If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phoenix New Times)   Arizona police say drivers spotted texting will get speeding tickets even if they are below the speed limit   (blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com) divider line 21
    More: PSA, DPS, speeding tickets, Arizona Department of Public Safety, speed limits, texting, Daily Star  
•       •       •

2590 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2013 at 10:35 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-13 08:27:59 PM  
4 votes:
Next year's headline, "Arizona government to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending cases which will be thrown right the fark out of court on appeal".
2013-11-13 10:44:04 PM  
3 votes:
I'd like to see a camera installed near the rear-view mirror in all new cars, that would take a photo of the driver and passenger seats an instant before the air bag deploys. Any driver caught texting, eating a Big Mac, applying makeup, or any other distracting nonsense would automatically receive a huge fine/prison sentence.
2013-11-13 10:38:50 PM  
3 votes:
STOP USING YOUR PHONE WHILE DRIVING ASSHOLES!
2013-11-13 08:45:37 PM  
3 votes:
Makes sense.  You can't drive at a speed "greater than is reasonable and prudent."

If you're texting, anything faster than zero is a problem.
2013-11-13 11:23:02 PM  
2 votes:
The penalties for distracted driving should be no different than that for impaired driving.  Change one or the other.
2013-11-13 11:03:41 PM  
2 votes:
It's quite obvious that just handing out tickets does not work. Let's take it up a notch and start confiscating phones whilst issuing tickets. You can have it back if/when you convince the nice judge that you deserve to have it back. You act like a 2 year old then you get treated like a 2 year old.

/and after that, if you still don't get it, they hand you a hammer and make you smash your own phone
2013-11-14 08:14:36 PM  
1 votes:

gregscott: Many states have  Prima Facie Speed Limits, where the violation driving at a speed which is unsafe for conditions, regardless of posted limits.


The only problem with that is deciding what is "unsafe for conditions" when the law doesn't state a specific speed.

I had this problem with a traffic ticket issued to me in winter.  I was driving one morning after an ice storm on a road that had black ice.  I looked down the road to see at least 4 cars already slid into the ditch and then watched the car in front of me start spinning off the road.  I was doing about 10 mph, tops, and just *barely* touched the brakes to start slowing because of the car in front of me spinning out of control.  My car then slid sideways into the ditch.  The county responded to multiple calls of cars off the road and ONLY THEN did a city truck drive down the road putting salt down: that response came only after the multiple cars in the ditch.  The sheriff deputy walked down the road issuing "too fast for conditions" tickets to everyone as the tow truck was bringing all the cars back onto the freshly salted pavement.  He didn't ask me jack shiat about how fast I was going, what I was doing, etc.  Just wrote a ticket.

So I took that one to a bench trial.  I worked a job that gave me tons of free time during the day so I was being spiteful.  I put the sheriff deputy on the witness stand and asked him "What speed does the law say is 'too fast" in these conditions?"
Answer: it doesn't give a hard speed.
Question: "In your opinion, what speed would have been acceptable for these conditions?"
Answer: "I don't know."
Question:  "How fast was I going to have caused this accident?"
Answer:  "I don't know."
Question:  "How fast were the other drivers going that you ticketed that same day, that same time, on that same stretch of road?"
Answer:  "I don't know."

After that questioning it was a very quick verdict of NOT GUILTY from the judge who pointed out that the law was incredibly vague about that particular violation, and really the only reason that people slid into the ditch was that the city failed to do proper road maintenance (salting after an ice storm).  It was an inconvenience to have to pay a tow truck $50 to get a car back on pavement, but that's really all that should have been an out-of-pocket expense for drivers involved.  I have a small amount of pity for the people who had more involving jobs to be at and it made financial sense for them to just pay the $75 fine to be out of it cheap.  I politely asked the judge to go back and vacate all the same citations issued to people on the same day for the same issue, but she correctly pointed out that all those people should have challenged those citations individually if they didn't want to pay them.
m00
2013-11-14 04:25:03 PM  
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: Don't text while driving, jackass.



