VaneWimsey's Comments

Any "reporting" that is based on a random person's Facebook or Twitter post must be presumed to be completely fraudulent until proven otherwise.

Incidentally, the Facebook post has been deleted. Make of that what you will.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The person who pays the fine isn't forced to give food to the poor. That person is out $2 either way; he or she simply chooses to have it go to the poor instead of to the library. But the taxpayer has to pay $2 more to support the library. Thus, in effect, there's a forced transfer of $2 from the taxpayer to the poor.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
No, not really. The fines should go toward running the library. Diverting them to charity instead forces the taxpayer to contribute to charity without his or her consent. If the library wants to have a collection basket for food, fine.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
  4 replies
About the phone: The law is not totally settled, but here's what I can tell you definitively.

Simply reading the statute doesn't answer the question. Oversimplifying slightly, it prohibits driving "while using a wireless telephone." (Veh. Code, ยง 23123.) Does that mean while using the telephone *as* a telephone?

People v. Spriggs (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 held that using a phone as a GPS unit while driving violates the statute. It explained: "The statute . . . focuses on the distraction a driver faces when using his or her hands to operate the phone, specifically including 'the physical distraction a motorist encounters when either picking up the phone, punching the number keypad, holding the phone up to his or her ear to converse, or pushing a button to end a call.' That distraction would be present whether the phone is used for carrying on a conversation or for some other purpose."

Spriggs is a decision of a very low-level court (Fresno Superior Court). Other state courts could disagree. But they probably won't. While Spriggs is not binding, it *is*persuasive. In other words, a judge probably won't want to waste the time or energy to redecide the issue.

My non-lawlerly advice: Assert the First Amendment. Argue that the statute is unconstitutional to the extent that it prevents you from making a record of a newsworthy event.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Looks like a great way to break your neck.

Seriously, is there any reason why the frame has to go over your shoulders? Couldn't you do the same thing by just leaving the pedals off an ordinary bike frame? Oh, and bonus, that would have brakes.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.

Profile for VaneWimsey

  • Member Since 2012/09/08


Statistics

Comments

  • Threads Started 11
  • Replies Posted 2
  • Likes Received 4
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More