Laws Concerning Driving While Using Hand Held Devices

Perun said:
Is this another one of those "the whole world is smart but the US is stupid" things?
Click to expand...

Unusually, no. While Foro is known for espousing such an attitude, this time he appears to be saying that Holland is right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Which is exactly why I stopped taking anything posted by Foro seriously very long ago. He is by far the most closed-minded and provincial person on this forum.
 
edit: Never mind, I shouldn't walk into this trap.

A mod can offend a user. A user can't offend a mod, because then he risks a ban on his ass.
 
Forostar, a moderator has *never* banned someone because they were offended. That's why there's 3 of us, so at least one of us can stay out of any debate.

Well, maybe You Know Who did it, but those days are long since over, and I can assure you that none of us three have ever done that.

And, if it comes down to it, we can always call on the Shades for a not-involved opinion.
 
I'm of two minds about jaywalking (seeing as its now become the topic), I regularly do it as do many other students around Manchester and probably the rest of the UK. On the one hand, it should be allowed because there are too many times when the road is empty and I can easily tell there is no one coming and the ideal of "you ensure yourself that it is safe" mostly works. On the other hand, I can definitely see where it is an issue that needs some stricter rules, there are many people taking unnecessary risks and putting possibly innocent motorists into difficult situations.

It seems to be that in the UK its looked at as "the pedestrian always has right of way" and that all laws to do with road safety are to do with getting the motorists to drive at speeds that would make impacts less frequent or less harmful. In other words, the focus is on the driver's responsibility and less on the pedestrian. I think the balance is a little wrong in some respects as those that do walk in front of cars and buses which are unable to stop in time are almost always stupid or not paying the proper attention, the driver should not be punished but I guess its a case-by-case decision really.
This way of thinking has probably stemmed from when cars (or even horse-carriages?) originally started being used in heavily public places and they were less frequent.

I definitely understood the driver's view point after obtaining my driver's license, which involved a lot of city-driving as I did all my tests in the city centre. You have enough to think about already with gear choices, mirrors, speed, etc before people start jumping out of nowhere at you. I definitely think it should be mandatory that people take driving tests in city centres or built-up areas, as its excellent training for getting your mind to think about 10 things at once (if it wasn't already with driving).
 
Forostar said:
I believe you. But to offend a mod wouldn't be the most constructive thing to do, I guess.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to inject my opinion on the topic at this point, since it seems like a good idea for me to stay out of it. But if you have a bloody opinion, say so. Someone might tell you your opinion stinks (as SMX just did), but it doesn't mean that you are in trouble, or anything similar.
 
Forostar said:
Hey Genghis, do you also have to return your Toyota to the dealer for a check-up? I guess you've heard about the gas-pedal problem?
Click to expand...
My car is exempt from the problem as it is a 2008.
Onhell said:
While true that the car is stopping as to not harm the jaywalker the driver is also at fault, because just because s/he saw the jaywalker, it doesn't mean the guy behind them did and might try to go around hitting the jaywalker anyway. In other words, they get ticketed for enabling the jaywalker.

Instead of stopping for jaywalkers, HONK so they run out of the way. After going to defensive driving school 6 times these things sorta stick with you...
Click to expand...

I guess the point is where exactly is the jaywalker in relation to the car.  If the only way to avoid a collision is to break, than the car is not at fault.  But if the jaywalker is waiting on the sidewalk, than the driver is at fault.
 
Genghis Khan said:
WTF?!
Click to expand...

That's what I said.

Onhell said:
While true that the car is stopping as to not harm the jaywalker the driver is also at fault, because just because s/he saw the jaywalker, it doesn't mean the guy behind them did and might try to go around hitting the jaywalker anyway. In other words, they get ticketed for enabling the jaywalker.

Instead of stopping for jaywalkers, HONK so they run out of the way. After going to defensive driving school 6 times these things sorta stick with you...
Click to expand...

Yes, but you see, there was a case last year where I was walking to school and I saw this chola jaywalking. The car honked, but she kept going. Well, the car hit her, and she was sent seven feet and hit the ground on her head. Not the best thing to see on your way to school. The driver of the car is currently getting sued by her parents.

So that won't always work.

