(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fglobal.fncstatic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2Ffn2%2Ffeeds%2FDigital%2520Trends%2F660%2F371%2Ftext-stop-sign-373x232.jpg%3Fve%3D1&hash=51e71e4f595f2d182e5fe2f417eedf59678fcdf4)
QuoteIn a bid to persuade drivers to resist checking their phone whenever it beeps or pings or whatever sound it makes when a message arrives, New York State is to introduce so-called "˜Texting Zones' along its major highways and thruways.
Announcing the initiative on Monday, Governor Andrew Cuomo said a total of 298 signs with messages like "It can wait, Text Stop 5 miles" , will be positioned along the state's busiest roads, pointing drivers to 91 Texting Zone locations.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/09/24/distracted-driving-new-york-to-introduce-text-stops-along-state-highways/
I'm not sure how I feel about this approach to the "texting while driving" problem - I don't think any amount of signs will stop them from texting. I think they should beef up patrols on areas that show the highest percentages of drivers who text at the wheel. Show them the consequences of their actions - rather then letting them continue on.
Also, it's a Clearview BBS sign. I shouldn't have to say anymore than that. :ded: Did NYDOT switch to Clearview while I wasn't looking, or are they too lazy to use the FHWA fonts?
If they are doing it as a safety measure, I would prefer to call it a "CELL PHONE STOP", for a stop to do any business on the cell phone, including talking or texting.
Will they be reopening the closed rest stops on I-88?
If you need "text stops" to be provided for you in order to refrain from texting while you're driving, then you shouldn't be driving at all.
I noticed this morning that the Guilderland Service area on the Thruway between 25 and 24 has had a blue "Text Stop" added to some of its advance signs. I don't think it was there yesterday.
If we paid more attention and spent money on the crime problem instead of stupid crap like this, maybe things really would be safer in this country. How many people have been murdered in Chicago alone this year? Last I heard it was approaching 400. That's probably lots more than have died as a result of wrecking while texting.
I suspect a nationwide ban on texting while driving is not far down the pike, followed by a nationwide ban on using a handheld phone, followed by a nationwide ban on any phone use at all while driving.
Meanwhile, talking on a CB or ham radio, changing the radio station, lighting a cigarette or talking to passengers in the car will continue to be legal.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 08:22:20 PM
I suspect a nationwide ban on texting while driving is not far down the pike, followed by a nationwide ban on using a handheld phone, followed by a nationwide ban on any phone use at all while driving.
I welcome said bans.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 08:22:20 PM
I suspect a nationwide ban on texting while driving is not far down the pike, followed by a nationwide ban on using a handheld phone, followed by a nationwide ban on any phone use at all while driving.
I'd be very, very surprised to see that. The American people would go insane if that were made the case. There's a reason hands-free cell phone use is legal while hands-on cell phone use isn't despite studies showing both to be dangerous. Our legislators walk a fine line- they need to provide us with the illusion of safety without losing votes- requiring hands free does that well, and also supports business by forcing people to buy fancier technology.
It's like the FAA relaxing rules on in flight use of electronic devices- we live in a world with devices, and any future happenings are going to facilitate that.
Quote from: NE2 on September 24, 2013, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 08:22:20 PM
I suspect a nationwide ban on texting while driving is not far down the pike, followed by a nationwide ban on using a handheld phone, followed by a nationwide ban on any phone use at all while driving.
I welcome said bans.
why not a general "driving inattentively"?
That would work too, since it would include using a phone.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 24, 2013, 08:44:22 PM
why not a general "driving inattentively"?
Kind of vague - what's to keep some New Rome type jurisdiction from hiding cops in the bushes and pulling over drivers who look away for two seconds to adjust the radio when there are no other cars around on a rural highway?
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 24, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Kind of vague - what's to keep some New Rome type jurisdiction from hiding cops in the bushes and pulling over drivers who look away for two seconds to adjust the radio when there are no other cars around on a rural highway?
what's preventing them now from taking a hammer and saying your taillight's out?
This after New York recently raised the fine and points for texting while driving, and has promised to step up enforcement. Cuomo is really making an issue out of it.
What's unnerving is that precedent already states that in New York use of a camera while driving is considered legally equivalent to texting while driving. This potentially creates a greater risk of getting pulled over for roadgeeks.
I saw covered up signs on the Thruway for the parking area EB between exits 33 and 34 but I couldn't imagine what they would be for. Now I know.
I'm willing to bet that the sign pictured is for a Thruway parking area and that's why it's in Clearview, even though I had heard rumblings that the Thruway wasn't as excited about Clearview as they were a few years ago.
I'm not sure how I feel about this initiative. I think it's great that they're trying to combat the distracted driving issue, but focusing on just texting kind of misses the point, though it is one of the major contributors to the problem.
In the past week I've seen: a man shaving with an electric shaver, a man reading a newspaper, a woman talking on her phone and eating something (apparently steering with her knee) and another woman looking at her child in the back seat, and this is just in Utica where's there's no real rush hour or remarkable traffic congestion.
Unless the po-po want to go to all the trouble of subpoenaing cell phone records with detailed time stamps, a ticket for texting while driving comes down to a swearing contest. Cop says you were, you say you were not. Far easier to just point the radar gun at the next random tax victim.
Bluntly, people who talk or text on cell phones while in parking lots, signalized streets, residential neighborhoods, etc. are dopes, and will be taken care of by increased insurance rates as they have accidents, etc. Texting or talking on a rural interstate is really not dangerous.
Quote from: NE2 on September 24, 2013, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 08:22:20 PM
I suspect a nationwide ban on texting while driving is not far down the pike, followed by a nationwide ban on using a handheld phone, followed by a nationwide ban on any phone use at all while driving.
I welcome said bans.
Same here. I always pull over onto a side street if I need to take a call when I'm behind the wheel.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 24, 2013, 11:53:14 PM
This after New York recently raised the fine and points for texting while driving, and has promised to step up enforcement. Cuomo is really making an issue out of it.
What's unnerving is that precedent already states that in New York use of a camera while driving is considered legally equivalent to texting while driving. This potentially creates a greater risk of getting pulled over for roadgeeks.
So get a StickyPod to mount your camera on the dashboard and put it on burst mode while you're driving.
I wouldn't be surprised if the other 49 states and Canada followed suit! This is one of the best ideas ever.
Quote from: NE2 on September 24, 2013, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 08:22:20 PM
I suspect a nationwide ban on texting while driving is not far down the pike, followed by a nationwide ban on using a handheld phone, followed by a nationwide ban on any phone use at all while driving.
I welcome said bans.
Yes. It's worked quite well with other laws. Every state bans driving thru stop signs without stopping, speeding, driving while intoxicted, etc, and NO ONE EVER BREAKS THOSE LAWS. EVER.
Ban it as much as you want. It'll still continue.
This morning I noticed the addition of "TEXT STOP" signs on the assemblies approaching the Indian Castle Service Area on the Thruway. The signs are in Series D (real version, not the Thruway version). One thing that I found surprising is that the Thruway Authority and/or NYSDOT didn't come up with a snappy graphic to represent a TEXT STOP. Since everything is becoming symbol based lately, you'd think they would have come up with a TEXT STOP graphic.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 25, 2013, 01:00:54 PM
This morning I noticed the addition of "TEXT STOP" signs on the assemblies approaching the Indian Castle Service Area on the Thruway.
I noticed the same thing on the signs approaching the Junius Ponds Service Area.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 24, 2013, 08:44:22 PM
why not a general "driving inattentively"?
I'd be okay with this over the current crop of varying, sometimes device-specific, sometimes extremely vague laws. I don't even know why we even need laws like this. Don't most states have some form of "operating a vehicle without due care" statute on the books already? One would think that if a cop spots you drifting, holding up traffic, or just being a general dumbass while driving, he doesn't need a statute specific to using a cell phone to cite you for careless driving. All these cell phone laws do is pander to the "won't somebody please think of the children" bleeding heart types.
Getting back to the specific topic... I think it's a pretty awful idea. If education (and being told over... and over... and over... and over... and...) that distracted driving kills, then I don't see how advertising parking areas as text stops is going to make a damn lick of difference. Inform people of the consequences of their actions (both legal and physical), and hope that sooner or later it sinks in. I do think that we should have more rest areas in general on the nation's highways, even if it's just a pull-off where you can take a short break from driving. They don't need to have stupid monikers, though.
Quote from: NE2 on September 24, 2013, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 08:22:20 PM
I suspect a nationwide ban on texting while driving is not far down the pike, followed by a nationwide ban on using a handheld phone, followed by a nationwide ban on any phone use at all while driving.
I welcome said bans.
Prohibition worked so well.
Strawmen work so well.
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2013, 01:48:45 PM
Strawmen work so well.
Trying to ban items or activities usually tends to be an exercise in futility unless you can get almost everyone on board with it. I fear trying to ban cell phone use (and texting for that matter) is just as futile. It would be better to simply use existing laws as others have stated in this thread.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 24, 2013, 11:53:14 PM
This after New York recently raised the fine and points for texting while driving, and has promised to step up enforcement. Cuomo is really making an issue out of it.
What's unnerving is that precedent already states that in New York use of a camera while driving is considered legally equivalent to texting while driving. This potentially creates a greater risk of getting pulled over for roadgeeks.
Kentucky's governor is also trying to administratively allow points for texting after the legislature refused to enact such a law. I'm in hopes the legislature will find such a regulation deficient and thus reject it, although even that doesn't matter anymore since the legislature recently found an educational regulation deficient and the governor opted to implement it anyway.
I think every photograph I've taken in New York was done while I was driving and I've never had an issue with it.
QuoteI welcome said bans.
Why am I not surprised? Would you also welcome bans on talking on a CB, smoking, eating, conversing with passengers or changing the radio station?
Quote from: SP Cook on September 25, 2013, 06:50:05 AM
Unless the po-po want to go to all the trouble of subpoenaing cell phone records with detailed time stamps, a ticket for texting while driving comes down to a swearing contest. Cop says you were, you say you were not. Far easier to just point the radar gun at the next random tax victim.
Actually, a ticket for cell phone use is the same as any other moving violation: if you challenge it in court you are presumed guilty and have to prove that you are not. So, said swearing contest results in a fine and points.
Quote from: dgolub on September 25, 2013, 08:35:15 AM
So get a StickyPod to mount your camera on the dashboard and put it on burst mode while you're driving.
I don't know of any cameras that allow you to set them to an indefinite burst mode (mine certainly does not have that feature), so a dash mount still requires operation while driving. This method would also produce a lot of unnecessary photos, and in doing so drain your battery and fill up your SD card. Not exactly efficient. (nevermind the inability to aim the camera or optimally time photos this way)
It's helpful to have a dash mount for filming, though.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 25, 2013, 07:33:58 PM
Actually, a ticket for cell phone use is the same as any other moving violation: if you challenge it in court you are presumed guilty and have to prove that you are not. So, said swearing contest results in a fine and points.
First time I've ever heard that. If true, I'd suspect that concept could very easily be challenged as a violation of the standard of presumption of innocence.
Quote from: Brandon on September 25, 2013, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2013, 01:48:45 PM
Strawmen work so well.
Trying to ban items or activities usually tends to be an exercise in futility unless you can get almost everyone on board with it. I fear trying to ban cell phone use (and texting for that matter) is just as futile. It would be better to simply use existing laws as others have stated in this thread.
We've seen how well the state-by-state bans are working. :-D
Quote from: hbelkins on September 25, 2013, 08:29:54 PMIf true, I'd suspect that concept could very easily be challenged as a violation of the standard of presumption of innocence.
That ship sailed decades ago. Most moving violations in most states are now "civil infractions" or some similar legal construct, meaning that the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings doesn't apply.
I bet that if the penalty for texting and other mobile device violations resulted in the potential loss of your smartphone rather than the potential loss of your driver's license, it would be taken much more seriously.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 25, 2013, 07:33:58 PM
Actually, a ticket for cell phone use is the same as any other moving violation: if you challenge it in court you are presumed guilty and have to prove that you are not. So, said swearing contest results in a fine and points.
Actually, at least in my state, we still have a thing called the Constitution Of The United States Of America, and such a concept does not exist.
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 25, 2013, 10:53:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 25, 2013, 08:29:54 PMIf true, I'd suspect that concept could very easily be challenged as a violation of the standard of presumption of innocence.
That ship sailed decades ago. Most moving violations in most states are now "civil infractions" or some similar legal construct, meaning that the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings doesn't apply.
The weakest standard of proof in this country, as far as I know, is the preponderance of the evidence standard, where it has to be shown that there's more than a 50% chance that someone did what they're accused of. That's what's used for compensatory damages in civil cases. Clear and convincing evidence is used for punitive damages. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is used for criminal cases. I'm not aware of anyone being presumed guilty of anything under American law. Maybe certain judges or juries don't follow the law, but that's a whole other story.
Quote from: empirestate on September 26, 2013, 02:18:43 AM
I bet that if the penalty for texting and other mobile device violations resulted in the potential loss of your smartphone rather than the potential loss of your driver's license, it would be taken much more seriously.
I laughed when I read this... my next thought was perhaps we should threaten to send drivers to the principal's office. I do think this would be an awesome idea for some activist judge (you know, the kind of judge people hate)... get a sentence of "banned from cell phone use for one year" or something.
The signs were already up near the northbound I-684 rest stop in Bedford. They were sitting just in front of the existing rest area signs. Mostly blue signs with white lettering.
Quote from: Compulov on September 26, 2013, 12:47:49 PM
Quote from: empirestate on September 26, 2013, 02:18:43 AM
I bet that if the penalty for texting and other mobile device violations resulted in the potential loss of your smartphone rather than the potential loss of your driver's license, it would be taken much more seriously.
I laughed when I read this... my next thought was perhaps we should threaten to send drivers to the principal's office. I do think this would be an awesome idea for some activist judge (you know, the kind of judge people hate)... get a sentence of "banned from cell phone use for one year" or something.
Well, or another option would be to increase the number of cases where the loss of one's license is "actual" rather than merely "potential"...
IMO, one way to deal with the texting while driving issue is to make texting a standard of fault if a crash occurs (even if said crash doesn't involve another vehicle). Coupled with that, allow the driver's insurance carrier to limit or deny any claims for said crash. It may take some time, but I believe that, in the long run, this approach would be far more effective that the current "small fine - slap on the wrist" approach to the violation that most states currently employ. For example, in Massachusetts, being stopped for having an invalid inspection sticker will almost always get your vehicle impounded, but being stopped for texting isn't even a moving violation.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 26, 2013, 06:37:14 AM
Actually, at least in my state, we still have a thing called the Constitution Of The United States Of America, and such a concept does not exist.
If you consult your state's MV code, I'd almost bet cash US money it says otherwise.
Nowhere in the US Constitution is a presumption of innocence stated explicitly. Via various Supreme Court decisions, it has been held to be implicit in the protections afforded by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, in non-criminal and non-civil cases, which category most MV violations now fall into, there is no explicit or implied presumption of innocence.
Quote from: roadman on September 27, 2013, 09:25:03 AM
IMO, one way to deal with the texting while driving issue is to make texting a standard of fault if a crash occurs (even if said crash doesn't involve another vehicle). Coupled with that, allow the driver's insurance carrier to limit or deny any claims for said crash. It may take some time, but I believe that, in the long run, this approach would be far more effective that the current "small fine - slap on the wrist" approach to the violation that most states currently employ. For example, in Massachusetts, being stopped for having an invalid inspection sticker will almost always get your vehicle impounded, but being stopped for texting isn't even a moving violation.
The person texting would have to admit to texting. Or, the insurance company would have to go thru the hassle of subpoenaing the records of the person who everyone thinks was doing the texting. And in most minor crashes, it's probably not going to be worth the time or money to do that, especially if that person was already faulted for the crash.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 24, 2013, 11:53:14 PM
This after New York recently raised the fine and points for texting while driving, and has promised to step up enforcement. Cuomo is really making an issue out of it.
What's unnerving is that precedent already states that in New York use of a camera while driving is considered legally equivalent to texting while driving. This potentially creates a greater risk of getting pulled over for roadgeeks.
I saw a VMS sign this morning on the hutch just as I entered NY from CT. 150 dollar fine and 5 points. I don't know much about points bc I have never had any but it sounds like a lot.
People have to know this is dangerous, so I am not sure any law will change behavior. I have had a few close calls when sending a quick email or trying to look up a phone number, yet I still try to get away with it once and a while. Even when driving in NYC where it really easy to get caught it's tempting to start at a light and continue if you are not finished when it turns green.
Quote from: roadman on September 27, 2013, 09:25:03 AMin Massachusetts...being stopped for texting isn't even a moving violation.
It's also virtually unenforceable. While texting is a violation, dialing a phone number with the phone in the driver's hand isn't (MA hasn't banned hand-held cell use...yet). Unless the cop can see clearly into the driver's side of the vehicle and see what's being done with the phone, he/she cannot testify in court that a driver was texting.
According to an article in today's Boston Globe, the State Police are trying to figure out how to step up enforcement of the no-texting law.
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 27, 2013, 03:56:47 PM
If you consult your state's MV code, I'd almost bet cash US money it says otherwise.
Nowhere in the US Constitution is a presumption of innocence stated explicitly. Via various Supreme Court decisions, it has been held to be implicit in the protections afforded by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, in non-criminal and non-civil cases, which category most MV violations now fall into, there is no explicit or implied presumption of innocence.
Then you would lose.
WVC §62-1-5a.
People, starting with Californians, have bought this silly idea. The government says traffic is "not criminal". We don't buy that. If they can arrest you, take your money, whatever, then its criminal. You have the same rights as any other person who is innocent until proven guilty. There is no such thing, by law here and by reason and common sense everywhere no matter what the government tries to say otherwise, as a "non-criminal offense".
Quote from: SP Cook on September 28, 2013, 08:05:08 AM
Then you would lose.
WVC §62-1-5a.
Did you actually read what you cited?
Quote from: WV Code Chapter 62 Article 1§62-1-5a. Citation in lieu of arrest; failure to appear.
A law-enforcement officer may issue a citation instead of making an arrest for the following offenses, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person being cited will appear to answer the charge:
(1) Any misdemeanor, not involving injury to the person, committed in a law-enforcement officer's presence: Provided, That the officer may arrest the person if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is likely to cause serious harm to himself or others; and
(2) When any person is being detained for the purpose of investigating whether such person has committed or attempted to commit shoplifting, pursuant to section four, article three-a, chapter sixty-one of this code.
The citation shall provide that the defendant shall appear within a designated time.
If the defendant fails to appear in response to the citation or if there are reasonable grounds to believe that he will not appear, a complaint may be made and a warrant shall issue. When a physical arrest is made and a citation is issued in relation to the same offense the officer shall mark on the citation, in the place specified for court appearance date, the word "arrested" in lieu of the date of court appearance.
So, where is "presumption of innocence" stated in the above cite, and where does it say that MV violations are felonies or misdemeanors are not "civil infractions?"
The due process clause of the 5th amendment applies to any seizure of liberty or property. There is no "non-criminal" loophole. The citation is simply a modified form of arrest and release on "free bail" if you will. If you pay the fine you are implying a guilty plea and waiving your rights.
This means there's nothing stopping you from showing up at your hearing (which is really an arraignment and sentencing hearing), pleading not guilty and demanding a trial by jury. They really hate it when you do that. However, because trials cost money, they're likely to try to make a deal with you or drop the charge. Not guaranteed, though, so be ready to have your bluff called. Keep in mind the prosecution probably has a pretty solid case
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 28, 2013, 10:43:13 AM
Did you actually read what you cited?
and where does it say that MV violations are felonies or misdemeanors are not "civil infractions?"
You need to quit while you are behind.
http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/court-rules/criminal-procedure/contents.html
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=50&art=2#02
"§50-2-3. Criminal jurisdiction; limitations on bail.
In addition to jurisdiction granted elsewhere to magistrate courts, magistrate courts shall have jurisdiction of all misdemeanor offenses committed in the county"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor
http://thelawdictionary.org/misdemeanor/
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=17c&art=6#06
e) Unless otherwise provided in this section, any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars; upon a second conviction within one year thereafter, shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars; and, upon a third or subsequent conviction within two years thereafter, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars: Provided, That if the third or subsequent conviction is based upon a violation of the provisions of this section where the offender exceeded the speed limit by fifteen miles per hour or more, then upon conviction, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or confined in the county or regional jail for not more than six months, or both.
A basic high school level civics class would do you some good.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 28, 2013, 11:42:22 AM
You need to quit while you are behind.
You need to quit while you are behind.
... Provide citation of "innocent until proven guilty"
In fact, " any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor " suggests quite the opposite...
Innocent until proven guilty is implied in common law. It's part of due process, which is a right granted by the 5th and 14th amendments. It does not require mention by statute, nor does the right to a trial.
Quote the whole thing "...any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof..."
You have to be convicted in order for the state to punish you for anything. That's what due process is. You have the right to demand a trial for anything the state accuses you of. They make it easy for you to plead guilty instead, though, to save everyone time and money.
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/WV_CON.cfm#articleIII
3-4. Writ of habeas corpus.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended. No person shall be held to answer for treason, felony or other crime, not cognizable by a justice, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed.
3-14. Trials of crimes -- Provisions in interest of accused.
Trials of crimes, and of misdemeanors, unless herein otherwise provided, shall be by a jury of twelve men, public, without unreasonable delay, and in the county where the alleged offence was committed, unless upon petition of the accused, and for good cause shown, it is removed to some other county. In all such trials, the accused shall be fully and plainly informed of the character and cause of the accusation, and be confronted with the witnesses against him, and shall have the assistance of counsel, and a reasonable time to prepare for his defence; and there shall be awarded to him compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.
8-10. Magistrate courts.
Magistrate courts shall have such original jurisdiction in criminal matters as may be prescribed by law, but no person shall be convicted or sentenced for a felony in such courts. In criminal cases, the procedure may be by information or warrant of arrest, without presentment or indictment by a grand jury.
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=17c&art=6#06§17C-6-3a. Minimum speed regulations; penalty.
(c) Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars; upon a second conviction within one year thereafter, shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars; and upon a third or subsequent conviction within two years thereafter, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars.
(At this point, one would ask what part of "misdemeanor", "conviction", "fined" and "subsequent conviction" you do not understand. Maybe "JURY" will help you.
Especially in light of:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/misdemeanor/
Or any of 100s of other free sources that simply define misdemeanor and felony. The two types of crimes.
But one might try this:
http://www.courtswv.gov/public-resources/jury/juryhdbk.htm
Criminal Case -- an action brought in the name of the State of West Virginia to try a person -- the defendant -- who is charged with a crime.
Misdemeanor -- a less serious criminal offense than a felony which is punishable by a fine or imprisonment in jail.
contra:
Civil Case -- an action brought by a person, company or other entity -- the plaintiff -- to protect some right or to help recover money or property from another person or company -- the defendant.
But if you really want to try to play lawyer:
Foster's Crown Law (1762), p. 255.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4ZI0AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
And
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/legisdocs/code/02/WVC%20%202%20%20-%20%201%20%20-%20%20%201%20%20.htm
§2-1-1. Common law.
The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to the principles of the constitution of this state, shall continue in force within the same, except in those respects wherein it was altered by the general assembly of Virginia before the twentieth day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, or has been, or shall be, altered by the Legislature of this state.
and this:
The Golden Thread of English Justice:
"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is
the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt..."
(Rumpole, among others, is fond of this quote)
Or you could just read Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_until_proven_guilty#Common_law
Or you could simply read the definition of another crime, such as theft:
§61-3-13. Grand and petit larceny distinguished; penalties.
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=61&art=3#03
(a) If a person commits simple larceny of goods or chattels of the value of one thousand dollars or more, such person is guilty of a felony, designated grand larceny ...
vis the misdemeanor (a type of crime) I cited above
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=17c&art=6#06
e) Unless otherwise provided in this section, any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor
and understand that your statement
"suggests quite the opposite..."
is simply wrong.
And, excellent post, MrDisco99.
There are a lot of lawyers in here. I come to this forum to escape the one I married to.
Quote from: mc78andrew on September 28, 2013, 04:34:01 PM
There are a lot of lawyers in here. I come to this forum to escape the one I married to.
A lot of people who think they are lawyers since they've seen LA Law and other such TV shows.
Lawyering is often a very bad idea unless you play a lawyer in real life.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 28, 2013, 11:42:22 AM
You need to quit while you are behind.
http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/court-rules/criminal-procedure/contents.html
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=50&art=2#02
"§50-2-3. Criminal jurisdiction; limitations on bail.
