Guilty until proven innocent
#61
(07-03-2011, 06:30 PM)Uncle Wrote:
(07-03-2011, 08:10 AM)HoneyhalfWitch Wrote:
(07-03-2011, 07:04 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(07-03-2011, 06:47 AM)HoneyhalfWitch Wrote: Cell phone use should be against the law for any driver. Business or not. Everyone can use Hands Free Devices and should.

If you feel that way then I think that you would be in favor of outlawing eating while driving unless someone or something feeds you.

I've never really thought of it actually.. I just know there's been a lot of injuries and death due to cell phone use while driving and laws are in place to try and prevent it. If a study is shown that eating while driving causes accidents then yes I'd be for it. After all, driving isn't a right. It's a privilege. On edit I see Wonky posted pretty much what I posted but will leave my comments here anyway.

I wonder if anyone has done any statistical analysis on the age of the increase in accidents due to cell phone use. I would bet that under 20 years old would be the case. Teenage drivers + cell phones = disaster. Us older folks have learned to handle the multi-tasking required to stay alive on the road.

You kidding? I'm older. Can't fart and chew gum at the same time. (Credit to Lydon Johnson)
Reply
#62
I hate moving the little thing back and forth between my mouth and my ear. They should make them longer so you can talk and listen at the same time.
Reply
#63
With a rotary dial, too. Smiling
Reply
#64
(07-04-2011, 10:38 PM)PonderThis Wrote: With a rotary dial, too. Smiling

I found one with a crank, you might be more used to that

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_k7MQSLtnr_eStDVE7B0...ADIO49yPzh]
Reply
#65
My phones already come with a crank. Smiling
Reply
#66
(07-04-2011, 09:59 AM)tvguy Wrote: What do you mean it's either dangerous or not?, It is and a great many studies have verified that it is.
Why provide exemptions? I believe The exemptions were mostly intended for people such as emergency workers, fire trucks , ambulances etc. I don't know why the agricultural drivers need an exemption
They are not for people who sell Mary Kay out of their car or real estate.
The law is not a "bad law" like you claim but rather has a poorly written exemption that will be re written and made law in Jan 2012 like I said earlier.

Slow down big guy, that's what I'm sayin..It is a bad law cause farmer drive slow....get it.....Why farmers.......See ......bad. I digress. A poorly written law isn't a bad law?
When they fix it will be a better law, a compromise, not a better bad law, Will that do?
Reply
#67
(07-04-2011, 06:53 PM)PonderThis Wrote: No one will be surprised to find I don't own a cell phone either. (I hate looking at those little numbers, and they're all so darn complicated, too). I did give in and get a landline recently though.

I'm surprised. I thought it was actually cheaper to get a cell than a land line. Plus you seem to have several business interests so it's hard to imagine you not having a phone to make or receive calls unless you are at home and inside your casa in the boonies.
Unless of course you don't have cell tower near enough.
Reply
#68
(07-02-2011, 06:30 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote: So it finally happened. I received a ticket for talking on the cell phone while driving. I was not in my log truck at the time but I was on company business.

According to Oregon law, it is legal to use a hand held cell phone while driving if you are using it in the course of your job. So now, it is up to ME to go and prove that I was on a business call at the time of the citation. I have already downloaded my bill detail and I will have no problem beating this ticket. My question is: Why should the burden of proof be on me?

The officer that cited me was very emphatic about the evidence that I would need to prove that I was on a business call. Is there something about traffic court that absolves the authorities from having to prove their case? I feel that I should be able to go into court... plead not guilty... and the cops should have to prove that I was NOT on a business call.

I know that this thread will likely get into an argument about the safety of cell phone use. For me, using a cell phone while driving is totally safe. Some of you out there that are 100% focused on driving should not be allowed to drive. IMHO, if you can't manage a phone conversation while driving you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel at all. But that's another subject.

So back to my question: Is it really my burden to prove my innocence?
The problem is that driving a motor vehicle is not considered a right, but a privilege. That's why we are required to have licenses to drive; therefore, the legal system is allowed to treat traffic infractions differently than real crimes like assault or murder.

