of fugitive dust resuspended by leaf blower usage; and second, what are the exposures to carbon monoxide, other exhaust emissions, and fugitive dust experienced by leaf blower operators?
The proposed research does not include research into noise exposure, although the study could be expanded with outside expert assistance, as ARB does not have a mandate to study noise. The study also would not directly assess exposures experienced by bystanders in the vicinity of someone
else using a leaf blower, although the data gathered could be used to make some preliminary estimates regarding these exposures. The estimated cost of the study is $1,100,000.

WorldDrknss wrote:

(edit) Everyone knows that accidents that are caused by Cell Phones are due to the conversation itself and not by holding a cell phone.

We have so many ridiculous laws out here in california. Such as those parking signs or handicap signs that hang from the rearview mirror. I driven with one of those for years and never had a problem with obstruction of view, then all of sudden they passed a law indicting no object shall be hang from the rearview while the car is in motion, and the list can continue on and on.

One good thing good to say about California, It can't spread it's crap any farther to the west.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Cell Phones Far More Dangerous Than Passenger Conversation

wegasque wrote:

Technically, shouldn't a conversation on the phone be no more dangerous than a conversation with someone in the car?

If you've ever tried following someone who's talking on a phone while driving you've probably seen them weaving in the lane, speeding up/slowing down, neglecting to signal turns and even diving for turns at the last second because they weren't paying attention. Now researchers have seen all that and more in a controlled study.

It turns out carrying on a conversation with someone in the car can actually 'improve' driving. Talking on the phone requires a great deal of concentration which is robbed from attention given to driving. A very revealing study on the subject was released yesterday. Here's an article, you can also download the full study: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12...

Cheers wink

--
Garmin GPS III, GPS V, StreetPilot 2610, Mobile 10, Nuvi 660, Nuvi 760

Wanna Bet?

BobDee wrote:
WorldDrknss wrote:

One good thing good to say about California, It can't spread it's crap any farther to the west.

Look at their idiotic idling law for trucks. It's already spreaded to other states and more are signing on.

--
America Moves By Truck --- Streetpilot 7200 & OOIDA --- www.accutracking.com userid= poifactory password= guest; "Don't gamble; take all your savings and buy some good stock and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don't go up, don't buy it."

Driving and talking is not good

Talking and driving, even to passengers can be distracting, but when you add holding the phone, the added use of motorskills will add to the distraction. Since I doubt they will make a law against talking to a passenger(no difference between talking to a passenger or on the phone with handsfree)hands free is the way to go. I know for myself I can talk on the phone with my BT headset and it makes little difference, but when my headset runs out of juice, holding the phone to my ear really decreases my driving attentiveness. Have you ever driven behind someone with a phone to their ear? They should be ticketed!!

--
Magellan Maestro 4250, T-Mobile G1 with Google Maps, iPaq with TomTom, and a Tapwave Zodiac with TomTom and Mapopolis

agree

ralphy1 wrote:

Washington states law took effect the same day as Californias. I for one am happy with the law, after being stuck behind some pinhead on the phone not noticing that the light is green.

i believe the law is necessary. I see people driving all over the freeway while talking on their cellphone. also, driving 30mph on the freeway trying to text and/or dial. WTF! Don't pull over, it just create a distraction, just wait until you're at your destination or pitstop.

My wife and I was also struck by an idiot driver while fidgeting with their cellphone.

Cell Phone Ticket

I think the law is great. I wish they would raise the fine to $500, then people might start paying attention to the law. If they made it a felony charge also that might get peoples attention. In case you haven't figured it out I am against talking on a cell phone and ATTEMPTING to drive at the same time. Bluetooth devices are so inexpensive now that there is no reason that anyone who can afford a phone plan can't afford to get one and use it.

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

Talking on the phone

I have noticed that a lot of people either in a car or not do a lot of hand gestures while talking on the phone, sometimes with both hands. rolleyes

Police Surcharge

Some Police Department here in Illinois that tow your car for certain traffic related incidents charge a $500.00 release fee. That is in addition to the Towing fee,Storage fee and police department administrative fee. In all about $800.00 just to get your car back and then the fines, court costs etc for the violation are on top of all that.

Law isn't a bad one

wegasque wrote:
WorldDrknss wrote:

Everyone knows that accidents that are caused by Cell Phones are due to the conversation itself and not by holding a cell phone.

I've always thought that the accidents are generally due to dialing, texting, and otherwise diverting attention away from the task at hand. Technically, shouldn't a conversation on the phone be no more dangerous than a conversation with someone in the car? Kind of hard for them to outlaw talking to the other passengers in the car.

I agree that a person talking on the phone may have less of a chance of getting into an accident than those who are texting, dialing, etc. However, I don't believe hat the law was meant to stop people from talking, hence the allowance of a hands-free device. What becomes an issue is that people will make or receive a call when driving. At this point, they must take their eyes off the road and look down at the phone for several seconds or more. This is when most people get themselves into trouble.

As far as the ticket cost, I'm not sure if Cali is greedy or not. Is this any different than any other state? It might be slightly higher (so is the cost of living in general in Cali), but is it really overwhelmingly different?

I'm Glad...

I don't live in California anymore.

I don't have a problem with

I don't have a problem with the law! I use my blue tooth headset or my Nuvi or my Motorola external blue tooth speaker to answer and make all my calls. Not a problem!

My ONLY PROBLEM is why aren't the cops citing MORE PEOPLE?! I see at LEAST a good dozen or so each day still holder the phone to their ear while driving.

--
Your Portion Of Light Whether you are a brilliant flame or but a tiny spark matters not-for the world needs whatever portion of light is yours to give.

Great Law

I live in CA and think the cellphone law is great the only problem being that the fine is not enough to make people stop using phone in their cars. Also the add ons to the fine is OK by me otherwise those cost get laid on all taxpayers I see no problem with the violator paying the fees kinda like restitution. And last but not least if you don't like the law then move or do not come here.

Cell Phone Ticket

mourton wrote:

I live in CA and think the cellphone law is great the only problem being that the fine is not enough to make people stop using phone in their cars. Also the add ons to the fine is OK by me otherwise those cost get laid on all taxpayers I see no problem with the violator paying the fees kinda like restitution. And last but not least if you don't like the law then move or do not come here.

AMEN!!!!!

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

Don't forget that here in

Don't forget that here in California it's not legal to own a RED vehicle... At lest not in many of the LA Suburbs anyway. The law however is not enforced anymore...

--
BD • Nuvi 360 • Mac User

After almost run over by the

After almost run over by the same cellphone-talking teenage girl twice during a single trip, I'm in favor of this law.

I do have a major problem with the disparity between what the fine is supposed to be and what is actually assessed. mad

After moving to Colorado, I've come across many rude, inattentive drivers (failing to yield, weaving, driving below minimum speed on the fast lane, etc.). About half of them have cell phone stuck on their ears.

This is the state that repealed the helmet law for motorcycles.

--
nüvi 750 & 760

The cops don't cite nearly enough people

clint45 wrote:

My ONLY PROBLEM is why aren't the cops citing MORE PEOPLE?!

AMEN!!

--
Nuvi 2595 / Nuvi 680 / Nuvi 650

AAA Report on Cell phone usage while driving

Today, the AAA Foundation released the results of an in-house research project, Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update. The project included an analysis of two national telephone surveys that questioned respondents about their attitudes and behavior with regard to cell phone use while driving. The AAA Foundation’s 2008 Traffic Safety Culture Index was conducted from October 2007 to January 2008 and the most recent CARAVAN omnibus survey was conducted over a four day span in September.

Our research revealed a major public misconception. Approximately two-thirds of Americans who use cell phones while driving believe using a hands-free device is safer than using a hand-held phone. However, this attitude is contrary to the best available research that suggests using a hands-free device while driving is equally as dangerous as using a hand-held phone.

The report may be found at www.AAAFoundation.org.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

AAA Report on Cell phone usage while driving

I have to chuckle when I see this topic being hammered in forums. I'm old enough to remember when you had to pull over and find a pay phone to call someone. We had accidents then too.

I do support the need for hands free devices, but have a problem accepting the suggestion that they are as dangerous as holding the phone. Two free hands on the wheel are better than one.

Following this arguement, why not make it illegal to listen to the radio or talk to the driver when moving? I would think this would be as dangerous as talking on a headset.

added

BobDee wrote:
WorldDrknss wrote:

and who do we have to thank. The ignorant lawmakers of California.(edit)

Actually, the "Ignorant Voters" that voted liberal Lawmakers and Judges in office in the first place are to blame.

If it wasn't for California the rest of us would have nothing to laugh about, during this time of gloom for our economy!

Here is an example wastefulness used for California Proposition 65, and Arnold is begging Washington for money to operate the state, just look at the bottom line below.

