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.
Because he's determined to keep doing what he's doing until he kills someone, and needs to be punished for his negligent attitude and lack of concern for the safety of others. As can be CLEARLY shown, the vast majority of people don't give two hoots about the "letter of the law". We want distracted drivers identified, and punished or have their ability to drive taken away completely and the OP is the perfect example of who it is we're trying to get rid of, in order to make the roadways safe for good people that care about the safety of others. Has very little to do with "the law" and is more an expression of shared outrage at the stupidity and negligence of certain people who, despite being told over and over again, still persist in behaviors that cause property damage, injuries and death. And the thread isn't focused only on castigating the OP, but anyone and everyone that thinks and behaves like him. Stuff the law. We care about getting certain people off the road, for the good of everyone. The law is a means to an end. We'd slash tires and burn their vehicles with gasoline if we could get away with it.
Wow, that's kind of harsh. Today I fiddled with my Garmin GPS and I turned on my iPad and opened up an app. I won't incriminate myself, but you can assume the worst. And tonight the sun set in the west and tomorrow it will rise in the east.
You would have to remove your eyes from the road and use them to change the song. I think the ticket is justified.
Don in Austin
Correct. No phones while driving. Lives are lives and this phone activity while doing something as serious as driving needs to stop! Do you know how many deaths are on our roadways? Don't do it again. Pull off at a stop and mess with that crap!
(b) "Using" shall mean holding a portable electronic device while viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or, for the purpose of present or future communication: performing a command or request to access a world wide web page, composing, sending, reading, viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail, text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data.
No, he didn't. I enjoy all the non-lawyers demonstrating why law school may have been more valuable than I thought it was.
"Performing a command" is only relevant if it is for the purposes of present or future communication, and the law as written is an anti-texting law, and doesn't appear to pull in playing music as a form of communication.
Music is a form of communication by definition. Either way, it doesn't matter. You can continue to ignore precedent law as much as you want. It doesn't make you any less wrong.
(b) "Using" shall mean holding a portable electronic device while viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or, for the purpose of present or future communication: performing a command or request to access a world wide web page, composing, sending, reading, viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail, text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data.
Bolded the parts that pertain to switching songs.
No one reasonable is arguing that the OP didn't break the law. It's which part of the law that applies.
No, he didn't. I enjoy all the non-lawyers demonstrating why law school may have been more valuable than I thought it was.
"Performing a command" is only relevant if it is for the purposes of present or future communication, and the law as written is an anti-texting law, and doesn't appear to pull in playing music as a form of communication.
YOU think YOU know every law in every state, then because you are a hoidy-toidy attorney?
THE LAW WAS VERY WELL EXPLAINED TO ALL HERE MULTIPLE TIMES AS TO WHAT IT ENTAILED. THE OP broke the law.
SImple.
JUST like driving under the influence of an OTC cold medicine can land you a DUI. ANY MEDICATION, FORM ANY SOURCE that affects you in ANY WAY can result in DUI. IN NEW YORK STATE. THAT TOO, WAS/IS very well explained in multiple examples of the law, AND IN MULTIPLE commercials alerting the public to the new law here.
If one DOES NOT KNOW THE LAW, the good ol' "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies.
IF YOU HAVE YOUR CELL PHONE IN YOUR HAND WHILE DRIVING IN NY STATE, IT IS A TICKETABLE OFFENSE.
Still there are many signs and shops signs on the side of the road that can distract the driver , which is not illegal to look at or to be removed , ..........As these cause a good part of the accidents today and not addressed
Yet Another Thread (YAT) on the general topic of Electronically Facilitated and Distracted, Entitled Addicted Driving (EFnDEAD) . These forum threads and media articles are increasingly common. I wonder why (cars have had radios since at least the 40s...), but reading this endless droning thread, leads me to think simply that what is needed is:
MORE: Vehicular air bags; police officers; attorneys
FEWER: Vehicular personal communication, entertainment, and navigation devices; attorneys
In the end, self driving cars can't get here fast enough. As a long time driver, I once wondered why they were needed. I stopped wondering a few years ago.
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.
