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?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
California Court Rules Anti-Texting Laws Apply to Checking Maps While Driving
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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: