• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

VC 23123A Phone Usage - What do you think i do?

I use Bluetooth- but hold the phone most all the time; I'm always having to dial volume up/down, never seems to find the right level.
 
CaliGuy2004 said:
Actually according to the VC, section 23123 (e) "This section does not apply to a person when using a digital two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user..."

That however was repealed for January 1, 2011 in which it will no longer be allowed.

BTW for everyone wondering, i do have a bluetooth, but when i have that thing jammed in my ear it kinda blocks all the sounds from that ear and it makes everything sound weird and deep. Since i usually dont talk while driving i dont keep it in.

The way i see it if i do a TBD, worst case im found guilty and pay what i have to pay originaly... right?
Click to expand...

If you actually read the section, you will see that only applies to Nextel type radios if the driver has a commercial license and is driving a commercial cargo type vehicle. And as you stated, even that goes away soon.
 
NorCalBusa said:
I use Bluetooth- but hold the phone most all the time; I'm always having to dial volume up/down, never seems to find the right level.
Click to expand...

Still a violation, still a ticket. :thumbup
 
CaliGuy2004 said:
Like someone said above, if the VC said "operate" rather then drive thats a different story.
Click to expand...

Fallacious Reasoning:

Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
(And therefore I'm not guilty of using my mobile phone while operating a motor vehicle) LOL!

In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but is not true that all feathers are "bright"), this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.
 
Thank god we have high school dropouts interpreting the vehicle code for us.

Question: If a law was passed banning drivers from eating doughnuts while driving, would cops be exempt?
 
mthcal said:
Thank god we have high school dropouts interpreting the vehicle code for us.

Question: If a law was passed banning drivers from eating doughnuts while driving, would cops be exempt?
Click to expand...

troll.gif
 
honestly the "not driving while stopped" defense has been tried and used without success by DUI attorneys... you're not going to be trying anything new for this cell ticket
 
orbframe said:
honestly the "not driving while stopped" defense has been tried and used without success by DUI attorneys... you're not going to be trying anything new for this cell ticket
Click to expand...

If you are drunk at a stop light, it's pretty safe to assume you were drunk when the car was in motion. That logic does not apply to using a phone.

Do you think answering the phone at a stop light puts anyone in significant danger? Is it fair to punish someone for that? Really?
 
rodr said:
Do you think answering the phone at a stop light puts anyone in significant danger? Is it fair to punish someone for that? Really?
Click to expand...

Same could be said about carpool violators. They pose no significant threat, danger, or rolling hazard to society. Although there is a law and it is enforced, albeit sparingly.
 
Just a question...So you can hold your phone to dial though while driving or no?

"Drivers 18 and older can use cell phones only with a hands-free device, such as Blue Tooth, while talking, but both ears cannot be covered. In addition, dialing while driving is discouraged, although it is not prohibited, so long as a hands-free device is used while speaking. Using a handheld telephone’s speaker function is also allowed while driving. "

http://www.ucan.org/blog/telecommun...ndheld_cell_phone_usage_takes_effect_july_1st
 
NorCalBusa said:
Article in the Mercury over the weekend, about a Bill that's doubling all the cell phone penalties...Including $50 (plus fees) for simply "holding" the phone.
Click to expand...

Interesting. If this goes through, presumably it will be illegal to dial from the phone even if you are using a bluetooth headset...
 
rodr said:
If you are drunk at a stop light, it's pretty safe to assume you were drunk when the car was in motion. That logic does not apply to using a phone.

Do you think answering the phone at a stop light puts anyone in significant danger? Is it fair to punish someone for that? Really?
Click to expand...

Just because you're stopped at a stop light does not mean you're no longer operating the vehicle... the engine is still running and you're still in a traffic lane of a public thoroughfare.

and dangerous? i agree it's not a dangerous activity, but it's an illegal one. I am not the creator of laws nor am I the judge... I only enforce the laws...

hopefully no one will try the "well the nazi's were only doing their job" statement next ...
 
Last edited:
Broken record goes round and round.
 
blackandwhite said:
See I guess we will have to agree to disagree. So, according to your school of thought, If I am driving from point A to point B, and along they way I stop at three red lights, you are saying that everytime I stop for a red light, I am no longer driving? :shocker
Click to expand...

It's not my school of thought, it's the thought expressed in the court case you referenced: (Mercer (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753, 768.). Specifically:

"ection 23152 requires proof of volitional movement of a vehicle." (Mercer v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753, 768 [280 Cal.Rptr. 745, 809 P.2d 404].) However, the movement may be slight. (Padilla v. Meese (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1029 [229 Cal.Rptr. 310]; Henslee v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 445, 450-453 [214 Cal.Rptr. 249].) Further, driving may be established through circumstantial evidence. (Mercer, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 770; People v. Wilson (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 9 [222 Cal.Rptr. 540] [sufficient evidence of driving where the vehicle was parked on the freeway, over a mile from the on-ramp, and the defendant, the sole occupant of the vehicle, was found in the driver's seat with the vehicle's engine running].) See CALCRIM No. 2241, Driver and Driving Defined
Click to expand...


In other words, with a DUI you can prove based on circumstantial evidence that the driver had previously moved the car while drunk. A phone call however can take place entirely while the car is not in motion - is not being driven. It is useless to show that the car was driven to the stop light because the phone was not in operation while the car was driven to the stop light.

You can read more about it here: http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/2100/2241.html.

You're free to disagree but that has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter.
 
Last edited:
what said:
It's not my school of thought, it's the thought expressed in the court case you referenced: (Mercer (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753, 768.). Specifically:



In other words, with a DUI you can prove based on circumstantial evidence that the driver had previously moved the car while drunk. A phone call however can take place entirely while the car is not in motion - is not being driven. It is useless to show that the car was driven to the stop light because the phone was not in operation while the car was driven to the stop light.

You can read more about it here: http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/2100/2241.html.

You're free to disagree but that has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter.
Click to expand...

We haven't seen a successful defense of 23123 yet by using this "obvious fact" because the traffic courts continue to rule that while you're sitting at a stop sign/light, in a traffic lane, you're still in *control* of the vehicle and need to be able to respond to whats going on around you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top