I had heard about cops riding public transit buses, to catch drivers on their cell phones, but this method is way above and beyond that. 
Attachments
Last edited:
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.
Cop's new "cell-phone use" sting
- Thread starter iJohnHenry
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, unfortunately, but there is buzz now about cops taking your phone for 30 days, as they do your car for racing. Additionally, and this is where it would really hurt, demerit points against your license.
No amount of money can be thrown at this one, as with the others. I hope this 'flag up the pole' gets many salutes.
Last edited:
sad part is they will still get a ton of people. Honestly the cops do not mind it getting in the paper because it makes them reach the goal they are after, The reduction of people driving while on cell phone.
Most don't think they will get caught, "'cause I'm smarter than cops are".
And for some, $155 means much less than losing the phone, which in turn is certainly much less than, say, 3 demerit points.
And that is the threshold that car insurance companies take a "keen" interest in. $$$$$$$
That would be a tough sell, coming as it does via the Criminal Code, not the Highway Traffic Act.
But Careless Driving could be used, and most here would agree that this would be severely militant.
Or, pick your poison level.
Attachments
I disagree
DUI laws are too harsh already
There is talk about making a first time offense a felony
I'm not clear on how any DUI law can possibly be too harsh.
Are you suggesting that driving drunk shouldn't be treated as a life threatening behavior...both for the drunk driver (about whose welfare I have minimal sympathy) and for the drunken *******'s victims.
Are you suggesting we should reduce the penalties for potentially lethal behavior?
For what it is worth, I'm not sure bringing it up to the level of DUI is a good idea, but I totally applaud the cops going out and nailing people who are so impatient as they can't wait to use a phone.
I think there are varying levels of what should be punished vs a one size fits all. I have had 2 brothers with duis. None were pulled over due to reckless or careless driving. One was pulled over for not having a front license plate. He passed all the field tests and opted for blood work. He was not impaired and it was like talking to anyone who was sober. Blood work came back and he was over .08. Could not drive for 9 months
I am not sayin that duis are not a serious issue. I think that how they punish those should take well more into account than just bac as everyone is different. My dad says back in his era, cops would just tell you to go home. Now we are looking at potential felony charges for a first time offense?
Not only has my brother been pulled over for a DUI based on a secondary offense unrelated to a DUI, it is haunting him for life. He has done well in school got his mech eng degree, been offered jobs yet those get revoked based on a DUI that happened 5 years ago. Give me a break. He has paid his dues, done his punishment yet is still being punished for it well after the fact
Yes I think DUI charges are much too harsh
Lethal behavior? One could argue that every traffic citation is potentially lethal. Even some legal things now are. Same with a variety of things even unrelated to driving yet very few carry the same stigma as a DUI charge that sticks with you for years and years
Sorry if my pOst was brief. I hate typing on my iPhone
Last edited:
I cannot, and would not, dispute your anecdote about your brother. Just to say that because one does not seem drunk, blowing >.8 does indicate the high probability of impaired judgement and, likely, impaired physical functioning.
I would agree with you completely that your brother being denied employment for (what I assume) was a single DUI 5 years ago is beyond unfair. However, I'm not sure that that is an issue of the severity of the DUI law, but rather the policies of a particular employer.
Not now referring to your brother, but if one has more than one DUI, then an employer having a non-hire policy is, IMO, not unreasonable.
From my perspective, if an initial harsh response to DUI has a deterrent effect, that is desirable. Once the dues for a single event are paid, it should not effect one in the future, as it did your brother.
Obviously, for some people, no matter how harsh the initial response is, it will make no difference and they will continue to get drunk and drive. For those repeaters, harsh initial penalties have no deterrent effect, and other measures must be taken.
Finally, social stigma is a societal response, not a legal one.
