PSA Distracted Driving month in April heavy enforcement

theAmazingKickstand said:

....
I giggled when you called me a self absorbed asshole and 2 minutes later sdaying its toally cool to go 65 with a brazillion people pissed off behind you. 55mph/65mph/ was invented when the roads were filled POS 6 ton 100hp 'merican cars and 69HP bugs. I don't see them relevent now. I also don't think that holding a phone to your head has anymore causation/correlation than pushing the radio buttons or smacking your kids around, etc. Holding stuff with your hands is not what cuases accidents.

Click to expand...

Missed it on all points. I never said it was cool to block traffic in the left lane. I was just pointing out, from the other post, that it was perfectly legal to do so at the speed limit. There is nothing an LEO could site, that would stand up in court, for someone going the speed limit in the left lane, unless they impede emergency (LEO) vehicles.

I got all your points brah. Inventing and enforcing silly rules is silly.

Mandatory Cone Of Silence around the driver's seat, and elimination of all buttons, levers, gauges, talking, bright lights, extended thoughts and personal biofeedback is the only way to be safe.

Half of my driving phone conversations involve me talking about road conditions and idiots and assholes around me. With all the CHP sitting around, I can't wait for April to be over.

I think I will drive around holding a banana up to my ear while talking into the bluetooth in the other.

iehawk said:

While there's that code you quoted, if they are driving within the speed limit and not too slow, they can argue they are okay to be on that lane, etc. It would be nice if it could be enforced, but it looks like it can't be at the moment.

Click to expand...

except that they actually went to the extent of adding the "notwithstanding the speed limit" part, and the phrasing of "the speed of traffic".

them arguing that them doing the speed limit entitles them to camp in the left lane is akin to the speeder arguing they shouldnt get a ticket because someone else was going faster.

clutchslip said:

Missed it on all points. I never said it was cool to block traffic in the left lane. I was just pointing out, from the other post, that it was perfectly legal to do so at the speed limit. There is nothing an LEO could site, that would stand up in court, for someone going the speed limit in the left lane, unless they impede emergency (LEO) vehicles.

Click to expand...

There are, often, on highways, signs that say "slower traffic keep right." If I worked the highway, I'd cite it every single fucking time I had the chance.

deathbug74 said:

except that they actually went to the extent of adding the "notwithstanding the speed limit" part, and the phrasing of "the speed of traffic".

them arguing that them doing the speed limit entitles them to camp in the left lane is akin to the speeder arguing they shouldnt get a ticket because someone else was going faster.

Click to expand...

Two problems I see, here. One is that the California Basic Speed Law supersedes this prima facie statement.

22349. (a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may
drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater
than 55 miles per hour unless that highway, or portion thereof, has
been posted for a higher speed by the Department of Transportation or
appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering and
traffic survey. For purposes of this subdivision, the following
apply:

Click to expand...

The second part is your argument is a bit awkward using the law that I just cited. I have lost an prima-facie argument in court, because no matter what, you cannot exceed the basic maximum speed. Not pulling over because you are doing the legal maximum speed, is not the same argument

Antarius said:

There are, often, on highways, signs that say "slower traffic keep right." If I worked the highway, I'd cite it every single fucking time I had the chance.

Click to expand...

See above.
Even if it is posted to move right, are you legally "slower traffic" if going the speed limit? Am I required to ignore a stop sign, because everyone behind me chooses not to stop? You could site the sign all you want. I am just arguing that if someone is going the maximum speed limit, they have a darn good argument that they can drive where ever they please. I don't think you can force me to break a law unless it is an emergency situation, can you?

clutchslip said:

Two problems I see, here. One is that the California Basic Speed Law supersedes this prima facie statement.

The second part is your argument is a bit awkward using the law that I just cited. I have lost an prima-facie argument in court, because no matter what, you cannot exceed the basic maximum speed. Not pulling over because you are doing the legal maximum speed, is not the same argument

See above.
Even if it is posted to move right, are you legally "slower traffic" if going the speed limit? Am I required to ignore a stop sign, because everyone behind me chooses not to stop? You could site the sign all you want. I am just arguing that if someone is going the maximum speed limit, they have a darn good argument that they can drive where ever they please. I don't think you can force me to break a law unless it is an emergency situation, can you?