This draft, proposed research plan would address two issues related to leaf blower usage in California: First, what is the nature and quantity of fugitive dust resuspended by leaf blower usage; and second, what are the exposures to carbon monoxide, other exhaust emissions, and fugitive dust experienced by leaf blower operators?
The proposed research does not include research into noise exposure, although the study could be expanded with outside expert assistance, as ARB does not have a mandate to study noise. The study also would not directly assess exposures experienced by bystanders in the vicinity of someone
else using a leaf blower, although the data gathered could be used to make some preliminary estimates regarding these exposures. The estimated cost of the study is $1,100,000.

WorldDrknss wrote:

(edit) Everyone knows that accidents that are caused by Cell Phones are due to the conversation itself and not by holding a cell phone.

We have so many ridiculous laws out here in california. Such as those parking signs or handicap signs that hang from the rearview mirror. I driven with one of those for years and never had a problem with obstruction of view, then all of sudden they passed a law indicting no object shall be hang from the rearview while the car is in motion, and the list can continue on and on.

One good thing good to say about California, It can't spread it's crap any farther to the west.

I have to add, how many time have you been in slow traffic on the freeway, only to finally catch up to the bottle neck and it's someone with a cell phone stuck up to their ear? So I do believe in the hands free approach, blue tooth or whatever.

and as far as the Idling law goes, I said Cali can't spread the crap farther west, east is definitely a problem.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Driving to breakfast this

Driving to breakfast this morning, the woman in front of me is all over the road. You can tell she's driving a manual transmission because, the car slows between each shift, WHY YOU ASK, because she has her OTHER HAND HOLDING HER PHONE TO HER EAR!! (Where's a cop when you need one)

--
Your Portion Of Light Whether you are a brilliant flame or but a tiny spark matters not-for the world needs whatever portion of light is yours to give.

Cell Phone Ticket

clint45 wrote:

Driving to breakfast this morning, the woman in front of me is all over the road. You can tell she's driving a manual transmission because, the car slows between each shift, WHY YOU ASK, because she has her OTHER HAND HOLDING HER PHONE TO HER EAR!! (Where's a cop when you need one)

Usually not around when they should be!!!!

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

Agreed

I have to agree. I still see alot of people using their cell phones and it is usually the ones that are driving stupid!!!!

"hands-free"

Personally, I'm all for the hands-free headsets. I can't understand why a person would pay $100k for a Merc SLK and refuse to pop $15-$30 for a bluetooth headset. I mean, most people that buy Mercs and BMWs, buy them for appearances, so don't they realize how stupid they look when they fork over $50k or more for a car and drive around holding a cell phone to their ears. When they could've continued the "sleek" look of their cars by having a bluetooth headset making it less obvious that you're on the phone.

What REALLY takes the cake, I saw a women turn in front of me and she was on the phone. She wasn't holding it by hand, but she didn't have a headset... her neck was craned to hold it. I had the biggest urge to call the cops right there.

While I agree, conversations in general "can" be distracting, more often than not, it's the people, like the example I mentioned, trying to physically do something with the phone.

I drive with one hand on the steering wheel all the time, a habit I learned from driving manual shift. So, I have no issues DIALING a number, so long as I don't need to look at it. What bothers me is if I mis-dial, then I have to look at it. I also have to look, if I go into my contact lists. BUT, that's why I try to have a bluetooth headset, and just use voice commands.

To all the folks who think a hands-free law is stupid, my guess is, you guys are the ones we're complaining about. We're sitting in our cars watching you swerve within a lane or hit the brakes incessantly because you're constantly glancing down at your phone.

Cell Phone Ticket

Goobers wrote:

Personally, I'm all for the hands-free headsets. I can't understand why a person would pay $100k for a Merc SLK and refuse to pop $15-$30 for a bluetooth headset. I mean, most people that buy Mercs and BMWs, buy them for appearances, so don't they realize how stupid they look when they fork over $50k or more for a car and drive around holding a cell phone to their ears. When they could've continued the "sleek" look of their cars by having a bluetooth headset making it less obvious that you're on the phone.

What REALLY takes the cake, I saw a women turn in front of me and she was on the phone. She wasn't holding it by hand, but she didn't have a headset... her neck was craned to hold it. I had the biggest urge to call the cops right there.

While I agree, conversations in general "can" be distracting, more often than not, it's the people, like the example I mentioned, trying to physically do something with the phone.

I drive with one hand on the steering wheel all the time, a habit I learned from driving manual shift. So, I have no issues DIALING a number, so long as I don't need to look at it. What bothers me is if I mis-dial, then I have to look at it. I also have to look, if I go into my contact lists. BUT, that's why I try to have a bluetooth headset, and just use voice commands.

To all the folks who think a hands-free law is stupid, my guess is, you guys are the ones we're complaining about. We're sitting in our cars watching you swerve within a lane or hit the brakes incessantly because you're constantly glancing down at your phone.

Amen!!!!

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

Um, what?

I'm such a lawbreaker. What exactly is this "no red car" law?

As for the original topic: http://www.ksby.com/Global/story.asp?S=9514909

Significant quote "...Meanwhile the number of fatal collisions has dropped 72 percent"

I fully support the hands-free law. Riding in the car with my Dad got a whole lot safer after the law went into effect. Hopefully even safer now, I haven't been in the car with him since he got his Nuvi. I know both of those factors have increased the safety of my own driving. The bluetooth made it easier to take calls, and now the Nuvi makes it easier to see who is calling before I answer.

CellPhone Usage In California - Insurance coverage

If an insurance investigator was looking at an accident, the first thing he would probably do is obtain cellphone records to see if the person involved in the accident was on a cellphone. If so, he might be able to say that the insurance company was not going to cover the accident since the driver was in violation of the law. That is just a guess on my part. So I would ask anyone who knows for certain if this would be the case to weigh in with a response.

...

LeeGTM wrote:

If an insurance investigator was looking at an accident, the first thing he would probably do is obtain cellphone records to see if the person involved in the accident was on a cellphone. If so, he might be able to say that the insurance company was not going to cover the accident since the driver was in violation of the law. That is just a guess on my part. So I would ask anyone who knows for certain if this would be the case to weigh in with a response.

being in a conversation only means they were in a conversation, doesn't mean they were using a bluetooth hands-free unit or not. the law is for the hands-free unit. and then, it's for the police to investigate and then ticket you (like a drunk driving ticket after causing an accident).

if the other driver is at fault, you and your insurance will get money from THEIR insurance. if you were at fault, your insurance will go by the policy you bought... if you were at fault, it makes little difference if you were on the phone or not...

CellPhone Usage

As a former law enforcement officer, I shake my head at the wisdom of our law makers. I have stopped people for nearly causing accidents because they were "brushing their teeth", "putting on makeup", "reading the newspaper", "trying to pick up the lit cigarette that fell in their lap". All of these actions still happen today, but are not as easy to legislate against. Yet, cell phone use and texting has surely become a huge distraction from driving.

Cell Phone Ticket

How about this one....yesterday a woman holding her cute little doggie on her lap while it is jumping around, talking on her cell phone and swerving around. Talk about an accident waiting to happen..I know it sounds like they are picking on the cell phone when making laws but you have to start somewhere. It is more difficut to prove someone was eating, combing their hair, putting on makeup, etc unless you have an actual witness. No bluetooth at the scene of the accident and proof they were talking on the cell is much easier to prove.

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

Cell phone tickets

My wife recently received a ticket in the city of Lox Angeles. The $20 ticket became $142 after the city and the county and the state and for all I know the feds got their cuts. Where are all these dollars going? I am a teacher here in Los Angeles and for all I know I could lose my job after the next round of budget cuts. How about putting some of those dollars to work to save some public servants jobs? Thanks for reading.

Government, state, federal

Government, state, federal or otherwise are not "for the people" but "for the almighty buck".

--
OK.....so where the heck am I?

Cell Phone and Driving..

I'm going to approach this subject a couple of different ways.

I've always felt that minor traffic violations should be treated the same way as some basketball fouls, ie: "No harm, No foul"!

As a example: It's 2:30 in the morning and you're going to make a right at the next stop light/sign. You approach the intersection and look for on coming cross traffic to your left, for which there is none. Instead of coming to a complete 3-5-10 second stop you slow to the point of a few miles per hour.. and make your right. "No harm, No foul"!.. but yet you get a camera ticket for it.

Now what does this have to do with cell phones. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is using a non-hands free cell phone AND they're safely operating their vehicle, then: "No harm, No foul"!

If on the other hand they're weaving from lane to lane, not watching what their doing and putting other drivers in a dangerous situation.. then pull them over and give them a ticket for NOT ONLY the traffic infraction, but also one for using their cell phone (which is what led up to the original ticket in the first place).

There are some states that the law says "NO" cell phone use while driving.. even if it's hands free. Let me tell you what's going to happen some day (if it hasn't already).

