|
|
Post by Water Lady on Feb 10, 2011 19:26:14 GMT -4
Did we or did we not just see a change in the law making it illegal to talk on your cell phone when driving??? Why does it seem (at least it does to me,) that the only people who didn't get the memo are the same idiots that cost us the freedom to do it in the first place! I mean really...if it wasn't the cell phone, with the flapping, waving hand gestures, it would be mascara or a paperback book, or a map or magazine or slapping at the children in the back seat, or shoving a double quarter-pounder with cheese in their faces...or fixing the hair or bee-bopping to rap so loud it makes every car within a half-mile radius vibrate, or picking their nose... I pull over to use my cell phone now. Why? because IT'S THE LAW! What is wrong with the rest of these morons...  Normally, I would say "rant over" at this point. Maybe I am not finished, but I know I've come to the right place! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 10, 2011 19:48:05 GMT -4
Not to worry, it will be a primary offense soon and this too will stop. I hate new/more laws but this is the way our legislators work now, All common sense is gone, 16 year old girls go on Oprah to show how well they TWD.
Seat belts started out as a secondary offense and soon went to a primary one, cell phones are sure to follow the same path.
|
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Feb 10, 2011 22:52:05 GMT -4
Question.......With the law saying that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and that you are not required to testify against yourself, how are the cops going to prove you were on the cell phone talking? Not when it's obvious, but when the cop for what ever reason thinks you are on the phone.........Technically water lady would be in violation of the proposed new law if her motor was running, and she had a hand on the steering wheel while talking on the cell. This would be a bad law......Drivers licenses should not be issued until the person is qualified to drive, and has knowledge of the law, and it's penalties.....The MVA issued 6,000 licenses to illegals for over five years. Talk about a safety issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Feb 10, 2011 23:29:17 GMT -4
Question.......With the law saying that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and that you are not required to testify against yourself, how are the cops going to prove you were on the cell phone talking? Not when it's obvious, but when the cop for what ever reason thinks you are on the phone.........Technically water lady would be in violation of the proposed new law if her motor was running, and she had a hand on the steering wheel while talking on the cell. This would be a bad law......Drivers licenses should not be issued until the person is qualified to drive, and has knowledge of the law, and it's penalties.....The MVA issued 6,000 licenses to illegals for over five years. Talk about a safety issue. According to a couple friends of mine with the MSP (and yes, it's true...some of them are really our friends...) "technically," Water Lady would not be in violation of any law if my car was on the side of any road and parked. Even with the engine running. God help us! We live in Maryland...I don't think anyone at the MVA is overly concerned about qualifications to drive when we don't seem to give a rat's a$$ about the legality of their citizenship... And, if we were living in fear of this "paranoid police state" that would just pull us over and accuse us of using a cell phone while driving, WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE STILL DRIVING AND TALKING ON THEIR CELL PHONES??? Please Pete...stay on topic! |
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Feb 11, 2011 4:05:06 GMT -4
Water Lady......If your MSP friends told you that, they are wrong. Wearing the badge does not over ride the truth. If you are in your car with the engine running you are not parked, you are considered stopped. That's why the signs at fire lanes say no stopping rather than no parking. Parked means that the driver is not in the car. Ask your MSP friend to tell you how many people have been arrested for DWI for sleeping, or just sitting in a legally parked car with the motor running to keep warn even while in the passenger seat. Would I be correct in saying that you are unwilling to disclose the name of your MSP friend? YOU SEEM QUICK TO BELIEVE WHAT'S NOT THE TRUTH RATHER THAN WHAT IS THE TRUTH. Thank You.
