Needs LEO Interpretation on Texting Law

[Whitebread]

At least the end result may be a better looking woman for all (that see her), to enjoy! There is nothing we get out of some dumbass (again, mostly women), digitally cackling back and forth with another dumbass about which slut got to spend time with the Bachelor last night!

I can almost, almost; understand this phenomenon if someone could prove to me that the majority of the texting was of substantive communications.

I'll be waiting!

Well I work in a bad neighborhood and the other night I left around 6:45 - 7:00. So I called the wife and I had forgotten she was in church. So she text me to make sure I was alright, so when I saw it was safe I glanced at the message and cut on the speach to text command on my phone and responded. I consider my wife not having to wait 30+ minutes to know I'm arlight a pretty big benefit. I never departed from my lane I never got too close to the guy in front of me. It was all done safely and appropriately. Although likely illegal. Now as a general rule I don't do that. If someone text me I poke a few buttons on the steering wheel and I call them, but in that instant I made a judgement call and it was plenty safe. Again in 90% of the driving I do I would have never tried that its just too big a risk and the way I did it with the speach command allowed me to text what I want without looking at the phone any more than using the phone to call someone but its illegal to text like that and its ok to call people or use gps? That doesnt make sense.

 

[Emperor]

Well I work in a bad neighborhood and the other night I left around 6:45 - 7:00. So I called the wife and I had forgotten she was in church. So she text me to make sure I was alright, so when I saw it was safe I glanced at the message and cut on the speach to text command on my phone and responded. I consider my wife not having to wait 30+ minutes to know I'm arlight a pretty big benefit. I never departed from my lane I never got too close to the guy in front of me. It was all done safely and appropriately. Although likely illegal. Now as a general rule I don't do that. If someone text me I poke a few buttons on the steering wheel and I call them, but in that instant I made a judgement call and it was plenty safe. Again in 90% of the driving I do I would have never tried that its just too big a risk and the way I did it with the speach command allowed me to text what I want without looking at the phone any more than using the phone to call someone but its illegal to text like that and its ok to call people or use gps? That doesnt make sense.

Sounds a lot like the America Haters' approach to gun laws! Don't it? Feel good ******** laws that mostly penalizes the "good" people; and just like all of those types of laws, there is no teeth or willingness to enforce them unless the object or act is so egregious, just the thought makes people shudder with fear and disgust!

The hypocrisy of it all is mind numbing! We allow these parasites to make an inanimate object like a gun the most hated, demonized, and feared pieces of metal on the planet to their ilk, they rally around that ignorance, and then they penalize law abiding Americans who get it!

Likewise, we enact a "Texting while Driving" law to appease some person or group and again; penalize those that may not be endangering others.

So, I will ask again. What part of this law posted in the OP, should be enforced and how? What constitutes phone use, versus texting? Where is the officer's decision based? How will he/she decide what appears to be texting or a guy admiring his new Otter Box?

BTW: Just prove it in court ain't cutting it for me!

 

[Whitebread]

Sounds a lot like the America Haters' approach to gun laws! Don't it? Feel good ******** laws that mostly penalizes the "good" people; and just like all of those types of laws, there is no teeth or willingness to enforce them unless the object or act is so egregious, just the thought makes people shudder with fear and disgust!

The hypocrisy of it all is mind numbing! We allow these parasites to make an inanimate object like a gun the most hated, demonized, and feared pieces of metal on the planet to their ilk, they rally around that ignorance, and then they penalize law abiding Americans who get it!

Likewise, we enact a "Texting while Driving" law to appease some person or group and again; penalize those that may not be endangering others.

So, I will ask again. What part of this law posted in the OP, should be enforced and how? What constitutes phone use, versus texting? Where is the officer's decision based? How will he/she decide what appears to be texting or a guy admiring his new Otter Box?

BTW: Just prove it in court ain't cutting it for me!