One of the things that really pisses me off is that the police officer's testimony is automatically considered to be "prima facie", meaning that the officer's sayso is considered adequate evidence to proceed against the driver. Thirty years ago, I was driving into Ashland when a maroon Subaru went blasting past me doing at least 55 in a 30 mph zone. Seconds later, I saw flashing red and blue lights in my rear view mirror (and thought "for once, a cop is there when there should be one."), only to have the cop pull ME over for speeding. When I mentioned that I was going the speed limit (I might have been doing all of 32 MPH at worst), he said, "Don't give me this s**t about some 'maroon Subaru!'" I did manage to get the ticket reduced because of my driving record, but the cop was just as beligerent in traffic court as he had been when he pulled me over.

Good luck, GCG!

Reply
#69
(07-05-2011, 08:25 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(07-04-2011, 06:53 PM)PonderThis Wrote: No one will be surprised to find I don't own a cell phone either. (I hate looking at those little numbers, and they're all so darn complicated, too). I did give in and get a landline recently though.

I'm surprised. I thought it was actually cheaper to get a cell than a land line. Plus you seem to have several business interests so it's hard to imagine you not having a phone to make or receive calls unless you are at home and inside your casa in the boonies.
Unless of course you don't have cell tower near enough.

I am out of cell phone range, and I sold or gave away most of my business interests too. I've simplified my life more than most people ever will.
Reply
#70
(07-05-2011, 12:20 PM)publius Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 06:30 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote: So it finally happened. I received a ticket for talking on the cell phone while driving. I was not in my log truck at the time but I was on company business.

According to Oregon law, it is legal to use a hand held cell phone while driving if you are using it in the course of your job. So now, it is up to ME to go and prove that I was on a business call at the time of the citation. I have already downloaded my bill detail and I will have no problem beating this ticket. My question is: Why should the burden of proof be on me?

The officer that cited me was very emphatic about the evidence that I would need to prove that I was on a business call. Is there something about traffic court that absolves the authorities from having to prove their case? I feel that I should be able to go into court... plead not guilty... and the cops should have to prove that I was NOT on a business call.

I know that this thread will likely get into an argument about the safety of cell phone use. For me, using a cell phone while driving is totally safe. Some of you out there that are 100% focused on driving should not be allowed to drive. IMHO, if you can't manage a phone conversation while driving you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel at all. But that's another subject.

So back to my question: Is it really my burden to prove my innocence?
The problem is that driving a motor vehicle is not considered a right, but a privilege. That's why we are required to have licenses to drive; therefore, the legal system is allowed to treat traffic infractions differently than real crimes like assault or murder.

One of the things that really pisses me off is that the police officer's testimony is automatically considered to be "prima facie", meaning that the officer's sayso is considered adequate evidence to proceed against the driver. Thirty years ago, I was driving into Ashland when a maroon Subaru went blasting past me doing at least 55 in a 30 mph zone. Seconds later, I saw flashing red and blue lights in my rear view mirror (and thought "for once, a cop is there when there should be one."), only to have the cop pull ME over for speeding. When I mentioned that I was going the speed limit (I might have been doing all of 32 MPH at worst), he said, "Don't give me this s**t about some 'maroon Subaru!'" I did manage to get the ticket reduced because of my driving record, but the cop was just as beligerent in traffic court as he had been when he pulled me over.

Good luck, GCG!

Pubby, you are a bit late to the party with the privilege/right point, but we will cut you slack because you still labor for your bread and have time restrictions.

But I do have strong personal opinions about the "belligerent cop" issue. We thought, years ago, that the way to attract good people to law enforcement was to pay them well. (It is true that 50 years ago they were not well paid). Well, we did that. By any standard, policemen are paid well. And still, we have a minority of cops who are belligerent at best. Your example is good because it shows the attitude that is too well demonstrated in many police forces.
I don't have an answer. Many feel that intense psychological screening is the answer. That can be very expensive, and many are not convinced that the "science" of that evaluation is good enough for the task.

I have no idea if this was a contributing factor to GcG's stop or not. Let's hope not.
It's a fact, I guess, that one way to make sure our civil liberties are not eroded is to contest these things as best we can when we know we are in the right. Even if we lose, we press the point, and perhaps in the long run, win.

A good segue to Leonard's Cohen's "Democracy is Coming to America".
Reply
#71
(07-04-2011, 07:55 PM)chuck white Wrote: I hate moving the little thing back and forth between my mouth and my ear. They should make them longer so you can talk and listen at the same time.

LaughingLaughingLaughing

Reply
#72
(07-05-2011, 12:20 PM)publius Wrote: The problem is that driving a motor vehicle is not considered a right, but a privilege. That's why we are required to have licenses to drive; therefore, the legal system is allowed to treat traffic infractions differently than real crimes like assault or murder.

