-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options
Comments
If they know the time of the crash, they can construct a timeline going backwards to the time intervals when the texting was going on and superimpose that over the rail route knowing approximate speed of the train and then determine when the engineer was within sight of the red light. Was the engineer texting when the red light was within his sight?
That would explain why he missed the red light. However, they'll never be able to prove that since unlike when someone is talking on a cell phone, there's no log that tracks when a person is typing or reading a text msg, only when they send or receive one.
Something interesting that I learned, but first some quick background for those that don't remember 8h grade.
Our first constitution was called the Articles of Confederation. It gave most of the powers to the states, with a small federal government. The problem was, it did not work mostly because there were no provisions for interstate commerce. The states ended-up being set-up like mini-countries and it was too difficult to do business across state lines.
So, a new constitution was written which increased the powers of the federal government that allowed for standard currency etc.... Since then, the Bill of Rights were added and it has been ammended blah, blah, blah.
The Supreme Court over the years has used the provision for Interstate Commerce to expand the powers of the government and there have been many land mark cases. They generally error on the side of commerce when stricking a balance between rights.
For example, when the state of CT had a law which restricted the size of tractor-trailer trucks to a length that was shorter then what most other states used, this got challenged in the US Supreme Court and CT was told that their more restrictive law impeded interstate commerce and while evidence showed that these trucks were more dangerous, the impact on commerce out weighed safety.
The speaker indicated that with a high degree of certaintude that any ban on cell phones would most likely be rendered un-constitutional because of the impact on interstate commerce and free speach. So while states and municipalities can pass laws, as they get challenged through the courts, we can expect to see them over turned. Laws which provide reasonable restrictions which don't impeded commerce or the first ammendment would likely stand.
I'll bet you it doesn't happen. Do you see any of the helmet laws being challenged in court? Any of the seat belt laws challenged in court? Any of the "you can't smoke in your car while you have a baby in the car" laws challenged? There may be lawsuits but states' rule will prevail. All of the above examples one could say is hooked to the first amendment.
The Supreme Court over the years has used the provision for Interstate Commerce to expand the powers of the government and there have been many land mark cases.
Isn't that called "legistlating from the bench"?
Idaho doesn't have helmet laws. So we get less federal highway monies (and it shows in our road conditions).
All the feds have to do is attach more strings to highway funding and more states will be willing to pass restrictive cell phone laws, fund educational campaigns, etc.
The Supreme Ct. said this carrot and stick approach was ok twenty years ago when the feds cut highway money to states that didn't raise the legal drinking age to 21. TN just went through this back in April over an open container law the feds didn't like - $12 in highway funds was at risk over that. The feds regulate everything from air quality to billboard placement with this approach.
The Supreme Court has given the feds the right to tell the states, "it's my way or the highway"
Maybe the feds will wise up and come up with a comprehensive policy dealing the interaction with portable non-approved electronic devices. It's seems there is double standard on this board. People want to use them when they want to use them, but won't want a pilot performing a landing, or a surgeon performing an operation to stop and text. I wonder why?
Let me ask you a question....do you have a "right" to privacy?
The Constitution does not use the word "privacy" one single time anywhere in the Constitution. So "no", you have no right to privacy. However, supreme courts have made decisions over the years under the belief that the constitution implies that we have a right to privacy. But strict Constitionalist (some of which are Judges) don't believe this. This is why when you have a ruling, there are discenting opions.
When a court makes a judement, it may create a new precendent. This is not legislating, per se, but rather creating "common law"....which can naturally be challenged at a later time. Pretty cool stuff, but not perfect.
Getting back to cell phones.....I think it is reasonable to believe that the US Supreme Court could rule that a ban on cell phones NOT be constitutional. Using cell phones for pilots on planes, however, might pose a different problem. It is all about balancing rights. So, if you could prove that pilots using cell phones pose MORE of a risk to interstate commerce then the benefit to using them, then they could be banned and the ban could be constitutional. For this to imply to our highways, you would have to prove that there is more of a negative risk to interstate commerce with using cell phones then when not using them.....something that would not be likely. You also have to balanc eother rights, such as free speech.