|
|
|
|
Post by harleyd on Feb 11, 2011 18:47:33 GMT -4
YOU SEEM QUICK TO BELIEVE WHAT'S NOT THE TRUTH RATHER THAN WHAT IS THE TRUTH. Thank You. Speak for yourself  and your welcome! |
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Feb 12, 2011 8:46:55 GMT -4
YOU SEEM QUICK TO BELIEVE WHAT'S NOT THE TRUTH RATHER THAN WHAT IS THE TRUTH. Thank You. Speak for yourself and your welcome! Is what I'm saying true or false little man? |
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Feb 12, 2011 9:14:50 GMT -4
Come on back Water lady and harleyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by goobastank on Feb 12, 2011 9:15:16 GMT -4
Actually, Pete1, what you're saying is false. Water Lady and her friends are correct. See below links for information: Good article regarding cell phone law: somd.com/news/headlines/2010/12543.shtmlMD Motor Vehicle Fine Schedule, scroll to page 56: www.courts.state.md.us/district/selfhelp/dccr090chargeonly.pdfIn case you're having trouble locating the specific charges in question, here is the wording from the MD transportation Article: 21 1124.2 d2 Driver using hands to use handheld telephone while motor vehicle is in motion.21 1124.1 b Driver (writing, sending) a text message while veh. is in motion or in the travel portion of hwyBroken down, this means that "Water Lady would not be in violation of any law if her car was on the side of any road and parked. Even with the engine running." My two cents. Ya'll have a great day!! |
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Feb 12, 2011 9:40:57 GMT -4
Operating a motor vehicle means that the motor is running, and that you have control of the vehicle. That's how the cops get away with the DWI charges that I mentioned. Prove me wrong my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by goobastank on Feb 12, 2011 10:08:52 GMT -4
Uh oh, Pete, I totally forgot that you're not rational or logical and can't hold to one specific topic at once, so let me rephrase so it fits the topic of the thread.
"Water Lady would not be in violation of 'using hands to use handheld telephone while motor vehicle is in motion' if her car was on the side of any road and parked. Even with the engine running."
Pete, nowhere does it say "operating a motor vehicle." There is a word in the English language (actually, there are many) that it would be useful for you to learn, comprehend, and apply:
"context"
1. text surrounding word or passage: the words, phrases, or passages that come before and after a particular word or passage in a speech or piece of writing and help to explain its full meaning
2. surrounding conditions: the circumstances or events that form the environment within which something exists or takes place
Learn it, know it, live it. Maybe people would appreciate you and your opinions if you understood context.
As for your tangent, you are still wrong. The courts have upheld that in specific circumstances sitting in a parked motor vehicle with the engine turned OFF, could still be considered operating a motor vehicle. Does that blow your mind or what?! For once, surprise us and do some actual research on current case-law before you comment on things which you do not know. If you want to nitpick, I can throw down just as well as you.
I've extended my two cents to four and thus have overdrawn my account. Have a great day!!
|
|
|
|
Post by harleyd on Feb 12, 2011 11:20:24 GMT -4
Speak for yourself and your welcome! Is what I'm saying true or false little man? False...round man. |
|
|
|
Post by harleyd on Feb 12, 2011 11:21:56 GMT -4
Actually, Pete1, what you're saying is false. Water Lady and her friends are correct. See below links for information: Good article regarding cell phone law: somd.com/news/headlines/2010/12543.shtmlMD Motor Vehicle Fine Schedule, scroll to page 56: www.courts.state.md.us/district/selfhelp/dccr090chargeonly.pdfIn case you're having trouble locating the specific charges in question, here is the wording from the MD transportation Article: 21 1124.2 d2 Driver using hands to use handheld telephone while motor vehicle is in motion.21 1124.1 b Driver (writing, sending) a text message while veh. is in motion or in the travel portion of hwyBroken down, this means that "Water Lady would not be in violation of any law if her car was on the side of any road and parked. Even with the engine running." My two cents. Ya'll have a great day!! See what I mean Petey. Someone who knows what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by harleyd on Feb 12, 2011 11:25:04 GMT -4
Uh oh, Pete, I totally forgot that you're not rational or logical and can't hold to one specific topic at once, so let me rephrase so it fits the topic of the thread. "Water Lady would not be in violation of 'using hands to use handheld telephone while motor vehicle is in motion' if her car was on the side of any road and parked. Even with the engine running."
Pete, nowhere does it say "operating a motor vehicle." There is a word in the English language (actually, there are many) that it would be useful for you to learn, comprehend, and apply: "context" 1. text surrounding word or passage: the words, phrases, or passages that come before and after a particular word or passage in a speech or piece of writing and help to explain its full meaning 2. surrounding conditions: the circumstances or events that form the environment within which something exists or takes place Learn it, know it, live it. Maybe people would appreciate you and your opinions if you understood context. As for your tangent, you are still wrong. The courts have upheld that in specific circumstances sitting in a parked motor vehicle with the engine turned OFF, could still be considered operating a motor vehicle. Does that blow your mind or what?! For once, surprise us and do some actual research on current case-law before you comment on things which you do not know. If you want to nitpick, I can throw down just as well as you. I've extended my two cents to four and thus have overdrawn my account. Have a great day!! Like I said, someone who actually knows what he is talking about petey. Possibly from a real POLICE Officer  |
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Feb 13, 2011 15:32:55 GMT -4
I stand by my earlier post. The information I was given is CORRECT. That should be enough for most, considering my statements were backed by others who posted official language about the law.