That pretty much explains it... although it certainly does open the door for abuse of authority.

The sheriff that pulled me over was not rude or abusive in any way. I was so blatant about using my phone that he almost HAD to pull me over. I think that he would have gave me a warning if his supervisor had not instructed him that they were to cite all violators.

I won't really lose much over this deal. It's just a hassle that I don't need.



Reply
#73
(07-05-2011, 07:01 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(07-05-2011, 12:20 PM)publius Wrote: The problem is that driving a motor vehicle is not considered a right, but a privilege. That's why we are required to have licenses to drive; therefore, the legal system is allowed to treat traffic infractions differently than real crimes like assault or murder.

That pretty much explains it... although it certainly does open the door for abuse of authority.

The sheriff that pulled me over was not rude or abusive in any way. I was so blatant about using my phone that he almost HAD to pull me over. I think that he would have gave me a warning if his supervisor had not instructed him that they were to cite all violators.

I won't really lose much over this deal. It's just a hassle that I don't need.

"All's well that ends well".
(I made that up. You may use it if you want). Laughing
Reply
#74
(07-05-2011, 07:01 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(07-05-2011, 12:20 PM)publius Wrote: The problem is that driving a motor vehicle is not considered a right, but a privilege. That's why we are required to have licenses to drive; therefore, the legal system is allowed to treat traffic infractions differently than real crimes like assault or murder.

That pretty much explains it... although it certainly does open the door for abuse of authority.

The sheriff that pulled me over was not rude or abusive in any way. I was so blatant about using my phone that he almost HAD to pull me over. I think that he would have gave me a warning if his supervisor had not instructed him that they were to cite all violators.

I won't really lose much over this deal. It's just a hassle that I don't need.

Let us know how it finally gets resolved. I'm pulling for you!Smiling
Reply
#75
(07-09-2011, 06:57 AM)publius Wrote:
(07-05-2011, 07:01 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(07-05-2011, 12:20 PM)publius Wrote: The problem is that driving a motor vehicle is not considered a right, but a privilege. That's why we are required to have licenses to drive; therefore, the legal system is allowed to treat traffic infractions differently than real crimes like assault or murder.

That pretty much explains it... although it certainly does open the door for abuse of authority.

The sheriff that pulled me over was not rude or abusive in any way. I was so blatant about using my phone that he almost HAD to pull me over. I think that he would have gave me a warning if his supervisor had not instructed him that they were to cite all violators.

I won't really lose much over this deal. It's just a hassle that I don't need.

Let us know how it finally gets resolved. I'm pulling for you!Smiling

Although I don't know if you are pulling for me but I found out my ticket will be reduced to 107 bucksBig Grin
Reply
#76
Update: Not guilty.

He could have found me guilty on a technicality. That being that the reason that I was in the car was not because I was on company business. It doesn't matter if the call was business related as much as it matters if driving your car is part of your job. However, he let it go and that is that. I almost got the impression that I could have been dialing 1-800-PORN and everything would have been fine if I had been on a pizza delivery at the time.
Reply
#77
(09-01-2011, 06:25 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote: Update: Not guilty.

He could have found me guilty on a technicality. That being that the reason that I was in the car was not because I was on company business. It doesn't matter if the call was business related as much as it matters if driving your car is part of your job. However, he let it go and that is that. I almost got the impression that I could have been dialing 1-800-PORN and everything would have been fine if I had been on a pizza delivery at the time.

Sounds like maybe da judge be dropping anything anyone fights for now. Until they make the law clear about who can and who can't blab on a tele.

Good for you GCG. I spent a hunnerd bucks Laughing SadCryingCryingCrying
Reply
#78
My brother went before The Gold Hill Justice Of The Peace. For doing 106 on I-5. He explained to the Justice that since he was driving a race car, he wasn't in violation of the basic rule. Case closed.
Reply
#79
(09-01-2011, 06:25 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote: Update: Not guilty.

He could have found me guilty on a technicality. That being that the reason that I was in the car was not because I was on company business. It doesn't matter if the call was business related as much as it matters if driving your car is part of your job. However, he let it go and that is that. I almost got the impression that I could have been dialing 1-800-PORN and everything would have been fine if I had been on a pizza delivery at the time.


??? I can't get an answer at 1-800-PORN, Do you have that number right?

Reply
#80
I have an injunction against 1-800-PORN for showing "The Golden Hits Of Ill Commandante" without paying royalties.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)