Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But how will they know if I'm doing something besides texting?
Your cell phone records would show that information. Your cell phone records show everything about you. Not only who you call or text, but even your location, when you are not even using your cell phone. They log everything.
When that Metrolink train crashed in LA a few years ago, investigators were able to find out that the train operator had sent a text message one minute before the crash. They know who he texted and what he said.
Just so you know... for such a fine, they will have to prove without doubt that they were texting. .
Since it is a misdemeanor and traffic violation, I think that it only requires "preponderance of evidence" in traffic court for the driver to be found responsible for the offense specified on the ticket. But the driver can then appeal it to a higher court, which would then require proof beyond reasonable doubt and rules of evidence would come into play.
Since it is a misdemeanor and traffic violation, I think that it only requires "preponderance of evidence" in traffic court for the driver to be found responsible for the offense specified on the ticket. But the driver can then appeal it to a higher court, which would then require proof beyond reasonable doubt and rules of evidence would come into play.
Interesting... How does that work, seems awfully unjust to sentence someone at a felony level for committing only a misdemeanor.
Since it is a misdemeanor and traffic violation, I think that it only requires "preponderance of evidence" in traffic court for the driver to be found responsible for the offense specified on the ticket. But the driver can then appeal it to a higher court, which would then require proof beyond reasonable doubt and rules of evidence would come into play.
Also for the many of us who drive the numerous roads and highways, its pretty easy to peg out a texter (or dui) any hour of the day/night. We all see the signs which may include slow driving, floating out of lane, head seen looking down for extended period of time, etc.. So if the Police have video cameras (as most do by now) it would be pretty hard to fight in court.
IMO it should have extended further to ban touching the device at all (as in NY and NJ).
I don't see what's so difficult to purchase a Bluetooth device as they are not expensive. Mine, from Motorola, along with my S3 allows me to do everything listed in other parts of this thread (and it sits in suction cup device on my dash). I can do everything by voice command and not take my eyes off the road (it even has text to speech). I've had a cellphone since the early 80's in my car and even it came with a hands free kit (to do some basic functions).
I'm not a 16 year old gigglehead texting her BFFs. The occasional, responsible glance at my phone will not get me or anyone else killed. People have been using their cell phones for 30 years with few problems.
I am unable to fine an independent source that confirms this information, which only appeared for the first time today on the web, and the source of the infomation is not indicated. I will not believe it until I see it in some reliable and independent source. Even the original source, Mother Jones, does not source it.
With fines like that, there would be some very good lawyers getting those ticket thrown out of court, and they'd wind up with no law at all that has any teeth.
Furthermore, I'd very surprised if any court in Alaska has fined a single driver any more than a couple hundred for it. The, presumably, is the largest fine allowed by law, but if anyone had paid it, we'd have heard about it before now.
Well since YOU can't find it, it just must not be true.
Did you use a Cray Supercomputer to come to this conclusion?
My friend from Alaska actually emailed me this story because they've been talking about it there for months. So there's that.
I live in the Twin Cities metro area and I'll say this. In my 13 mile drive home which is city, freeway and suburb-every single day I see someone do something stupid on the road and invariably they are looking at their phone. I don't know if they are texting, web searching, or maybe taking their own picture for FB--all I know is they are wandering into every lane but their own, sitting at green lights holding everyone up.
Now I see car companies are going to put these crash avoidance systems on cars so that you don't rear end someone while looking at your phone. Hell, now you can watch movies while you drive.
Why don't they use that technology to just disable all functions of the phone except the voice phone part while the ignition is on?
Last edited by PullMyFinger; 10-26-2013 at 09:38 AM..
Well since YOU can't find it, it just must not be true.
Did you use a Cray Supercomputer to come to this conclusion?
My friend from Alaska actually emailed me this story because they've been talking about it there for months. So there's that.
That's why I said "for the moment". Calling BS on unattributed information in unreliable net sources is a pretty good idea. Within a couple of hours, I had the sourcing for it that I required, with sufficient detail to put the original into a useful perspective. When you get forwarded emails, do you ever call BS on them?
I live in the Twin Cities metro area and I'll say this. In my 13 mile drive home which is city, freeway and suburb-every single day I see someone do something stupid on the road and invariably they are looking at their phone. I don't know if they are texting, web searching, or maybe taking their own picture for FB--all I know is they are wandering into every lane but their own, sitting at green lights holding everyone up.
Now I see car companies are going to put these crash avoidance systems on cars so that you don't rear end someone while looking at your phone. Hell, now you can watch movies while you drive.
Why don't they use that technology to just disable all functions of the phone except the voice phone part while the ignition is on?
If that's going to be done, why haven't there been alcohol lockouts on all vehicles?
As for the phone, what about the passengers? Do they need to be treated like 9 year olds as well?
I don't have a problem with it at all. Maybe, if more states adopted laws allowing for severe fines and punishment for this completely moronic and irresponsible practice, the morons would stop doing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