Click to expand...

not pulling over because you're doing the maximum speed IS the real argument though. 21654 doesn't require speeding up to the speed of traffic, it requires moving right if you're going slower than the speed of traffic (so the stop sign example doesn't even fit).

at the same time, 21654 doesn't have an exemption for "if you're going the maximum legal speed" either; it just specifies moving right if you're going slower than the flow of traffic.

the fact that faster traffic is breaking the law by speeding doesn't change the fact that the slower driver is violating a completely different code by refusing to move.

clutchslip said:

See above.
Even if it is posted to move right, are you legally "slower traffic" if going the speed limit? Am I required to ignore a stop sign, because everyone behind me chooses not to stop? You could site the sign all you want. I am just arguing that if someone is going the maximum speed limit, they have a darn good argument that they can drive where ever they please. I don't think you can force me to break a law unless it is an emergency situation, can you?

Click to expand...

It doesn't say "slower traffic unless you're going the speed limit."

No one is forcing you to break the law, the sign is forcing you to move the fuck out of the lane when safe to do so. It doesn't say speed up and break the law, it says SLOWER traffic KEEP right.

The intent of the law is to keep traffic flowing, regardless of its speed. The reason being, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars widening our freeways, just so someone can sit in the far left lane, side by side with another vehicle, which is doing the same to the next two lanes, effectively turning a 4 lane highway into a 1 lane highway. That is why the slower traffic keep right sign exists.

It's not your concern if the vehicle behind you is speeding, your concern should be obeying the regulatory (by your I mean people violating the sign, I know you specifically aren't doing it) which is directly applicable to your driving. Which in this case, is the one telling you to keep right because there's a faster moving vehicle behind you.

I don't work the highway, but as I said, if I did... I would write that citation every-single-minute of every-single-day. Just about nothing else does more to fuck up traffic than left-lane bandits.

The catch-all that you would be violating is CVC 21461, failure to obey a regulatory sign.

Here, letz make it real easy so'z dickless egomaniacs can understand too.

Antarius said:

It doesn't say "slower traffic unless you're going the speed limit."

No one is forcing you to break the law, the sign is forcing you to move the fuck out of the lane when safe to do so. It doesn't say speed up and break the law, it says SLOWER traffic KEEP right.

The intent of the law is to keep traffic flowing, regardless of its speed. The reason being, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars widening our freeways, just so someone can sit in the far left lane, side by side with another vehicle, which is doing the same to the next two lanes, effectively turning a 4 lane highway into a 1 lane highway. That is why the slower traffic keep right sign exists.

It's not your concern if the vehicle behind you is speeding, your concern should be obeying the regulatory (by your I mean people violating the sign, I know you specifically aren't doing it) which is directly applicable to your driving. Which in this case, is the one telling you to keep right because there's a faster moving vehicle behind you.

I don't work the highway, but as I said, if I did... I would write that citation every-single-minute of every-single-day. Just about nothing else does more to fuck up traffic than left-lane bandits.

The catch-all that you would be violating is CVC 21461, failure to obey a regulatory sign.

Click to expand...

^THIS^
Glad sum one getz it. arty

clutchslip said:

Missed it on all points. I never said it was cool to block traffic in the left lane. I was just pointing out, from the other post, that it was perfectly legal to do so at the speed limit. There is nothing an LEO could site, that would stand up in court, for someone going the speed limit in the left lane, unless they impede emergency (LEO) vehicles.

Click to expand...

Do you just stand in the middle of a busy sidewalk just to fuck with people because it is legal?

Do you sit in a movie theatre and have a chat on your cell phone because there is no law against it?

When shopping, are you the guy that leaves your cart in the middle of an isle while you wander around just to fuck everyone else because there ain't a law against it?



The thing you are ignoring is traffic engineering (the whole point of staying right/passing left), basic common sense, and common decency.

Is your point: "I can be a arrogant prick and the cops can't write me up for it"?

Banjoboy said:

Here, letz make it real easy so'z dickless egomaniacs can understand too. ^

Click to expand...

You talking about yourself? It sounds like it.

Because apparently it isn't working.

You have a sign that says, "Slower Traffic Move to Right". The traffic to the right is moving slower than you. You have a sign that says, "Max Speed Limit 65". You are going 65. Which sign do you obey? You are not slower traffic, except to those who want to break the law. Apparently, some don't understand the basic legal premise that you cannot be forced to commit a crime. Again, my contention is that you would not be convicted, if you don't move over.

Brown81 said:

Is your point: "I can be a arrogant prick and the cops can't write me up for it"?

Click to expand...

You too, hey? You people apparently can't have a intellectual conversation without getting your speeding shorts in a bunch. I never said I wouldn't pull over, did I? Everyone is missing the damn legal point, because of your own biases and self-righteousness. Good luck in court with that nonsense.

Brown81 said:

Do you just stand in the middle of a busy sidewalk just to fuck with people because it is legal?

Do you sit in a movie theatre and have a chat on your cell phone because there is no law against it?

When shopping, are you the guy that leaves your cart in the middle of an isle while you wander around just to fuck everyone else because there ain't a law against it?



The thing you are ignoring is traffic engineering (the whole point of staying right/passing left), basic common sense, and common decency.

Is your point: "I can be a arrogant prick and the cops can't write me up for it"?

Click to expand...

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20328810/police-arrest-driver-texting-cellphone-baby-her-lap

A Hawthorne woman's three children were taken into protective custody after she was spotted texting while driving - with her infant daughter on her lap - on the freeway in Torrance, police said Wednesday.

Shawndeeia Joann Bowen, 29, was arrested about 12:30 p.m. Tuesday after another motorist called police. The driver spotted Bowen traveling north on the San Diego (405) Freeway near Crenshaw Boulevard, Torrance police Lt. Stephen D'anjou said.

The other driver stayed on the phone and followed Bowen as she exited the freeway and drove into Torrance. Police pulled the green Ford Taurus over at Hawthorne and Torrance boulevards.

In addition to the baby on her lap, the woman wasn't wearing a seat belt, and neither was her 4-year-old daughter. Her 2-year-old son was in an unsecured car seat, D'anjou said.

Bowen was arrested on suspicion of child endangerment. Her bail was set at more than $131,000.

D'anjou said the witness told police that Bowen had her hand on her cellphone against the steering wheel as she drove with the 1-year-old in her lap.

Department of Children and Family Services authorities arrived to take Bowen's children into custody.

The arrest occurred during law enforcement's Distracted Driving Awareness Month campaign targeting motorists who text or use hand-held cellphones while driving.

The minimum ticket is $159, with later offenses costing at least $279, police said.

Bowen also allegedly violated laws requiring children to be in car seats and secured by seat belts, police said.
Los Angeles County Superior Court records show Bowen was on probation when she was stopped. Records show she pleaded no contest Jan. 28, 2010, at the Compton courthouse to a child abuse charge. She was sentenced to five years probation on March 26, 2010.

California Department of Motor Vehicles records showed Bowen was driving on a suspended license and had a checkered driving history that includes accidents on Dec. 4, 2009, and Jan. 26, 2010.

Since 2009, police have repeatedly cited her during traffic stops for violations including having a defective windshield or rear window, having no insurance, failing to use her safety belts, failing to use child restraints, failing to stop behind a limit line, making an illegal turn against a posted sign, driving with defective lighting equipment, driving with a missing license plate and driving with a suspended license.

DMV records show she has repeatedly failed to appear in court.

clutchslip said:

You too, hey? You people apparently can't have a intellectual conversation without getting your speeding shorts in a bunch. I never said I wouldn't pull over, did I? Everyone is missing the damn legal point, because of your own biases and self-righteousness. Good luck in court with that nonsense.

Click to expand...

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "YOU PEOPLE"!!!!!????


Good Lord dude. Who gives a flying fuck about the "legal point"? You think we are fucking morons who can't understand the simple language you are using?

You are arguing for arguments sake. Just fucking move over bro!! How fucking difficult is that?

Nothing personal man, but sheesh bro!

mototireguy said:

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20328810/police-arrest-driver-texting-cellphone-baby-her-lap

A Hawthorne woman's three children were taken into protective custody

Click to expand...

Hells bells that woman should never be allowed to drive again.

clutchslip said:

You talking about yourself? It sounds like it.

Because apparently it isn't working.

You have a sign that says, "Slower Traffic Move to Right". The traffic to the right is moving slower than you. You have a sign that says, "Max Speed Limit 65". You are going 65. Which sign do you obey? You are not slower traffic, except to those who want to break the law. Apparently, some don't understand the basic legal premise that you cannot be forced to commit a crime. Again, my contention is that you would not be convicted, if you don't move over.

Click to expand...

And your premise would be wrong. A sign requiring you to move to the right does not become invalid because of a vehicle BEHIND you, speeding.

clutchslip said:

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Why are you SOL going sixty-five past the "Keep Right" sign?

Sixty-five is the maximum speed in California, unless otherwise posted. Thus, you can never be forced to travel faster than sixty-five, nor need to move, even if there are 25,000 people stacked-up behind you.

Click to expand...

If you come up behind someone doing 65 in a 65 (Max) zone, the "Slower Traffic Keep Right" is moot, even though "technically" they are violating a regulatory traffic sign. (CVC 21461) IOW, they shouldn't be cited for slowing you down.

What we talk'n about??