DUI like treatment of cell phone offenders is probably over the top, but it's easy to go a little overboard when faced with the idiocy you see when it comes to phones in Socal. Fines alone won't make people stop, and the law is widely ignored. I'm not sure what can be done about it, but it's certainly nice to see law enforcement think of creative ways to bust people!
They can't be harsh enough. There is no excuse for driving drunk. Someone's life was ruined because they got a dui? Good. How many people have lost loved ones to *******s who are too cheap to get a taxi? That's a life ruined.
In what way do you reckon we should do this? Everyone being pulled over and having over a certain level taking a test in a simulator, trying reaction times on that level of alcohol in the blood to decide whether or not that person should get a ticket or not?
I had an aunt. The guy who ran her over had more than the legal limit in his system, he blew a 0.6.
The field tests (or talking properly) don't determine whether or not your reaction time is impaired, they just help the police with their calls. They're more or less useless to be honest.
Back in your dad's era, a wife couldn't be raped by her husband and you were allowed to beat children as well. It's funny though how you reckon it's better that everyone should be treated differently based on what an individual police officer in no way have any means to verify instead of everyone being equal in the eyes of the law and just not drinking and driving...
That has nothing what so ever with the punishment for the DUI to do, and everything with what the employers think about DUIs.
So say every traffic situation is lethal, wouldn't that be a stronger argument to have harsh punishments for DUI than having a more relaxed attitude towards it?
OMG, what am I about to say???
GET YER OWN THREAD ABOUT DUI.
Thanks.
What is the world coming to...iJH begging for a thread to get back on topic...
What is the world coming to...iJH begging for a thread to get back on topic...
Yes, how the mighty have fallen.
It is a topic worthy of it's own thread, so go ahead and start one, and perhaps the Mods will shift the OFF-TOPIC posts here over to there?
My sentiments for years. Changing cd's, tapes, gps units, other passengers... But it's the evil cell phone that's killing our kids! Every time you drive and use a cell phone, God kills a kitten! Think of the kittens!
My sentiments for years. Changing cd's, tapes, gps units, other passengers... But it's the evil cell phone that's killing our kids! Every time you drive and use a cell phone, God kills a kitten! Think of the kittens!
You guys refuse to acknowledge the fact that cell phone conversations steal your focus from driving much more than those other activities. You can chose the right time to play with your entertainment, or talk to other passengers. They are also engaged somewhat in your driving. Someone on the phone is not, and requires that you give them your attention.
I hope that case studies lead to the realization that even hands-free is just as hazardous.
Ban them all. That's why they invented phone booths, and parking lots.
The key here is potentially lethal behavior. DUI's should be handled as a compounding of automobile incidence not a crime in an of itself.
If you are speeding, get in an accident, swerving, run a red light, &c while under the influence the punishment should be compounded greatly. If you are driving within all traffic regulations and just happen to be under the influence there should be no punishment. Perhaps treated like other traffic infractions of a ticket.
Sure driving drunk is a stupid thing to do and something I would not do. Although it is something I disagree with. I realize that if I want to live in a free society. I have to take risks with the choices other people make or put my own freedom at jeopardy.
Just as a weapon is potentially lethal yet is perfectly legal to own. If you have a weapon during the commission of a crime the punishment is greatly increased.
Back on topic. I don't see how people can be getting fined for talking on their cell phones. With a headset it is no more distracting than talking to a passenger.
As a side note a friend of mine was arrested for driving a boat under the influence. However, he was in a boat with two other people. The sober person was actually driving. He was arrested because he caught an off duty officer poaching his lobster traps. The officers partner was on duty and called out to get rid of them. As he was the only one on the boat drinking the officer decided to arrest him.
Because of how harsh DUI laws are. Part of his bail was to go to DUI classes and the judge delayed his trial for six months to ensure he went to all classes. Even though once it went to trial he was found not guilty he still had to go to a full DUI course and spend $1,000s on legal fees and air fare.
My opinion is that this a not an accurate statement.
But this sting involves just those still using hand-held devices.