>Word to the wise: "Texting" is probably a blanket term meaning any staring at a cellphone while driving.

Well, I check my GPS / google maps.
2013-11-14 12:35:15 PM  
1 votes:

Mouren: periboob: I like the idea of the camera that snaps when the air-bag is deployed, but word would get out, and they would stick chewing gum over the camera. My idea is to have a sensor in the driver's seat that senses cellular activity, and disconnects the driver's seat belt and disables the air-bag. Maybe Darwin can address the problem.

What about those people who's phone is in a dock to act as a GPS or music player?
What about people who use phones in the rear passenger seat of the driver's side?
Sounds like a lot can go wrong with this.


A lot can go wrong with everything about doing something else while you should be steering several tons of metal on a path avoiding other multi-ton metal chunks all while traveling 90+ feet/sec. Checking your play-list or your route planning is a distraction that risks lives of others. At least for many drivers. Some may be qualified. I actually feel safe when riding with my brother-in-law while he is on the phone, but he was a TV reporter for years, and was on the radio constantly, and got good at it. He learned to manage the multi-tasking. Maybe we could include exercises on the drivers test that would see if you qualify for texting/phoning while driving? If you pass, you get a stamp on your license. But we would have to pay examiners hazardous duty pay.

Personally, I treat driving like playing a video game against the other drivers. The objective in this game is to defeat the aliens by getting home safely. If you have an accident, you lose the game.
2013-11-14 10:14:24 AM  
1 votes:

MonoChango: Mikey1969: they feel that it's their right to saddle you with a charge that will follow you around for the rest of your life

As long as they get their $10,000 legal fines and fees.  In AZ, they can also give you a DUI for "Impaired to the the slightest degree"  That is if you have 0.01 Blood Alcohol and you don't signal to change lanes they can give you a DUI.  I figure they are now just armed tax collectors.


Gotta be careful there... Back when I still lived there, we were coming home from dinner and my wife decided we had to stop buy the store right...NOW!! I got over 2 lanes, and immediately had a cop follow me into the parking lot. She aid I cut off a bunch of cars, had I been drinking, etc... I said that yeah, I'd had a beer with dinner. A single beer, and we had started eating an hour and a half before this incident, and I had eaten a full meal. Next, I got screamed at by a very irate cop because my wife had my ID in her purse(Why carry a wallet if she's got the purse and it's the only thing I needed). Lastly, I had just the weekend before cleared up a warrant for an unpaid fine(That had been paid years before), and it was still showing up as "pending". I'm not sure if I was closer to getting shot or getting arrested, having been nothing but cooperative, but this woman's eyes were glazed over at the concept of the upcoming "bust" that she did not hear repeated messages from dispatch that my fine was not current, and that I was free to go. Finally, the motorcycle cop who was partnering with her on their "DUI Sweep" had to ride up to her and yell at her to listen to the dispatcher.

Cops in AZ are getting scary, and in my 20's, I farked around a lot and tended to get questioned by them for being loud and drunk, stuff like that. Now, I'd be afraid to talk to any of them.
2013-11-14 10:05:30 AM  
1 votes:

MonoChango: Mikey1969: they feel that it's their right to saddle you with a charge that will follow you around for the rest of your life

As long as they get their $10,000 legal fines and fees.  In AZ, they can also give you a DUI for "Impaired to the the slightest degree"  That is if you have 0.01 Blood Alcohol and you don't signal to change lanes they can give you a DUI.  I figure they are now just armed tax collectors highwaymen.