Agreed. Innocent till proven guilty only applies to criminal court. But from the flip side a $500 dollar second offense for texting and many traffic violations now days may be more expensive than a misdemeanor drunk in public. Which I would believe gives the state the "burden of proof" being a "criminal offense." Crazy world we live in.

 

[El Rubio]

My father received a ton of noise ordinance type tickets when he used to take his motorcycle through the French Quarter. I don't think he's ever contested it, but I highly doubt they actually used a meter. Parking tickets are cut and dry, but I think it's just a simple way for the cities to collect revenue (I meant specifically for parking meters, not so much no parking zones).

If your friend has the ticket with the time on it, he can pull up his history and show that there were no texts sent/received at the time.

You can read an earlier text at any time and there are no records of that or skip that stupid Adele song on Pandora, or snap chat your coffee cup, etc. It's kind of your word against what the officer says was observed. I suppose the same can be said of speeding, reckless driving, etc. They don't need video to prove it to the court.

 

[nola000]

Pay the ticket because he was texting and driving or PROVE otherwise, it's simple pull a copy of your phone records.

And being stopped in traffic or at a light is still operating a motor vehicle on state or public roads.

And yes it pisses me off to no end when I see idiots texting and driving !!!

This.

Hire an attorney.

"I WAS USING THE WAZE."

I for one would love to see more cops giving tickets out for texting and driving !! Put the dam phone down and you won't have an issue !

Sorry but on this one if it's in your hand your wrong !

Free legal advice is usually worth what you paid for it. And if a Leo would believe every story given to him, he would never write a ticket. Everyone has an excuse.

A phone in the hand does not automatically equal texting....isn't that what's in contention here?

Yall all seem to be missing a major point. If the LEO didnt actually witness him texting then where is the probable cause for the stop? Better yet, if he didnt actually witness the texting where is the reasonable suspicion that a crime was even committed? LEO first has to either witness a crime taking place or articulate his reasonable suspicion that a crime had taken place or was about to take place. Since the texting law itself excludes, "reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in a wireless telecommunications device for the purpose of making a telephone call" just having your phone in your hand and looking at it would not constitute probable cause for a stop.

 

[nola000]

I have to say its sad to me that people are winning the grand prize at the darwin awards, but it changes nothing. As long as I can remember grouchy old men like myself have be griping about idiot drivers doing something...Personally I think as a free society (well not really anymore but go with it) we should allow people to make the decision for themselves. If they are really good multi-taskers and never cause a single issue good for them, but when they do cause an accident or a cop notices that they cant maintain their lane, nail them. If thats because they are making themselves a sandwich, texting, picking their nose, or just sleepy, to me it doesnt matter.

I think you are missing his point.

If people can drive safely while also doing X, Y or Z, that's their prerogative. Those people aren't killing anybody, endangering anybody, etc. Not even endangering themselves.

There are already laws for unsafe driving, failure to stop, failure to yield, reckless driving, etc.

The unsafe drivers texting and whatnot are not made unsafe by texting, but are unsafe drivers because they don't give a ****, are too dumb to multitask, are generally a crappy driver anyway, or some combination thereof. The reason for their poor driving should not matter.

Best posts yet on this thread!!!

 

[Whitebread]

Best posts yet on this thread!!!

Thank you sir.

 

[jmcrawf1]

TL;DR

Just tell him to fight it and prove that no text messages were sent (or received) at that time.

Boom

A court order to the phone company will prove otherwise. Ask me how I know

Tell your friend not to be a dick and pay the ticket if he was texting. If not, plead to LRS 32:58 Careless operation because driving while admiring his phone case is careless and retarded.


Oh, Boom.

 

[jmcrawf1]

Yall all seem to be missing a major point. If the LEO didnt actually witness him texting then where is the probable cause for the stop? Better yet, if he didnt actually witness the texting where is the reasonable suspicion that a crime was even committed? LEO first has to either witness a crime taking place or articulate his reasonable suspicion that a crime had taken place or was about to take place. Since the texting law itself excludes, "reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in a wireless telecommunications device for the purpose of making a telephone call" just having your phone in your hand and looking at it would not constitute probable cause for a stop.