Genghis Khan said:
My car is exempt from the problem as it is a 2008.
I guess the point is where exactly is the jaywalker in relation to the car.  If the only way to avoid a collision is to break, than the car is not at fault.  But if the jaywalker is waiting on the sidewalk, than the driver is at fault.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The problem is, the cops aren't using discretion. If you stopp while someone was jaywalking, you get ticketed. Bah. BS. They should be using the cops to actually enforce the chatting-on-a-cell-phone-while-driving law. It's not like they can prevent jaywalking.
 
I always 'jaywalk' and I didn't realize it was illegal? If there's enough space between cars to pass then I will do. And I'll carry on doing so as well.
 
Moonchild33 said:
That's what I said.

Yes, but you see, there was a case last year where I was walking to school and I saw this chola jaywalking. The car honked, but she kept going. Well, the car hit her, and she was sent seven feet and hit the ground on her head. Not the best thing to see on your way to school. The driver of the car is currently getting sued by her parents.

So that won't always work.

I agree with this. The problem is, the cops aren't using discretion. If you stopp while someone was jaywalking, you get ticketed. Bah. BS. They should be using the cops to actually enforce the chatting-on-a-cell-phone-while-driving law. It's not like they can prevent jaywalking.
Click to expand...

WTF!  So the driver is screwed either way.  Talk about non-objective laws.
 
They can sue, doesn't mean they will win. If the driver can somehow prove he was going the speed limit, gave enough warning AND there was no way he could stop on time... he should be fine. From what you say it sounds like the driver was clearly speeding... in a school zone... he's triple fucked.
 
Onhell said:
They can sue, doesn't mean they will win. If the driver can somehow prove he was going the speed limit, gave enough warning AND there was no way he could stop on time... he should be fine. From what you say it sounds like the driver was clearly speeding... in a school zone... he's triple fucked.
Click to expand...

That time, it wasn't a school zone. XD There was a crosswalk, but she decided to cut diagonally through traffic. While there was a green light. She was incredibly stupid.

And it's gonna be a total waste of this guy's time. I feel so bad for him.
 
Onhell said:
While true that the car is stopping as to not harm the jaywalker the driver is also at fault, because just because s/he saw the jaywalker, it doesn't mean the guy behind them did and might try to go around hitting the jaywalker anyway. In other words, they get ticketed for enabling the jaywalker.

Instead of stopping for jaywalkers, HONK so they run out of the way. After going to defensive driving school 6 times these things sorta stick with you...
Click to expand...

If this were a drinking game, I'd call "bullshit" on this post and Moonchild's prior post to which it responds.  If there is a statute in California or anywhere else requiring drivers to "honk" at pedestrians (legal or illegal) rather than stopping for them, I challenge Onhell, Moonchild or anyone else to cite it here.  I refuse to believe that is the case until I read it with my own eyes.  It's preposterous. 
 
I've never heard of the honking thing. I've only seen someone do that once.


And yes, cornfed, you are correct. I made up those entire posts just to entertain people. It's all BS.
 
Remember CFH is a lawyer…so it's natural for him to say "fuck that, show me the law".
 
cornfedhick said:
If this were a drinking game, I'd call "bullshit" on this post and Moonchild's prior post to which it responds.  If there is a statute in California or anywhere else requiring drivers to "honk" at pedestrians (legal or illegal) rather than stopping for them, I challenge Onhell, Moonchild or anyone else to cite it here.  I refuse to believe that is the case until I read it with my own eyes.  It's preposterous. 
Click to expand...

I added the honking part, but I have been told by police man NOT TO STOP for Jay walkers, because it endangers WAY MORE PEOPLE, for the sake of one retard not wanting to use crosswalks or, I don't know... WAIT until there is no traffic. So take it up with them and you can look that up yourself.
 
Genghis Khan said:
My car is exempt from the problem as it is a 2008.
Click to expand...

Yes? What kind of Toyota do you have then?

In Europe 1,8 million cars had to go the dealer to check if there’s a problem:

Eight Toyota-models.

AYGO (Februari 2005 and Augustus 2009)
iQ (November 2008 - November 2009)
Yaris (November 2005 - September 2009)
Auris (October 2006 - 5 January 2010)
Corolla (October 2006 - December 2009)
Verso (Februari 2009 - 5 January 2010)
Avensis (November 2008 - December 2009)
RAV4 (November 2005 - November 2009).

In the US 5,35 million cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top