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.
yeah, because i said i wanted anarchy. the law is arbitrary. politicians make new laws all the time and old laws go away. just because something is a law, doesnt mean it should be a law. like i said before, you will say something is fine today because its legal, then when it becomes illegal you will stand on your silly high horse and preach about how wrong it is.
oh i also like how you are making up claims about research. i know you just said that because you are assuming it to be true but you are not aware of any research.
i just did the work you are too lazy to do and performed a simple google search. it appears that you are lying about the research.
yeah, because i said i wanted anarchy. the law is arbitrary. politicians make new laws all the time and old laws go away. just because something is a law, doesnt mean it should be a law. like i said before, you will say something is fine today because its legal, then when it becomes illegal you will stand on your silly high horse and preach about how wrong it is.
oh i also like how you are making up claims about research. i know you just said that because you are assuming it to be true but you are not aware of any research.
i just did the work you are too lazy to do and performed a simple google search. it appears that you are lying about the research.
Increased rates of crashes when drivers use hand-held cell phones have been well documented, so it's unclear why the four jurisdictions' accident rates did not mirror the trend after their cell phone bans took effect.
One of the options is that drivers in jurisdictions that ban cell phones while driving may be resorting to using hands-free devices, whose accident rates are the same as hand-held devices, he said. (so i guess you're all for banning talking while driving )
"Studies show that driving while talking on a cell phone is extremely dangerous and puts drivers at a four times greater risk of a crash,"
I am surprised so much angst cellphone talker, I myself have been more often victim of cellphone driver. But what is not fair is the randomness and targeted enforcement. If you are not driving erratically, aware of surroundings, no traffic, he should have given me break. But he seem aggravated that I produced PBA. Action like this leaves bad taste, I admire what police officer do, the risk they take. US is US because of law enforcement and respect for laws, unlike developing countries. But some of the traffic laws in NJ are missing common sense e.g. careless driving zero point ticket a big haux and mockery of court system just to milk money from residents. I value law that is why it hurts.
I see trend in some of these township where cops are looking for suckers like me early on in Monday and then it subsides as week progresses. In my drive through South Brunswick, Montgomery, Hillsborough, Monroe, Franklin, North Brunswick I see at least 4-5 cops patrolling on Monday but today I saw none. BTW cops in Franklin should not be worried about cellphone talker, they are wasting residents money, instead they should be busting drug dealers in high school.
Appreciate that everybody taking time and advising me, I have decided to just learn from my mistake and pay the fine but wont mind this discussion to go on.
On lighter side, the ticket may be godsend, I may have to pay $100 but may win $500 from the forum for the posts
no, your posts have to be informative to have a shot at winning. complaining about being fined for a law you admitted you broke doesn't really inform us of anything.
I don't understand why some people are bashing the OP. He recognizes what he did was wrong and that he will take care to not do so again. Laziness is not an excuse for endangering others, and it seems like he gets it now. Not everyone needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law for every infraction in order to have learned a lesson. Now don't go twisting my words to mean I'm saying murderers should walk, but:
Can you honestly say you would not fight a ticket given by some a-hole officer for:
- Not coming to a complete dead stop at a stop sign in a super quiet neighborhood despite having looked both ways up and down left and right (3pts), or
- Changing lanes without signaling on a deserted empty highway at 2am (2pts), or
- Being caught in a "don't block the box" intersection in Manhattan during crazy gridlock (2pts), or
- Following too closely on a congested highway during peak rush hour (ie tailgating) (4pts)
- Going 5mph over the limit on the aforementioned empty highway at 2am (3pts)?
All of these could potentially harm/injure people. Now let's say you already have points for previous minor infractions (because hey, you didn't fight the tickets those times either), and you absolutely need your car for work, can you honestly say you'll take the points, license suspension/revocation whatever because the law is the law is the law? Or is the law is the law is the law only in certain circumstances?
i can honestly say i wouldn't get a ticket. i put my turn signal on in the middle of nowhere Pennsylvania when i turn into my parents' driveway. i've driven in manhattan plenty, and i don't block the box. i don't follow cars too closely, congestion or not. 5mph over the speed limit isn't 3 pts, it's 2 pts, and i'm not sure i've ever known someone to get a ticket for that either. but i got a ticket on the NJTP in south jersey around 11pm, with not a car on the road...and i didn't fight it.
I don't know that I take issue with the rest of your post, but this one makes no sense to me. The whole reason FOR the "don't block the box" is to PREVENT gridlock.
Are you saying that "gridlock" is a valid excuse for causing MORE gridlock?
To me, if you are caught in the box, you are a part of the problem. The officer here is not being an a-hole. The driver is.
Well say for instance the light is green and it appears the traffic is moving well enough where you think you'll be able to cross the box in time, but some idiot driver tries to parallel park on a single lane street 5 cars in front of you causing all the vehicles behind him to a stop and a good chunk of your car is still hanging out in the box. It's not necessarily your fault you got caught in the box, sh*t like that happens sometimes.
I agree the scenarios I listed wouldn't result in a ticket 99% of the time, but that's the whole point - IF you were given a ticket for something as ridiculous as going 3mph over the limit, should you just concede and say "give me the full points because I need to be taught a lesson, the law is the law and I broke it"?
