NY to introduce "TEXT STOP X MILES" signs along highways

[SidS1045]

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.

http://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.

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.

FINALLY!  A cite that's on point.

[hbelkins]

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.

[empirestate]

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.

[_Simon]

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.

[NE2]

When the phone is mounted on your windshield, it's no more dangerous than eyeing your speedometer.

[citation needed]

[SP Cook]

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.

[SidS1045]

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.

[roadman]

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.

[mtantillo]

I would think that by encouraging the use of earbuds, they are encouraging hands-free use. 

[vdeane]

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.

[roadman]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[mc78andrew]

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.

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. 

[hbelkins]

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?

[Alps]

I have a bit of a hearing problem, especially where it regards my wife's voice.

I'm a man

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.

[SidS1045]

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."

[jeffandnicole]

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/

While 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.

When 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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

I will always pick up anything that falls into the well where the pedals are.  don't want stuff sliding around down there.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[bugo]

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

Texting or talking on a rural interstate is really not dangerous.

Uh.......no.
Post Merge: October 03, 2013, 03:34:49 AM

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

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

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.

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.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

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.

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.

[dgolub]

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.