It seems drunken driving crashes have been overtaken by numb nuts who can’t only not detach the fucking phone from their ear but decide driving up over a steep hill would be an ideal time to text someone, with some terribly important information. There have been three fatal crashes since the start of the year, three people have died, another is in a coma, all because some yakking asshole can’t be bothered with a little thing like safety and has to blat to someone how far away from home they are now. I wish the cops had the authority to confiscate a cell phone from a driver and then stomp it to tiny bits right in front of them. And then stick them with a $500 fine. Maybe that would get it through their oblivious skulls to put the damn thing AWAY when driving.
You don’t care if people are deemed guilty of violating laws that aren’t really laws? I hope you never get jury duty. 
If they change the law to prohibit simply *touching *a phone, then that’s a different story.
What about the other people you put at risk?
Well, I’m using the phone while driving on backcountry roads between work and home. Maybe once weekly I’ll see another vehicle. I see deer more often. I roll through stop signs similarly, looking for traffic as I approach and slowing to an almost stop. The illicit drug abuse is taking place on my back patio, I don’t see it putting others at risk.
ETA: the excess speed is keeping with the general flow of traffic when I venture out from the country.
You’ve clearly never seen a high deer, sir. They eat all the berries. 
Obviously, that already IS the law. The OP’s conviction is my cite. I’m just saying enforce the law.
The law says that isn’t the law.
Also: The texting law. (which is what I was technically dinged on)
The weird thing about that, as I mentioned is:
So, clearly, if I can read, select or enter a telephone number or name into my phone, it can be in my hand- I just can’t be doing the other stuff outlined in the rest of the law.
Like I said, the problem I’ve got is with how it is written. You want to ban people from touching cell phones? Do it. Don’t convict people for doing something that isn’t an actual violation of the law.
A single conviction now retroactively defines the law? Guess we can disband all those unnecessary appeals courts and allow all nine SCOTUS justices to permanently retire.
If you weren’t in violation of the law, you wouldn’t have been convicted. The judge says you broke the law, and the judge’s word is definitive. Your own interprtation of the law has no validity. If the judge says you broke the law, then you broke the law. Just take your medicine.
If she appeals it and it gets overturned, then we will have a new definition of the law. As it stands, the judge who convicted her is the one who gets to decide what the law means.
Thanks, I did take my medicine. Remember when I said I paid the fine months ago?
It’s also good to know that there has never been a law misinterpreted by a judge in our country. I wish I had the time and resources to appeal this, but I simply don’t. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop discussing the problem with the law. Sure, maybe I should put up or shut up, but I don’t have the means to do so.
You’re an intelligent man, what does that law mean to you when you read it?
It means don’t use a cell phone while you’re driving.
Got it. What does it mean to use it?
Whatever the judge decides it means. Under our legal system, the meaning of the text is interpreted by the judiciary.
Dude, what happened to you? When did you become this unreasonable? I realize that you don’t support people using electronic devices while driving. But your feelings about that are not what’s at issue here. You’ve just stated that a judge can never be wrong while making a ruling because the ruling is automatically correct until and unless overturned. Apparently, it is impossible for a judge to make a poor interpretation of the law, or to intentionally ignore the intent of the law as written. Am I understanding you correctly?
I would think “The phone is in my bag, I wasn’t even touching it” is a perfectly acceptable defense.
If an officer says he saw you run a red light, you can’t present a physical evidence that proves otherwise. That doesn’t mean it should be legal to run red lights.
I get this totally. I do. I actually fundamentally agree.
That said, the handsfree thing I have is the one that the CHP was on TV promoting everybody buy (one of several). The stupid thing fell off my dash, into my lap. I admit, I was wrong in swooping it up and not tossing it on the seat next to me fast enough, but according to some people here, even that would be a wrong thing to do. Heck, if all the officer saw was me throwing it onto the seat next to me, I’d have still gotten a ticket. To me, I had the stupid thing in my lap after it fell and I was afraid it was going to fall on the floor, possibly getting by the pedals. So I grabbed it off of my lap.
Phew, that’s a lot. What I mean is: I agree that clearly it is best for me to just throw thing as far away from me as possible when starting a car (which I do now, for what it’s worth), but at the time, I was doing exactly what the State was telling me to do on the news. I bought the exact product. The piece of crap failed me.
Like I said, that’s a whole lot to say I fundamentally agree with you. Like I’ve said a million times thus far, if you want to make it illegal for people to touch a phone while driving, that’s what the law ought to say. As of now, that isn’t at all what it says.
From a legal standpoint, that is correct. I understand that the argument that the statute in question is ambiguously written, but he fact remains that the judge is the one authorized to interpret it. Unless and untill he is overturned, his word actually is definitive. Sure, he could be in error, but the OP is not the one to make that determination.
For convenience:
If one were to take your advice to “just take your medicine” rather than having any sort of worthwhile discussion to even consider whether the judge in this specific instance may have made an inappropriate ruling, how would the ruling ever be overturned?