Someone is going to get a "driving while using a cell phone" ticket. They're going to be sooo P.O'd at the cop.. (how P.O'd are they going to be?, you ask), real P.O'd!!

Anyways.. they're going to see a accident, crime going on, a fire, etc., etc. Now common decency would suggest that they (under the law), pull over and park, call 9-1-1 and report what's happening, but because of the "driving while using a cell phone" ticket they received, they're going to become hard nosed about it and pass right on by without calling.

In a way, you can't blame them.. especially if they're the first ones on the scene or the only one there.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Nuvi1300WTGPS@Gmail.com

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

What about a cell phone with a speaker phone feature?

I guess it would be considered hands free if you turn it on and leave the phone on the dash.

rationaliztions

Nuvi1300WTGPS wrote:

I'm going to approach this subject a couple of different ways.

I've always felt that minor traffic violations should be treated the same way as some basketball fouls, ie: "No harm, No foul"!

As a example: It's 2:30 in the morning and you're going to make a right at the next stop light/sign. You approach the intersection and look for on coming cross traffic to your left, for which there is none. Instead of coming to a complete 3-5-10 second stop you slow to the point of a few miles per hour.. and make your right. "No harm, No foul"!.. but yet you get a camera ticket for it.

Now what does this have to do with cell phones. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is using a non-hands free cell phone AND they're safely operating their vehicle, then: "No harm, No foul"!

If on the other hand they're weaving from lane to lane, not watching what their doing and putting other drivers in a dangerous situation.. then pull them over and give them a ticket for NOT ONLY the traffic infraction, but also one for using their cell phone (which is what led up to the original ticket in the first place).

There are some states that the law says "NO" cell phone use while driving.. even if it's hands free. Let me tell you what's going to happen some day (if it hasn't already).

Someone is going to get a "driving while using a cell phone" ticket. They're going to be sooo P.O'd at the cop.. (how P.O'd are they going to be?, you ask), real P.O'd!!

Anyways.. they're going to see a accident, crime going on, a fire, etc., etc. Now common decency would suggest that they (under the law), pull over and park, call 9-1-1 and report what's happening, but because of the "driving while using a cell phone" ticket they received, they're going to become hard nosed about it and pass right on by without calling.

In a way, you can't blame them.. especially if they're the first ones on the scene or the only one there.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Nuvi1300WTGPS@Gmail.com

Rationalizations are our attempt to not taking responsibility for our actions.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

Two that comes to mind.....

BobDee wrote:
WorldDrknss wrote:

and who do we have to thank. The ignorant lawmakers of California.(edit)

Actually, the "Ignorant Voters" that voted liberal Lawmakers and Judges in office in the first place are to blame.

If it wasn't for California the rest of us would have nothing to laugh about, during this time of gloom for our economy!

Here is an example wastefulness used for California Proposition 65, and Arnold is begging Washington for money to operate the state, just look at the bottom line below.

This draft, proposed research plan would address two issues related to leaf blower usage in California: First, what is the nature and quantity of fugitive dust resuspended by leaf blower usage; and second, what are the exposures to carbon monoxide, other exhaust emissions, and fugitive dust experienced by leaf blower operators?
The proposed research does not include research into noise exposure, although the study could be expanded with outside expert assistance, as ARB does not have a mandate to study noise. The study also would not directly assess exposures experienced by bystanders in the vicinity of someone
else using a leaf blower, although the data gathered could be used to make some preliminary estimates regarding these exposures. The estimated cost of the study is $1,100,000.

WorldDrknss wrote:

(edit) Everyone knows that accidents that are caused by Cell Phones are due to the conversation itself and not by holding a cell phone.

We have so many ridiculous laws out here in california. Such as those parking signs or handicap signs that hang from the rearview mirror. I driven with one of those for years and never had a problem with obstruction of view, then all of sudden they passed a law indicting no object shall be hang from the rearview while the car is in motion, and the list can continue on and on.

One good thing good to say about California, It can't spread it's crap any farther to the west.

Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi.

--
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. ----George Washington

Agree with the law, not the

Agree with the law, not the ridiculous moneymaking scheme. Politicians...

but what about the burger?

What I find absolutely ridiculous about this law is that anyone can go through a drive thru, grap a big mac, peel the wrapper off and hold it to their face without getting pulled over. Of course, there will never be a law that outlaws driving and eating though, because too many fast food restaurants would lose valuable business. California continues to be a babysitter state with its stupid laws that don't make any sense.

