Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 11, 2013, 04:33 PM   #101
TC25
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
They would have to amend the old law that way, which does happen at times. Are you saying that it takes more government to enforce a greater number of laws as opposed to fewer laws with greater complexity?
Reckless driving is reckless driving, regardless of the cause. No law needs amended which renders your second sentence moot.
TC25 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2013, 04:53 PM   #102
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC25 View Post
Reckless driving is reckless driving, regardless of the cause. No law needs amended which renders your second sentence moot.
You still have to define recklessness. This doesn't mean via dictionary. Texting is a specific action. If lawmakers are going to target it specifically, it would be included as a specific detail, not under an ambiguous term. I was afraid this would turn into an argument over semantics.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2013, 03:25 AM   #103
TC25
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
You still have to define recklessness. This doesn't mean via dictionary. Texting is a specific action. If lawmakers are going to target it specifically, it would be included as a specific detail, not under an ambiguous term. I was afraid this would turn into an argument over semantics.
No, it's not semantics, it's common sense for people who are not pedants or legislators.

1. There are reckless driving laws now that are enforced. So, reckless driving has already been defined. Comprende?

2. There are many causes of reckless driving and they are all irrelevant. Why someone was driving recklessly isn't important, the fact they WERE driving recklessly is and that's what they are charged with.
TC25 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2013, 02:46 PM   #104
nsayer
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by C DM View Post
Lower left (driver's side) corner of the windshield is hardly a place that a sane person would really find horrible issues with. Perhaps not as "in your face" and thus "convenient" as mounting something in the center (of not right in front of you), but it's must less distracting and in the way that way, and still can be used decently well (and perhaps even better when it comes to left-handed people).
Lefties are, what? 20% of the population? For everyone else, I call shenanigans on your assertion that, mounted as the law allows, that the device "still can be used decently well."
nsayer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2013, 04:07 PM   #105
C DM
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsayer View Post
Lefties are, what? 20% of the population? For everyone else, I call shenanigans on your assertion that, mounted as the law allows, that the device "still can be used decently well."
At the very least equal shenanigans can be called on the claim that "it's not anyplace a sane person would mount a phone or GPS".

That aside, using something "decently well" is essentially well enough to do what needs to be done on it and see/hear it well enough to get use out of it--it'd be pretty hard to say that you simply can't do those things well enough from that location. Is it the most direct and easiest/simplest, no (but that wasn't the claim), but is it a location where you can still use it when needed without anything subjecting yourself to anything really crazy, yes, it is.

It can be said it's an inconvenient location in some sense, sure, but that's still ways away from being some sort of a crazy location.

Last edited by C DM; Apr 24, 2013 at 04:13 PM.
C DM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2013, 10:36 PM   #106
rumourmill
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
that's NOT what the law says

the court erred. the cited vehicle code section (23123) specifically talks about using the phone AS A PHONE. not as a gps, not sending texts, not as a music provider. there is no law that prohibits non-minors from texting.

the law is all about semantics; anybody who says otherwise doesn't understand the law. I am a firm believer in "what the law says, the law means". This "what the legislature REALLY meant by that law" dookie from the court is disappointing. If the legislature meant NO TEXTING, they would have included it in the law (like they did in 23124, prohibiting texting FOR MINORS). If the court meant NO GPS USE, they would have included it in the law. Those activities aren't mentioned in the law, so the legislature clearly didn't intend for them to be illegal. (common sense)

the law says absolutely nothing about "distracted driving"; where the court invented that theory is probably the same place the russians keep their UFOs.

Last edited by rumourmill; Aug 20, 2013 at 10:39 PM. Reason: addition
rumourmill is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2013, 03:20 PM   #107
C DM
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumourmill View Post
the court erred. the cited vehicle code section (23123) specifically talks about using the phone AS A PHONE. not as a gps, not sending texts, not as a music provider. there is no law that prohibits non-minors from texting.

the law is all about semantics; anybody who says otherwise doesn't understand the law. I am a firm believer in "what the law says, the law means". This "what the legislature REALLY meant by that law" dookie from the court is disappointing. If the legislature meant NO TEXTING, they would have included it in the law (like they did in 23124, prohibiting texting FOR MINORS). If the court meant NO GPS USE, they would have included it in the law. Those activities aren't mentioned in the law, so the legislature clearly didn't intend for them to be illegal. (common sense)

the law says absolutely nothing about "distracted driving"; where the court invented that theory is probably the same place the russians keep their UFOs.
Whatever your interpretation of the law might be, the interpretation of the law that actually matters and play a role is one that still falls largely on the judges, good luck using any of that to get out of some violation that you got as a result of something related to it. Some certainly will, but most will not, no matter what the common sense, or logic, or semantics, or anything else might dictate.

Last edited by C DM; Aug 21, 2013 at 03:25 PM.
C DM is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California Appeals Court Rules State Law Doesn't Prohibit Driver Use of Smartphone Maps MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 91 Mar 1, 2014 03:39 AM
Why is there Public Outrage over Texting and Driving? Radiating Politics, Religion, Social Issues 72 Nov 7, 2013 03:39 AM
Michigan case could invalidate states’ anti-same sex marriage laws rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 55 Jul 5, 2013 10:19 PM
Using Maps app now illegal while driving in California? firewood iOS 6 9 Apr 7, 2013 01:21 PM
Texting and Driving. fun173 Wasteland 179 Jun 27, 2012 06:23 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC