Re: FW: [CABOforum] Legality of taking photos while driving [Tempted to take a photo of another driver behaving badly? Resist the urge
Daniel Gutierrez
The officer was riding his badge. There is only one posted speed limit, and this "interpretation" of the basic speed law is nonsensical. If zero was really a safe speed, the bicyclist could stop in the center of a lane (travelling at zero mph) and be safe. Of course this is absurd. What the officer is really trying to say is that he can decide what streets are accessible to cyclists, when in reality that is the purview of the state legislature.
- Dan Gutierrez -
From: "DAG" <dan.gu...@charter.net>
To: "'Dan Work'" <Daniel.A....@Aero.Org>,
Date: 05/30/2012 01:11 PM
Subject: FW: [CABOforum] Legality of taking photos while driving [Tempted to take a photo of another driver behaving badly? Resist the urge
From: cabo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cabo...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of David Whiteman
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:54 PM
To: michae...@pobox.com
Cc: rms...@gmail.com; cabo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Legality of taking photos while driving [Tempted
to take a photo of another driver behaving badly? Resist the urge
Before any of the cell phone laws were passed I have heard several officer say that they could always cite someone under the Basic Speed law, if the circumstances warranted it. If you were holding a cell phone, or sandwich, or electric razor, or newspaper, while driving, you are driving unsafely at any speed. The speed limit becomes effectively "zero.". So you are cited for that. To continue the analogy, I remember one officer told me at a community meeting, that a bicyclist riding on what he considered to be an unsafe street for bike riding that the speed limit for bicycles, and not cars is zero. So you have to walk the bike. I heard this a long time ago. Way back before I heard of CABO, or even before I became an adult. I don't know if the officer ever cited anyone in that way, or if he was just using hyperbole to make a point.
Sent from my iPad
On May 30, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com>
wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:23 PM,
Bob Shanteau <rms...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It wouldn't be the first time a code section was redundant. Consider that the exceptions in CVC 21202 were only meant to clarify the meaning of the word "practicable".
If 23123.5 was meant to clarify and specify the reasons you can't touch a "phone" while driving, it's an oddly specific and limited list: "write, send, or read a text-based communication". That's not clarification, that's one more prohibition.
By 2008, Senator Simitian would have been aware of all the things a "phone" can do. He could have written a law that specifies exactly when a driver can or can't touch a "phone", e.g. to answer, dial, or hang up.
And he could have included similar non-phone devices such as MP3 players and GPS navigators, specifying exactly when a driver can touch one of those, e.g. to play/pause a song.
Instead, we have a very specific list of things you can't do: talk, listen, write, send, read.
Enforcement is a whole 'nother issue, of course. An officer could notice signs of distracted driving even if you're not touching any gadgets. Or they could see you holding a gadget in your hand, but they have no way of knowing if you're holding a cheap disposable camera or fancy smartphone.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.