Did the police do my daughter a favor?

[daepp]

She's 16 and a half, been driving for five months, and got pulled over outside the high school for talking on a cell phone while driving. To my wife.

They wrote her up for an infraction - driving under 18 while using a cell phone. A week later (said week being spent grounded), Glendora's finest mail her a letter saying she was written up for the wrong infraction. The cited her for the next VC infraction - this one aimed at adults.

In CA, adults are allowed to use a cell phone so long as it's hands free. If you are under 18, no cell phone use is allowed at all. So why would they change it. The penalties are the same according to the VC. ????

I believe she deserves a ticket, but I can't figure out what they're up to.

[BeauBlues]

In CA it is illegal for anyone of any age to use a cell phone in the car. If your under the age of 18, it is illegal to use a hands free device. I think they did the right thing. Frankly, I think the law is kinda silly anyways. They should really crack down on people who get really distracted such as texting. My fiance texts when she's driving and that just pisses me off. It's dangerous!

[haycait911]

they probably changed it because if she were to take it to court/dispute the citation, it would be thrown out as invalid. just covering their asses. FWIW, she would probably have a decent chance of beating the ticket, under the circumstances.

[daepp]

But the original citation was correct - she's under 18. They have changed it to the infraction for 18 and over. What am I missing?

[Noah930]

What am I missing?

They're giving her a way of fighting the ticket successfully?

I'm still a bit puzzled by the large numbers of people driving while talking with a cell phone to their ear around here. (I'm particularly peeved when they actually do dangerous stuff whilst so engaged.)

[daepp]

From what I can tell, she will be spending about 1/10 of the money she earned all summer on this ticket - I think that's probably about enough to teach her a valuable lesson. We will not be fighting this ticket, and it's not a moving violation so it will not affect my insurance rates.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by Noah930

They're giving her a way of fighting the ticket successfully?

I'm still a bit puzzled by the large numbers of people driving while talking with a cell phone to their ear around here. (I'm particularly peeved when they actually do dangerous stuff whilst so engaged.)

Note that the law only applies to holding the phone up to your ear.

I have noticed people are getting around this by using the speaker phone feature on their cell. I see them holding the phone at chest level or in front of their face while talking.

I don't like the ear bud things so I got a blue tooth device that clips to the visor.

I'm hoping soon all in dash stereos will have blue tooth so you can just answer your cell phone by pushing a button on the radio.

[Noah930]

I realize that, scott. But I'm talking about holding the phone up to the ear. As in the phone is physically touching or within 2 cm of said ear. It kind of burns me a little when someone pulls a bonehead maneuver, and then I notice that they're talking on the phone (and didn't even realize what they've done).

[slodave]

Originally Posted by Noah930

I realize that, scott. But I'm talking about holding the phone up to the ear. As in the phone is physically touching or within 2 cm of said ear. It kind of burns me a little when someone pulls a bonehead maneuver, and then I notice that they're talking on the phone (and didn't even realize what they've done).

Or as you make it known to the driver that they are an idiot, they decide to flip you off and yell at you, as if it was you that was doing something wrong...

[the]

Don't they teach new drivers that they aren't allowed to use cell phones while driving? How could she have not known that rule?

[slodave]

I'm with Alarick. I have noticed a decrease in use, but there are still plenty of people with the cell phone glued to their ear while driving.

As for texting, someone that was part of the the drafting of the law commented on the reason for not including texting in the law - I forget what he said, but it did not make sense. Now there is talk about creating a new law regarding texting while driving.

[slodave]

Originally Posted by the

Don't they teach new drivers that they aren't allowed to use cell phones while driving? How could she have not known that rule?

The law was just instated this past July. The law was talked about for 2 years, so the school should have made mention. I had no idea that the law had been written two years ago. There were articles in the paper right before the law went into effect and the cops were saying how everyone should know by now, as it has been around for two years. Well, there was a big campaign started a few months before the law took effect...

[speeder]

Pretty sure that the speaker-phone technique is still illegal (ticket) if caught, you cannot have the phone in your hand. The law specifies "hands free" only. Maybe one of our CA. cops can clarify this.

[ramonesfreak]

Originally Posted by haycait911

they probably changed it because if she were to take it to court/dispute the citation, it would be thrown out as invalid. just covering their asses. FWIW, she would probably have a decent chance of beating the ticket, under the circumstances.

+1

IF it were my daughter Id make her pay up and not fight it

I hope she learns from this. Last year in my town, there was a terrible incident the week of high school graduation where 5 girls, all seniors who graduated only a few days prior, were driving to their parents cottage or someplace and the driver was texting....she left her lane and hit a tractor-trailor head on and they all were burned to death

Of course, talking is not as bad as texting, but still....

[daepp]

She knew it was against the law.

Any LEO's know why they'd change the citation?

[trekkor]

I've clipped my phone to the seat belt at chest/neck level and used the speaker phone.

Hands free.


KT

[the]

Originally Posted by daepp

She knew it was against the law.

Sassy!

[DavidI]

Originally Posted by daepp

She knew it was against the law.

Any LEO's know why they'd change the citation?

David, what section did the officer use in the initial citation, and what was the second ammended section?

List those and I can help clarify......David

[daepp]

David - the original citation was for VC 23124 - being under 18 (which she is) and using a cell phone. They sent us a letter indicating it should have been 23123, using a cell phone absent any hands free device...

Does that make any sense?

David

[VincentVega]

From what I can tell, she will be spending about 1/10 of the money she earned all summer on this ticket - I think that's probably about enough to teach her a valuable lesson.

Hopefully she see's it that way. Good lesson, sure beats rear ending some one.