I'm not saying talking on a phone while driving is something to be taken lightly, but the OP is clearly penitent and acknowledges what he did was wrong and stated he wouldn't let it happen again and hopes this thread will help others.
What I had issue w/ was the King of the South's stance that laws are laws and they're all there for a reason - if broken you need to take the full brunt of the prosecution no questions asked, you need to learn a lesson. Then I would ask how many times he's actually turned himself in when going even 1mph over the speed limit, or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, or jay walking, or forgetting to signal... or does the law only apply when you're caught breaking it?
One of the options is that drivers in jurisdictions that ban cell phones while driving may be resorting to using hands-free devices, whose accident rates are the same as hand-held devices, he said. (so i guess you're all for banning talking while driving )
the above is my point. that there is no difference between talking with a phone in your hand or using a hands free. so people who attack people holding a phone while thinking its perfectly fine to talk using Bluetooth are fools who just believe whatever the law says at the moment.
im not for banning talking on phones in cars (either hands free or not). I would favor consideration of appropriate penalties for getting into an accident while talking on the phone.
Thank you for citing an article that notes that it has been well documented that use of hand-held cell phones causes accidents, which is exactly my point. Want overall accidents from cell phone voice and texting while driving to drop? Give more tix to people like the OP and increase the penalty. Enforce the law.
this is my point mr. genius "Lund said the Highway Loss Data Institute istrying to determine why the ban does not have an impact on the rate of accidents. One of theoptions is that drivers in jurisdictions that ban cell phones while driving maybe resorting to using hands-free devices, whose accident rates are the same ashand-held devices, he said"
so hands free devices are legal, yet they do not reduce the number of accidents. holding a phone is illegal but the act of holding the phone isn't the part that's dangerous. the law is crap.
Well say for instance the light is green and it appears the traffic is moving well enough where you think you'll be able to cross the box in time, but some idiot driver tries to parallel park on a single lane street 5 cars in front of you causing all the vehicles behind him to a stop and a good chunk of your car is still hanging out in the box. It's not necessarily your fault you got caught in the box, sh*t like that happens sometimes.
I agree the scenarios I listed wouldn't result in a ticket 99% of the time, but that's the whole point - IF you were given a ticket for something as ridiculous as going 3mph over the limit, should you just concede and say "give me the full points because I need to be taught a lesson, the law is the law and I broke it"?
I'm not saying talking on a phone while driving is something to be taken lightly, but the OP is clearly penitent and acknowledges what he did was wrong and stated he wouldn't let it happen again and hopes this thread will help others.
What I had issue w/ was the King of the South's stance that laws are laws and they're all there for a reason - if broken you need to take the full brunt of the prosecution no questions asked, you need to learn a lesson. Then I would ask how many times he's actually turned himself in when going even 1mph over the speed limit, or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, or jay walking, or forgetting to signal... or does the law only apply when you're caught breaking it?
Thx for explaining my point.
Can someone explain how to dial 800 number with voice dial ? I know google voice recognition technology is best out there (atleast better than Apple) and still it makes mistake probably because of my accent. You still have to glance at the screen and redial if it made mistake. You can drive with one hand but cannot without eyes of the road, even for 1 second. So just because your one hand was occupied holding phone makes you higher risk is ridiculous. I think someone People fiddling with their GPS , talking with fellow passenger or mother attending to kids on the back and taking eye of the road for split second is dangerous.
I would rather predial 800 number before stepping into the car and then just redial the number. And that is exactly what I did. Better than stupid voice recognition that everybody is so hung ho about. Also I would reiterate phone was always on speakerphone, never on my ear. If I had held the phone just 2 inches lower, he would have not cited me.
Long time back I got seat-belt ticket, I thanked officer for that, since then I have never failed to wear seat belt. The law is pretty clear either you wore it or not and it is fair to say you wronged if officer saw you for 1 split second without seat belt.
With cellphone ban, it is not fair to say you wronged if officer saw you holding cellphone for 1 split second while you were holding it to redial a number and was planning to put it on cradle.
Not only cellphone, I stopped touching anything in my car after this incident, who knows some township short of few hundred dollars to be contributed to somebody's triple pension may want to cite me.
no, your posts have to be informative to have a shot at winning. complaining about being fined for a law you admitted you broke doesn't really inform us of anything.
Sorry if I did not make it clear, I said " on the lighter side" and then I have smiley at the end if that meant something.
I have my phone mounted to be used a GPS as well as a phone via bluetooth (voice operated dialing / answering too) to my vehicle. If I was using the GPS touch screen just like any other GPS unit is used, would I be in violation. I'm touching a communication device even though its not for communication.
Interesting question. I have a newer model, voice activated Garmin GPS with Bluetooth that can be used to make calls and without having to touch the device.
I generally don't use it since call quality is just so-so.
However, my GF uses her smartphone in the same manner as you. Mounted to the windshield when she's using the GPS function of the phone.
From my personal experience with the Garmin, it's a distraction if I looked at it and use the touchscreen.
So, same rules apply for the smartphone used as a GPS scenario.
So, IMHO, yes...you would be in violation technically, from the police officer's point of view with the distracted driver law in mind.
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.
)
