Toyota FJ Cruiser Forum banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of September's Ride of the Month Challenge!
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Alright you all have probably heard and seen it posted on the amber alert marques.

In a spot on the news a CHP officer states that the law is only ticketing those that are holding their hand set to their ear. You can legally text, dial, surf, but you cannot talk into the phone, Unless, UNLESS, you are using a PTT (push to talk) and are a class A or B driver.

Question: Does the mobile Ham qualify as a PTT and if so do I need to get a class A or B license to be legal.

Calling all LEO's I need your authoritative perspective on this one please, for all of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,822 Posts
Im pretty sure most CHP will be issuing warning tickets for at least a month.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
Im pretty sure most CHP will be issuing warning tickets for at least a month.
CHP has stated as of midnight they will write tickets, no warning. San Diego and Oceanside are the only two so far that have stated they will warn for a bit first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
yea i love it.

every cop you pass......

is on the PHONE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
how are they gonna prove you are actually talking?
That's a really good point. I'll bet that there will be some testing of this. Also, the first offense is a $20 fine. The paperwork, court costs, etc, are WAY more than that. I'm not sure what kind of deterrent this is supposed to be.

Also, you can dial, text, answer, and hangup the phone. You just can not put it up to your ear and hold it there. Crazy.

AAA magazine is running some articles with research data showing that these hands free devices (ear buds, speaker phones) actually CAUSE more accidents than just a regular phone call.

Crazy.

This all goes to show you that the politicians are WAY overpaid. Or, maybe it's the cell phone accessory guys that are the 'lobbyist' this time?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
its just all stupid! i think quite honestly.....it'll come into play when and if you are in a serious car accident.........your phone records will be brought into question/court.........and if you are or were on the phone...BINGO...you'll be busted. OR........if you are doing something wrong while driving...it gives the officer a reason to pull you over. just more legal schmegal........

my hubby is a cop for sdpd.....the news (last week) mentioned "warnings" for a specified amount of time and he laughed and said.......AS ALWAYS THE NEWS KNOWS BEFORE WE DO.........believe me.......the cops hate it too and it wont be made too big a deal by most officers.....yes...they talk on their phones too. its a new law....give it some time and it'll blow over. many states have it now (NY has it and everytime i go there to visit family...everyone is still on their phones...including the cops). :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,303 Posts
It's a good law that is long overdue! :clap:

Estimates are that getting people to stop holding a phone to their ear will reduce auto deaths by about 10%. That's reason enough to pass the law. I'll be happy just to not have to drive around stupid drivers who don't realize they're blocking traffic or driving out of their lane while yapping on the phone.

Unlike Washington, in California you can be stopped and ticketed just for talking on the phone. A bill has just been submitted in the legislature to eliminate the loophole for text messaging by year's end. It would have been better just to pass a bill to prohibit ANY use of a phone while driving (which they did do for kids under 18), but I guess they weren't smart enough (or didn't have enough political clout) to do that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,779 Posts
I just saw a guy pullout into an intersection (while he had a red light) today while the cross traffic had a turn signal and almost ran into three cars. As he drove by i noticed he had a cell phone to his ear. Think what you may, i think it is a good law. If it comes into effect here in Louisiana, doubtful, i will use my ear piece from then on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
550 Posts
I posted this in off-topic too...but since it's also being discussed here....

FREE HEADSETS - Cell Phones While Driving in California

For those without headsets, there is a program where you can get a FREE HEADSET and only pay for shipping.

You can order one at: :: FreeHeadset.org :: Get a FREE headset for your cell phone!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,128 Posts
I live in one of those area where you rarely see police... Today i have seen more in 2 hours than i have seen in 3 weeks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
I agree that people talking on the phone while driving (most of us are guilty of it at one time or another) is a bad idea and should be outlawed. I just think that this law missed the boat.

Whether you are guilty or not would need to be evidenced by a photograph, or it is only based on the word of the officer. This provides a nice big door for a challenge to every ticket handed out if there is not photo. Even more court costs and case load for a system that is already overwhelmed.

Evidence from phone records won't work, because it is not illegal to talk on the phone, just to hold the phone to your head. IE - ear bud, blue tooth, speaker phone, etc.

The fact that text messaging is still allowed, is just insane.

No problem with the overall idea, just a very bureaucratic bungling of the great idea.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,303 Posts
Whether you are guilty or not would need to be evidenced by a photograph, or it is only based on the word of the officer. This provides a nice big door for a challenge to every ticket handed out if there is not photo. Even more court costs and case load for a system that is already overwhelmed.
No photographic evidence is required.

All the officer has to do is testify that s/he "saw" you talking on the phone while driving. I don't think it will be necessary to produce phone records either (although that might be a defense if the time of the violation does not correspond to your phone records). The judge (or judicial officer), who is the finder is fact, can reasonably conclude that that you were talking on the phone, as long as the officer says he saw you hold it to your ear while moving your lips and driving.

End of story. Next case!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,479 Posts
The news radio was talking about doctors think that hearing loss due to excessive volume on blue tooth headsets will rise. It might be safer, but people will talk for longer periods. At least they won't spill their drink as they now have one more hand to hold on to stuff.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top