In addition to jurisdiction granted elsewhere to magistrate courts, magistrate courts shall have jurisdiction of all misdemeanor offenses committed in the county"
MV offenses not mentioned, not even once.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 28, 2013, 11:42:22 AMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor
http://thelawdictionary.org/misdemeanor/
After three years of college-level law courses, I know perfectly well what a misdemeanor is.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 28, 2013, 11:42:22 AMhttp://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=17c&art=6#06
e) Unless otherwise provided in this section, any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars; upon a second conviction within one year thereafter, shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars; and, upon a third or subsequent conviction within two years thereafter, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars: Provided, That if the third or subsequent conviction is based upon a violation of the provisions of this section where the offender exceeded the speed limit by fifteen miles per hour or more, then upon conviction, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or confined in the county or regional jail for not more than six months, or both.
FINALLY! A cite that's on point.
Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2013, 11:54:29 AM
In fact, " any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor " suggests quite the opposite...
Kentucky statues often use similar language: "A person is guilty of blah blah if they do blah blah." But that still doesn't mean that the government doesn't have to prove the case.
Quote from: Brandon on September 28, 2013, 10:46:00 PM
Quote from: mc78andrew on September 28, 2013, 04:34:01 PM
There are a lot of lawyers in here. I come to this forum to escape the one I married to.
A lot of people who think they are lawyers since they've seen LA Law and other such TV shows.
Lawyering is often a very bad idea unless you play a lawyer in real life.
I feel the same way about musicians and musicianing.
I've done significantly more damage as a result of eating BK food while driving than texting. I am a major proponant of car-docks, which not only make texting and using speakerphone easier, but make using GPS navigation on your phone much safer. The dangerous part of using a phone is having to look down or away from the road. When the phone is mounted on your windshield, it's no more dangerous than eyeing your speedometer. Car-docks combined with voice recognition (which works very well on Android) are the solution.
Quote from: _Simon on September 29, 2013, 05:56:27 AM
When the phone is mounted on your windshield, it's no more dangerous than eyeing your speedometer.
[citation needed]
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 28, 2013, 10:54:17 PM
MV offenses not mentioned, not even once.
[After three years of college-level law courses, I know perfectly well what a misdemeanor is.
If you don't understand that a "MV offense" IS a misdemeanor, apparently not.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 29, 2013, 07:39:06 AM
If you don't understand that a "MV offense" IS a misdemeanor, apparently not.
In your state, yes, but it wasn't made clear until your last cite.
What seems to have been obscured in all this is: I'm with you. End-runs around the Constitution in the name of expediency (otherwise known as greasing the revenue machine) are wrong. However, too many jurisdictions (actually, one is too many) have shoved MV violations off onto low-level adjudicators (in Massachusetts, a "clerk-magistrate" handles MV hearings, and in some district courts here drivers who are appearing to contest MV citations are told in advance that they are assumed to be "responsible") and have removed, with the legislature's blessing, the usual constitutional protections. I'd love to see a test, in a real court of law, of the constitutionality of such systems.
While driving to and from New Hampshire on personal business this past Saturday, I saw Massachusetts' latest "nanny" message on several portable changeable message sign (PCMS) boards.
It read "ONE EARBUD FOR CELLPHONE/STAY ALERT NO HEADPHONES".
While Massachusetts doesn't currently prohibit handheld cellphone use (except for texting) by drivers, it seems to me to be pretty stupid to put out a message that, despite its intentions, actually encourages it.
And, as with all the state's other "nanny" VMS messages, they insist on displaying it on nearly every PCMS along the highway, even where the boards are spaced only a few miles apart.
I would think that by encouraging the use of earbuds, they are encouraging hands-free use.
Earbuds don't work well if you only have one in. It just sounds WEIRD. That would not have gone over well during the era my iTrip didn't work and I had to use headphones for the iPod.
Quote from: mtantillo on September 30, 2013, 04:55:34 PM
I would think that by encouraging the use of earbuds, they are encouraging hands-free use.
So, why doesn't the message just encourage hands-free phone use? In this day and age where the average person is becoming less and less tech-savvy, do you really think that people who have never used "hands-free" are going to automatically understand the message?
And there is NO legitimate reason to repeat the message every five to seven miles. Among other things, this practice only serves to encourage drivers to ignore VMS messages - even when they're actually important for the driver to know.
Meanwhile, Ontario says it's an offense to so much as touch your cellphone while you're behind the wheel.
A woman was ticketed for picking her phone up off the floor and putting it on the passenger seat while she was stopped at a red light. The court upheld it. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/holding-cellphone-in-hand-while-driving-illegal-in-ontario-1.1871323)
Quote from: Duke87 on September 30, 2013, 09:07:54 PM
Meanwhile, Ontario says it's an offense to so much as touch your cellphone while you're behind the wheel.
A woman was ticketed for picking her phone up off the floor and putting it on the passenger seat while she was stopped at a red light. The court upheld it. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/holding-cellphone-in-hand-while-driving-illegal-in-ontario-1.1871323)
And I thought NY was the most unfair place in North America. I'll add Ontario to the list of places to not move to when I'm looking for a normal life.
Quote from: roadman on September 30, 2013, 04:41:25 PM
While driving to and from New Hampshire on personal business this past Saturday, I saw Massachusetts' latest "nanny" message on several portable changeable message sign (PCMS) boards.
It read "ONE EARBUD FOR CELLPHONE/STAY ALERT NO HEADPHONES".
I have a bit of a hearing problem, especially where it regards my wife's voice.I have trouble hearing her sometimes if we're in the same room. That problem is magnified on the telephone. She is pretty much the only person who calls me on my cellphone. And she is the only person from whom I'll answer a call if I am driving; anyone else can go to voicemail. A few years ago I bought and tried a couple of different Sennheiser Bluetooth headsets, which fit only in one ear. They were supposed to be good for people who have trouble hearing, but neither model worked well for me. For the last few years I have been using a set of Motorola Bluetooth headphones that seem to work very well. When she calls me when I'm traveling, I can hear her voice pretty well and she has no trouble hearing me above any road noise my vehicle generates. I typically use them anytime I'm driving, especially if I'm taking pictures as I drive or if I'm in one of the states that bans handheld cellphone usage.
So is the use of headphones for handsfree phone operation illegal in Massachusetts, or just discouraged?
Quote from: hbelkins on September 30, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
I have a bit of a hearing problem, especially where it regards my wife's voice.
QuoteI'm a man
Quote from: hbelkins on September 30, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 30, 2013, 04:41:25 PM
While driving to and from New Hampshire on personal business this past Saturday, I saw Massachusetts' latest "nanny" message on several portable changeable message sign (PCMS) boards.
It read "ONE EARBUD FOR CELLPHONE/STAY ALERT NO HEADPHONES".
I have a bit of a hearing problem, especially where it regards my wife's voice.I have trouble hearing her sometimes if we're in the same room. That problem is magnified on the telephone. She is pretty much the only person who calls me on my cellphone. And she is the only person from whom I'll answer a call if I am driving; anyone else can go to voicemail. A few years ago I bought and tried a couple of different Sennheiser Bluetooth headsets, which fit only in one ear. They were supposed to be good for people who have trouble hearing, but neither model worked well for me. For the last few years I have been using a set of Motorola Bluetooth headphones that seem to work very well. When she calls me when I'm traveling, I can hear her voice pretty well and she has no trouble hearing me above any road noise my vehicle generates. I typically use them anytime I'm driving, especially if I'm taking pictures as I drive or if I'm in one of the states that bans handheld cellphone usage.
So is the use of headphones for handsfree phone operation illegal in Massachusetts, or just discouraged?
Presumably just discouraged, since MA only bans texting and driving, not talking on the phone.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 30, 2013, 09:07:54 PM
Meanwhile, Ontario says it's an offense to so much as touch your cellphone while you're behind the wheel.
A woman was ticketed for picking her phone up off the floor and putting it on the passenger seat while she was stopped at a red light. The court upheld it. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/holding-cellphone-in-hand-while-driving-illegal-in-ontario-1.1871323)
What's the real story?
Honestly - if someone is picking up something from the car's floor and they put it into the seat next to them, the object would probably never be seen from a passing vehicle. But, let's backtrack...
In order for the cop to see this, he would have noticed her reaching down to grab something. Then, the only way to tell what that something was is if she held it high enough so that the cop in a car right next to her saw the object thru the window, and then pulled her over. In most cases, even if the cop was in an SUV, you really can't see down to the seat - OK, maybe if the cop was in the right lane, and this woman was in the left lane, the cop could look down and see the passenger seat. And then, in that case, the woman was stupid enough to grab the cell phone with a cop right next to her.
Oh, and how did the phone wind up on the floor in the first place? A normal vehicle slowing down wouldn't exert enough force for a phone to slide off the seat. And then why was the phone even out...why wasn't it in her purse or bag or something?
Oh, yeah. Let's hear the whole story. Because "I wasn't using the phone it just fell to the floor I picked it up I'm a good girl I never do anything wrong" doesn't fly.
MA law explicitly bans over-the-ear headsets and headsets in both ears, regardless of type. Wearing over-the-ear headsets is a primary offense.
From the Massachusetts Driver's Manual: "It is illegal to wear a radio headset or any headphones while driving. If you are 18 or older,
you can use one earplug for use with a cell phone."
I looked to find a more backdated story about this. Here's when she originally won the appeal: http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2248272-distracted-driving-ok-to-briefly-hold-cellphone-judge-rules/
QuoteWhile driving her SUV on the Don Valley Expressway, her cellphone dropped from the seat to the floor.
"She could not pick it up as she was driving," Nakatsuru said in his June 20 ruling.
OK, even better. She's driving along, and the phone just happened to fall from the seat to the floor. Yes, on occasion, something may fall here and there that wasn't touched. Since most cars have bucket seats, a phone that's placed on the seat, away from the very edge of the seat, probably isn't going to fall on its own.
QuoteWhen she stopped at a red light at Gerrard St. E. and River St., after exiting the expressway, she retrieved it from the floor.
"She did not use it nor did she intend to use it," the judge said.