Now I just need a cell phone that looks like a hamburger and I will be good to go. "No officer, I was just chomping on this double-double."

would be a good law to have, and enforce

somebodytoldme wrote:

What I find absolutely ridiculous about this law is that anyone can go through a drive thru, grap a big mac, peel the wrapper off and hold it to their face without getting pulled over. Of course, there will never be a law that outlaws driving and eating though, because too many fast food restaurants would lose valuable business. California continues to be a babysitter state with its stupid laws that don't make any sense.

Now I just need a cell phone that looks like a hamburger and I will be good to go. "No officer, I was just chomping on this double-double."

Does anyone else rember when paying attention while driving existed?

--
Streetpilot C340 Nuvi 2595 LMT

I don't remeber such a time

shrifty wrote:

Does anyone else rember when paying attention while driving existed?

For as long as I can remember there have been radios, tape players, cd players, passengers, food, drink, makeup, bugs (before ac), rear view mirrors, things dangling from those rvm's, and lots of other distractions for drivers.

I can, and do, pay as much attention now as I always have. Others I ride with are capable of coping with the myriad of distractions and still be attentive drivers. Of course, I can also rub my head and pat my tummy at the same time. mrgreen

--
Garmin nüvi 255LMT & 3760LMT - "Those who wish for fairness without first protecting freedom will end up with neither freedom nor fairness." - Milton Friedman

Talking on your cell phone is one thing, but

what about these "kids" who drive wile texting on their cell phones?!?!

First of all, I couldn't text (with my fat old fingers) if I were sitting on my sofa at home; much less trying to dirve a car at the same time.

I would be all for a law that outlaws use of a moble phone by the driver of a car while the car is in motion.

If you have to make a call/text, pull over to the side of the freeway and stop the car before you use your cell phone!

-jgracey

--
I have seen the future and it is now!

Cell Phone Ticket

In Virginia bylaw, all fine goes to state fund for education. Next, court cost. Next jail fee and ect.

"If you have to make a

"If you have to make a call/text, pull over to the side of the freeway and stop the car before you use your cell phone!"

I think if this were acceptable, our freeways would be crowded with cars on the side of them. I think these margins are reserved for emergencies only. Cell phones have changed they way and frequency that we communicate with one another. I think the ticket/fine should be for driving recklessly, and not for using a device. Some people can handle it and still drive safely. Others obviously cannot. If the law wasn't a joke, it would also outlaw driving with one hand (regardless of what you are holding), because that is basically what is happening when someone is using their phone. I can talk on my phone and keep my eyes on the road at all times. Texting I understand — much more dangerous.

Hooray!!!

jwc3006 wrote:

No, I did not get a ticket-- but someone else did. I thought everyone would get a kick out of this-- Money hungry California.

By JIM RADCLIFFE
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Comments 0| Recommend 1

Q. I got cited for using a cell phone without a hands-free device. I was told by the officer that the ticket was only $20, and the DMV site also says $20 (but that other fees may be included). My other fees were $80 or so. I agree with the law, but that seems excessive. Where do the other fees go?

– Joan Tompkins, Cypress

A. That $20 figure is as misleading as a sub-prime lender.

All traffic citations carry other monetary burdens besides the fine itself. Voters, state lawmakers and county supervisors can add assessments to a fine to raise funds or cover costs for various governmental programs.

Carole Levitzky, a spokeswoman for Orange County Superior Court, provided ol' Honk with the breakdown of actual costs for a citation for driving and talking on a cell phone that is not hands-free:

•Base Fine: $20

•State Penalty Assessment: $14

•County Penalty Assessment: $20

•DNA Penalty Assessment: $4

•Court Construction: $3

•State Surcharge: $4

•Emergency Medical Services Penalty Assessment: $4

•Night Court: $1

•Court Security: $20

In all, 90 clams.

I am tired of putting up with people using their phones weaving all over the place. SIMPLE SOLUTION...Get a bluetooth device and use it...every phone sold now works with a bluetooth device and they are very low in price depending on what you want. And no one can say they can't afford one...with the monthly phone charges now days a one time purchase of a hands free device is within reason for everyone.

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

Dude I couldn't have said it

Dude I couldn't have said it better. Cali voters mostly refuse to read propositions carefully and then vote primarily on emotion.
An artfully crafted prop. will appear to be for an issue when in fact the voter will be unwittingly voting against the issue without careful scrutiny of the wording and intent of the initiative.

Page 1>>

sponsored links