If a police officer found me passed out behind the wheel (or in the passenger seat) on the side of the road, car in park, with engine running (or not) that...would be a different issue entirely. Perhaps I would need to prove that someone else drove me to that location and left me alone in the car? Who knows?
If you want to talk about DWI, maybe start another thread, but comparing the two is a bit like comparing apples to oranges.
|
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Feb 13, 2011 17:59:47 GMT -4
I stand by my earlier post. The information I was given is CORRECT. That should be enough for most, considering my statements were backed by others who posted official language about the law. If a police officer found me passed out behind the wheel (or in the passenger seat) on the side of the road, car in park, with engine running (or not) that...would be a different issue entirely. Perhaps I would need to prove that someone else drove me to that location and left me alone in the car? Who knows? If you are behind the wheel on the side of the road with the motor running If you want to talk about DWI, maybe start another thread, but comparing the two is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. If you are behind the wheel on the side of the road with the motor running you are technically operating the vehicle. You don't have to be moving to be considered operating. Red Lights-Stop Signs-Traffic Jams-Fast Food Window etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Feb 13, 2011 18:18:06 GMT -4
...while the vehicle is in motion...Pete - are you completely incapable of having an "Ah-ha" moment? This whole exchange is worse than a dumb blond joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by harleyd on Feb 13, 2011 18:24:23 GMT -4
...while the vehicle is in motion...Pete - are you completely incapable of having an "Ah-ha" moment? This whole exchange is worse than a dumb blond joke. He is capable of having his own moments, but not intelligent ones. |
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Feb 13, 2011 19:45:32 GMT -4
...while the vehicle is in motion...Pete - are you completely incapable of having an "Ah-ha" moment? This whole exchange is worse than a dumb blond joke. Distracted driving is already against the law. Hand held cell phone use which does not inhibit the operators ability to drive safely should not be against the law. When the bridge brings the traffic to a complete stop the cell phones come out. Some Barnie Fife will issue a ticket for operating with a hand held cell phone. ...The following shows that you don't have to be driving to be operating. MOTOR VEHICLE, OPERATING A person "operates" a motor vehicle when, while in the vehicle, (he/she) intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency that alone or in sequence sets in motion the motive power of the vehicle. Commentary: This definition of "operating a motor vehicle" originated in State v. Swift, 125 Conn. 399, 401-03 (1939). Swift established that "'operating' encompasses a broader range of conduct than does 'driving.'" State v. Haight, 279 Conn. 546, 551 (2007); State v. Angueira, 51 Conn. App. 782, 786 (1999). No intent to move the vehicle is required. State v. Ducatt, 22 Conn. App. 88, 92, cert. denied, 217 Conn. 804 (1990); see also State v. Wiggs, 60 Conn. App. 551, 554 (2000) (intent to drive is not an element of operation). Any step taken in the sequence necessary to engage the motive power of a vehicle is sufficient to come within the definition of "operating." State v. Cyr, 291 Conn. 49, 56-62 (2009) (starting the engine with a remote starter is sufficient); State v. Haight, supra, 279 Conn. 555-56 (inserting the key in the ignition is sufficient |
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Feb 13, 2011 19:56:29 GMT -4
Well that just clears up everything! Now I get it! Is like defining what the meaning of "is" is... |
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 13, 2011 20:26:13 GMT -4
Given Pete's post, I'm glad of two things:
1. I'm glad the law doesn't state that it is illegal to use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle (as pointed out by goobastank)
2. I'm glad I don't live in Connecticut.
|
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Feb 13, 2011 20:30:35 GMT -4
Given Pete's post, I'm glad of two things: 1. I'm glad the law doesn't state that it is illegal to use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle (as pointed out by goobastank) 2. I'm glad I don't live in Connecticut.  Priceless! |
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Feb 14, 2011 3:30:39 GMT -4
Given Pete's post, I'm glad of two things: 1. I'm glad the law doesn't state that it is illegal to use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle (as pointed out by goobastank) 2. I'm glad I don't live in Connecticut. You are correct, but the legislators are moving at this time to make it illegal. So we agree. |
|
and your welcome!
Priceless!