A police officer, standing at the corner saw her glancing down and up at the red light several times. It appeared to the officer she was punching numbers on her phone, although he did not actually see this, the judge said.
He walked over to the passenger side front door and saw Kazemi holding an opened black Nokia flip cellphone in her right hand.
OK, even better. Let's say, for argument's sake, that when she was looking down several times, she was reaching for the phone and keeping an eye on the light. If it's that far away, leave it. Why would you need to have it close to you while driving? If it's on the floor, and you truly have no intention to use it, it's not going to go anywhere.
Oh, and she still never noticed the cop.
Yeah...I still call bullshit on her story.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2013, 01:25:49 PMWhy would you need to have it close to you while driving? If it's on the floor, and you truly have no intention to use it, it's not going to go anywhere.
I will always pick up anything that falls into the well where the pedals are. don't want stuff sliding around down there.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 01, 2013, 01:34:54 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2013, 01:25:49 PMWhy would you need to have it close to you while driving? If it's on the floor, and you truly have no intention to use it, it's not going to go anywhere.
I will always pick up anything that falls into the well where the pedals are. don't want stuff sliding around down there.
I will try to as well.
But then again, we're talking about her cell phone, which remember - she had no intention of using. But yet, it managed to fall to the floor from a seat. If it's on her seat, that sounds like she had plenty of intention of using it. And if it was on the passenger seat, then it's doubtful that the phone would roll around the floor towards the pedals.
You'd be surprised. I have crap falling off my seat into the floorboard all the time, and it's amazing where some of that stuff can roll to.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 08:22:20 PM
If we paid more attention and spent money on the crime problem instead of stupid crap like the drug war and speeding, maybe things really would be safer in this country.
Fixed it for you.
Post Merge: October 03, 2013, 03:34:53 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on September 25, 2013, 06:50:05 AM
Texting or talking on a rural interstate is really not dangerous.
Uh.......no.
Post Merge: October 03, 2013, 03:34:49 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2013, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 24, 2013, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 08:22:20 PM
I suspect a nationwide ban on texting while driving is not far down the pike, followed by a nationwide ban on using a handheld phone, followed by a nationwide ban on any phone use at all while driving.
I welcome said bans.
Yes. It's worked quite well with other laws. Every state bans driving thru stop signs without stopping, speeding, driving while intoxicted, etc, and NO ONE EVER BREAKS THOSE LAWS. EVER.
Ban it as much as you want. It'll still continue.
It won't stop it completely. Nobody said that it would. But it would greatly reduce it.
Post Merge: October 03, 2013, 03:34:44 AM
Quote from: Brandon on September 25, 2013, 01:35:40 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 24, 2013, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 08:22:20 PM
I suspect a nationwide ban on texting while driving is not far down the pike, followed by a nationwide ban on using a handheld phone, followed by a nationwide ban on any phone use at all while driving.
I welcome said bans.
Prohibition worked so well.
Alcohol use (which is drug use) was ingrained into our cultures for thousands of years. Texting has been mainstream for what, 10 years? Nip it in the bud.
Post Merge: October 03, 2013, 03:34:42 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 25, 2013, 04:35:41 PM
I think every photograph I've taken in New York was done while I was driving and I've never had an issue with it.
There's a lot of difference between snapping a picture, which can be done by feel without your eyes leaving the road, and texting where you constantly are looking away from the road.
Quote
Why am I not surprised? Would you also welcome bans on talking on a CB, smoking, eating, conversing with passengers or changing the radio station?
Slippery slope fallacy. All of those actions can be done by feel. It's all about the eyes.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 08:22:20 PMMeanwhile, talking on a CB or ham radio, changing the radio station, lighting a cigarette or talking to passengers in the car will continue to be legal.
Delaware has banned (albeit illegally, if you read the FCC regs) use of a CB radio while driving. They were going to extend that ban to ham radio as well, until it was pointed out by an amateur radio club that they *can't* do that, because ham radio (and CB as well) is a licensed radio service that is regulated and controlled solely by the FCC, and no state or local government can intervene. It's only a matter of time before they get popped big time for banning CB while driving.
I was on I-684 in Westchester yesterday and noticed one of these signs. Unfortunately, the sun glare was an issue and I didn't get a photo of it.
Quote from: bugo on October 03, 2013, 02:12:57 AM
There's a lot of difference between snapping a picture, which can be done by feel without your eyes leaving the road, and texting where you constantly are looking away from the road.
this is why I gave up texting while driving. on my old blackberry, I could type 90wpm without looking at all.
with an iPhone, I just have never been able to replicate the feat - not even at 9wpm, and not with all the autocorrect in the world. I had to have that visual feedback, and that is, indeed, extraordinarily distracting.
Quote from: bugo on October 03, 2013, 02:12:57 AM
Quote
Why am I not surprised? Would you also welcome bans on talking on a CB, smoking, eating, conversing with passengers or changing the radio station?
Slippery slope fallacy. All of those actions can be done by feel. It's all about the eyes.
Except for conversing with other passengers, which has been proven to be less dangerous since passengers can
see what's going on around you and react accordingly. Someone on the damn cell phone cannot.