One thing that is for sure, as you look at the proliferation of cell phone laws, sooner or later, they will move through the courts and be challenged. They will either be over turned, or not and it does not matter at all what anyone on this board thinks, because it will only come down to the opinions of nine judges.
Let me ask you a question....do you have a "right" to privacy?
Legislating from the bench means the creation of rules and regulations not granted under the original constitution. And yes, the term is somewhat vague. Here is an example:
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – the Court struck down a law restricting contraceptives as violating the constitutional “right to privacy.” The right to privacy was not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, but the Court held that it could be inferred by reading several of the rights in the Bill of Rights in combination.
An activist court is said to be legislating from the bench when it makes decisions that change existing law by its own interpretation of those laws or by the way it directs implementation of its decisions. For example, at one time the court had ruled that seperate public facilities for different races did not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitutionseparate as long as they were equal. This was a strict reading of the Constitution in that the court saw nothing in the Constitution that prohibitted it. Later, the court reversed itself in another case and ruled that separate facilities were inherently unequal and did violate the Constitution. This was an activist reading of the Constitution because the court essentially changed the contitutionality of laws permitting segregation even though not one word of the Constitution had changed or any law forbidding segregation adopted. Some looked at the court's decision as being its own amendment to the Constitution or federal law.
No one has a right to privacy. Your privacy can be invaded if the feds think you are a terrorist, gangster and the like. Your right to privacy can also be invaded if an officer believes the public at large is at danger, as in motor vehicle control where the cop believes you are DUI.
Getting back to cell phones.....I think it is reasonable to believe that the US Supreme Court could rule that a ban on cell phones NOT be constitutional. Using cell phones for pilots on planes, however, might pose a different problem.
It's the same problem on a different scale. Waiting to hear what the NTSB has to say about the train crash in LA.
One thing that is for sure, as you look at the proliferation of cell phone laws, sooner or later, they will move through the courts and be challenged.
You are right. There were some challenges and the judges upheld the laws.
§ 22. Alaska Constitution.
Time to amend the US one?
Virginia Railway doesn't want to see a ban on cells (link), and thinks that monitoring their use will prevent texting accidents like the CA one.
Meanwhile Philly is considering a ban on cells for anyone moving on wheels. We're talking bicycles and skateboards. Didn't see a reference to texting while in a wheelchair.
But as the article noted VRE issued cell phones are used only in emergencies. Not quite what the engineer of the fated train was doing, whether ultimately it is a contributing cause or not.
Didn't see a reference to texting while in a wheelchair
What about baby carriages? :mad
22. Alaska Constitution.
Is there a new amendment to the constitution on it's way. Or is the court going to legislate from the bench?
Probably not since it was used in Alaska to legalize pot possession for personal consumption. :P
I guess you'd have to use Bluetooth on a Segway since it takes both hands to ride one.
Hey that reminds me, on a recent drive home from work, I saw a young woman riding her bike next to a busy city street, one hand holding a cell phone to her ear and the other hand steering/braking the bike. For some reason, that didn't strike me as the smartest thing to do
The question then is "texter's" behaviour. Do texters type in their message and then wait 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc minutes, or do they usually hit the send button soon after the end of the message was keyed? Any driver/texters on this board that can answer?
Citizens, and illegals for that matter, can easily make cell phone calls in their vehicles which are safely and legally "parked". To extent that interstate commerce communication is being conducted in these parked vehicles, then people are exercising their freedom to use cell phones. One can also use a cell phone or land line phone in their home, office, factory, store to conduct interstate commerce.
Drivers conducting business (or personal matters) on cell phones while driving are both: incapable of planning their schedules more efficiently, selfishly trying to save "their" time by not doing the calls in office or parked vehicle and putting "safe" non-cell phone drivers and innocent pedestrians at risk for death and injury.
On balanacing rights, free speech does have limitations. It is illegal to falsely yell the word "fire" in a crowded theatre or to say "hi jack" to a stewardess in an airplane. There are many other examples were speech is limited or illegal such as audience members yelling or talking aloud during Senate or House Hearings.
I'm sure in most cases they hit the send button as soon as they finish keying their message. The key is it may take anywhere from a few seconds to several minutes to type a message depending on how long the message is, how adapt they are at texting, and sadly... how much attention they are paying to the act of driving (or operating a train) versus texting.
Heard on news program today that Schwartzenneger signed a law banning drivers in CA from texting while driving. Hope he goes one more step in putting in a law on total ban of cell phone use while driving.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well there's still the MP3 capability that is popular with the younger generation. But then you shouldn't be listening to music thru earbuds while you're driving either.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Also, if by using "free speech" you spread untrue rumors about anybody an you damamge their reputation, you'll have to pay. This is most notable with ceebrities and people in the limelight, but happens below the radra with regular people all the time also.
In this time and with the existing technology we don't truly have much privacy, IMHO. Also, If there's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity going on, you'll see how effectively you can claim that your privacy is being violated (NOT!).
Also, rights (as well as freedon) are not absolutes. There's limets to them, there's a famous Latin American adage that goes "My freedom ends where my neighbor's begins" Thins about it for a minute. I makes perfect sense. You can't under the guise of having the freedon to do whatever you wnat cause harm or damamge to people/property.
There are also situations where fundamental rights conflict with one another. Freedom of speech and privacy are 2 such inehrent rights, but there was a case where a magazione took pictures of a former Argentinian president on his deathbed (literally, he died within hours of the pictures) claiming that he was a public figure and the public had a right to know and see wat was going on. What gives? The public does have the right to know, You'd obviously be curious aboutt eh fate of this important political figure but how far can you stretch that when you're dealing with a grieving family's last moments with their beloved one? Wouldn't you feel violated?
I guess, in a nut shell, things are not always black and white, and sometimes too much of a good thing is not necessarily a better thing.
Cell phone records of Robert Sanchez, who was among the dead, show he received a text message a minute and 20 seconds before the crash and sent one about a minute later, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a news release.
The finding led Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph H. Boardman to announce an emergency order prohibiting use of personal electronic devices by rail workers operating trains and in other key jobs. The order must be published in the Federal Register to take effect. Spokesman Rob Kulat said that would happen "soon." California regulators have already enacted a ban.
To the imbeciles I saw text-messaging while driving, please do us all the favor of only killing yourselves when (not if) you have your fatal accident and don't drag down any of the rest of us with you.
Interestingly, they also cited studies that quantify the amount individual drivers are impaired, and they said it increases one's risk of an accident roughly four-fold, if I understood it correctly. So if one is already a very safe driver, then one's risk of an accident might rise from .01% to .04% (purely hypothetical numbers here), and might still be substantially low compared to other drivers.....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Don't Touch That Phone While Driving and Get a Break on Your Car Insurance
He is dead.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Maybe we should wait to hold our breath until the powerful new ban on texting takes effect on January 1, eh?! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The laws we have are based on this principal. There are more cell phones being used in cars. I see bad drivers on the road. I see a bad driver using a cell phone. A bad driver caused an accident. Conclusion,Cell phones cause accidents. That is per history science. That is exactly like they used to practice science when they said. If you place a piece of meet in a dark closet and after a while you open up the closet and there are flies all over the meat. Conclusion dark closets cause flies.
we had perfectly good laws on distracted driving that were wide enough to cover both cell phone use and texting. They were enforceable and the officer could pull you over and cite you for it. I will be so surprised if we see any results for either of these laws. The law makers in this case remind me of the wizard in the wizard of OZ.
Every moment you take your eyes off the road whether to text, dial, change the song on your I-pod, put ketchup on your fries, discipline your kids, or crack open another beer is another moment you are not taking care of your primary duty on the road--driving safely.
The only people dumb enough to think that they are safe drivers while text messaging on the road are the same idiots who are causing havoc on the roads (and rails).
The reason we need laws specifically directed at cell phone use is that there is no subjectivity involved. There won't be any arguments--either you were text messaging when the officer pulled you over or you weren't.
Either you were digging in the storage bin for that CD you wanted to play, or you weren't.
Either you were spreading ketchup on those fries or you weren't.
Either you were digging around on the floor for the plug so you could plug in your phone before it died and continue your conversation, or you weren't.
Either you were digging in your purse for your lipstick or you weren't.
Either you were scanning the business section or you weren't.
Either you were scooping junk out of the way to put that Double Gulp into that cupholder or you weren't.