FTFY
2013-11-14 09:52:05 AM  
1 votes:

Mikey1969: they feel that it's their right to saddle you with a charge that will follow you around for the rest of your life


As long as they get their $10,000 legal fines and fees.  In AZ, they can also give you a DUI for "Impaired to the the slightest degree"  That is if you have 0.01 Blood Alcohol and you don't signal to change lanes they can give you a DUI.  I figure they are now just armed tax collectors.
2013-11-14 01:00:05 AM  
1 votes:

cassapolis: JEEBUS FARKING CHRIST!!! the police are to enforce laws not to make up or interpret them as they seem fit. I am NOT against an anti texting law, but I am all kinds of against cops interpreting laws however they want. at this rate we won't need judges or lawmakers very soon.


the needs of the many outweigh the protestations of the few, assuming they are only citing factually guilty a$$hats,
fact, the majority of accidents in my area are caused by distracted drivers. talking on the phone or texting...or reading or putting on makeup....these people should be arrested, as they are more dangerous than a guy or girl with a couple beers down.
2013-11-14 12:13:30 AM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: The judge rolls his eyes and says "Well, Mr. Prosecutor?" and the DA hesitates just a second, looks at the stack of considerably more important cases on his desk, and says, "Whatever, your Honor."  BANG. "Very well, Counselor, case dismissed."  So now we have to have laws for every dang specific thing.


The couple of times I've been to traffic court, there was nobody from the DA's office at trial.  The traffic officer usually doesn't show up, either.  Instead, they just submit a written statement and attach their last calibration report for their equipment.  The judge then plays all roles for the government's side.


ecmoRandomNumbers: Getting a $300 speeding ticket will probably cut down on that.


The standard fine for texting while driving in Phoenix and Tucson is $100.  It goes to $250 if you caused an accident.

So the question is, how large of a citation will DPS officers issue if you're texting while on the freeway?  Will they write you up for doing 65 over a safe limit?  Will they also charge you with reckless driving?


/also remember that Arizona allows you to discharge a non-criminal moving violation once every two years by going to traffic school
//school fees range between $120 and $180, depending on the county
2013-11-13 11:22:37 PM  
1 votes:

Watubi: I was hit from behind by a person eating a sandwich.  That driver was issued a ticket for some distracted driving law and this was 20 years ago.  I don't know why they need a new law for every dang specific thing.


Because freshly-sworn attorneys hop into court and say "But your Honor, the law doesn't actually say 'you cannot drive 65 mph while eating a sandwich' and my client was going well under the posted speed limit and Douchebag v. Asshole clearly states that where the speed limit has not been exceeded a driver can't be found in violation of the law unless he was performing one of the enumerated violations, and eating a sandwich isn't one of them."

The judge rolls his eyes and says "Well, Mr. Prosecutor?" and the DA hesitates just a second, looks at the stack of considerably more important cases on his desk, and says, "Whatever, your Honor."

BANG. "Very well, Counselor, case dismissed."

So now we have to have laws for every dang specific thing.
2013-11-13 10:59:04 PM  
1 votes:
I was hit from behind by a person eating a sandwich.  That driver was issued a ticket for some distracted driving law and this was 20 years ago.  I don't know why they need a new law for every dang specific thing.
2013-11-13 10:56:51 PM  
1 votes:

karmaceutical: I don't think I've ever seen someone on their phone actually exceeding the speed limit.


If they're on the phone and driving faster than zero they're exceeding the speed limit.
2013-11-13 10:53:31 PM  
1 votes:

JVD: Gig103: Wow - doesn't surprise me but wouldn't it make more sense to just pass an anti-texting law?

I like their intentions of not passing more laws, but it doesn't seem appropriate to issue a speeding ticket. Doesn't pretty much everywhere have laws against inattentive driving? Using that would make more sense to me.


They should go with DUI.
JVD
2013-11-13 10:39:35 PM  
1 votes:

Gig103: Wow - doesn't surprise me but wouldn't it make more sense to just pass an anti-texting law?


I like their intentions of not passing more laws, but it doesn't seem appropriate to issue a speeding ticket. Doesn't pretty much everywhere have laws against inattentive driving? Using that would make more sense to me.
2013-11-13 08:41:56 PM  
1 votes:
I's be okay with them shoving a nightstick up their ass until they couldn't shiat right for a week.
2013-11-13 06:44:07 PM  
1 votes:
Wow - doesn't surprise me but wouldn't it make more sense to just pass an anti-texting law?
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report