Either you were programming that Garmin GPS unit or you weren't.
Either you were staring at that power/battery display in your Prius, trying to make heads or tails of it, or you weren't.
Either you were changing the kids' DVD before the tantrum got too loud, or you weren't.
Yet we don't have (and don't need) special composing/digging/spreading/plugging/lipsticking/scanning/scooping/programming/-- - staring/DVDing laws.
We have an all-encompassing driver distraction law that police, shame on them, have not been enforcing. If instead of this stupid law (now 2 stupid laws as of 1/1), they had passed a law making driver distraction a $1000 offense and publicizing THAT all over the state, in addition to offering police incentives to enforce it, they would have been much more effective IMO.
Instead we have a law that is being WIDELY ignored - I see it all around me every day, just about as frequently as before I might add. It's a law that's very hard to enforce and has no teeth - did they really think it would change peoples' behavior?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
We have a very effective cell phone law that is helping to reduce our deficit. Please talk all you want and maybe you will only get a deficit reducing ticket before you crash into someone and not kill them. While the law reads hands-free devices are allowed, those idiots who use them drive almost as bad as those who hold them to their ear.
Keep up the good work, hand help cell phone talkers.
One more thing...
Either you talking on the phone with the brain power of a drunk..or you weren't.
Yet for some reason, you think this is a good law? :confuse:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
On the other hand, all the examples you cited come down to your word against the cop's and they all call for subjective judgments about whether or not the activity impaired your ability to drive. A much more complicated scenario...
People keep talking about how cell phone records will prove this or that, but I doubt they will ever come into play. Look how long it took them to get the dead train engineer's cell phone records, and how many obstacles they had to overcome to make it happen, and he was responsible for 25 deaths.
The ticket for this isn't even a point on your record - there would never be subpoenas (that's subpoenas issued by a criminal or civil court, of which traffic court is neither) to get cell phone records. The cop would say they saw you phoning/texting/lipsticking/ketchuping/whatever, and that would be that, unless you proved you didn't own a phone or were allergic to meat or cosmetics or whatever.
That's just how it goes, at least in California.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
1. Studies have shown even more of a brain drain while holding the phone than using a hands-free device.
2. While you are holding the phone, either with your shoulder or hand, there is an absense of being able to react as effectively in an emergency situation as a driver who has two hands on the wheel concentrating on the road.
You don't think the cell phone records involved in the deadly train crash in LA were significant?
The ticket for this isn't even a point on your record
In all states, or your state?
I didn't say cell phone records weren't significant, I said they wouldn't come into a traffic court proceeding. The reason is the traffic court is not a civil or criminal court and therefore cannot subpoena those records.
I was interested to note, in reading an editorial in C&D last night, that California will become only the fifth state in the nation to have a ban on texting while driving, when that goes into effect here on 1/1.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Stan must be one heck of a lawyer, he doesn't even use good grammar in his website: The Court trial where I personally appear with subpoena and written law motions and my expertise costs more and much more certain of victory
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The problem is if there is no reduction in accidents there will simply be a lot of that dedicated animal called the "yabut". They show up every time a law is passed and the expected results don't happen. Early on a statement was made that there has been no significant increase in accident or the FARs rate while cell phones increased 1000 fold. The 'yabut' shows up and says, the accident rate and FARS rate would be even lower if not for cell phone use. So this is crunch time. The law is passed and now all we have to do is sit back and watch the rate fall. If that doesn't happen then maybe it is like the Law one old Chinese Emperor made sawing the tide could only come so far and no farther. I am sure there were "yabuts" then as well. But we will be able to pull up the FARS Rate for this year in January or February. With the protection by this law and the cause of such carnage on our highways prevented it should drop like a rock.
Just passing a law will ensure it's success?
1. murder
2. dui
I could go on and on and on. Even if the accident rate doesn't fall I'm in favor of using the revenue of cell phone laws to help pay down our national debt.
Not that it will serve that purpose - these are state-by-state laws, and any revenues generated will go into state and local general funds, to be quickly swallowed up by the next crisis, whatever it may be (we have plenty of fiscal crises in California, it seems, so that money won't be sitting still for even five minutes).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)