Who says you need probable cause for a stop?

 

[charlie12]

Who says you need probable cause for a stop?

Yep maybe he was running fog lights and that was the PC.

 

[kz45]

So you can't run fog lights?
Aftermarket or factory

 

[nola000]

Who says you need probable cause for a stop?

Yep maybe he was running fog lights and that was the PC.

Yall are joking, right? Please tell me youre joking.

 

[charlie12]

So you can't run fog lights?
Aftermarket or factory

Yes but not like 99.9% of the people do.

RS 32:322
§322. Use of multiple beam road lighting equipment
A. Whenever a motor vehicle is being operated on a roadway or shoulder adjacent thereto during the times specified in R.S. 32:301, the driver shall use a distribution of light or composite beam, directed high enough and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at safe distance in advance of the vehicle subject to the following requirements and limitations.
B. Whenever a driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within 500 feet, such driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver. The lowermost distribution of light, or composite beam, specified in R.S. 32:321, shall be dimmed to avoid glare at all times, regardless of road contour and loading.
C. Whenever the driver of a vehicle follows another vehicle within 200 feet to the rear, except when engaged in the act of overtaking or passing, such driver shall use a distribution of light permissible under this Chapter other than the uppermost distribution of light specified in R.S. 32:321(1).
D. Whenever the driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within five hundred feet or follows another vehicle two hundred feet to the rear, such driver shall not use any fog lamps or other auxiliary driving or passing lamps, except during periods of inclement weather or fog.
Acts 1962, No. 310, §1; Acts 1988, No. 598, §1.

 

[nola000]

Yes but not like 99.9% of the people do.

RS 32:322
§322. Use of multiple beam road lighting equipment
D. Whenever the driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within five hundred feet or follows another vehicle two hundred feet to the rear, such driver shall not use any fog lamps or other auxiliary driving or passing lamps, except during periods of inclement weather or fog.
Acts 1962, No. 310, §1; Acts 1988, No. 598, §1.

Louisiana must hold the title of stupidest laws in the country. Do they even think before they pass this crap? Half the cars on the road today have daytime running fog lamps.

 

[kz45]

I hear ya, my fog lamps in no way blind oncoming traffic!

 

[charlie12]

Louisiana must hold the title of stupidest laws in the country. Do they even think before they pass this crap? Half the cars on the road today have daytime running fog lamps.

If you drove all night every night like I did you wouldn't think so. It's gotten to the point that people don't know and don't care if they are blinding other drivers. Now they are changing out headlights and fog lights and it's look how cool I am and to hell with other drivers.

I think they should use it to get DWI drivers. Stop them for the illegal use of fog lights and when they roll that window down and the strong smell of a alcoholic beverage comes out bust them.

 

[general mills]

If you drove all night every night like I did you wouldn't think so. It's gotten to the point that people don't know and don't care if they are blinding other drivers. Now they are changing out headlights and fog lights and it's look how cool I am and to hell with other drivers.

I think they should use it to get DWI drivers. Stop them for the illegal use of fog lights and when they roll that window down and the strong smell of a alcoholic beverage comes out bust them.

I drive at night consistently for the last 12 years, and you are right, in the last year people have gone to some obnoxiously bright headlights. Some of the ones I see I think are stock as well, but when they get behind you they beam very brightly in your rearview mirror and I need to flip it down. Coming head on through a curve, I'll lose sight of the road for a second. I hate the ones that seem to change hues as the car hits bumps. Again, I think these are stock lights.

 

[sliguns]

A court order to the phone company will prove otherwise. Ask me how I know

How do you know?

 

[nola000]

If you drove all night every night like I did you wouldn't think so. It's gotten to the point that people don't know and don't care if they are blinding other drivers. Now they are changing out headlights and fog lights and it's look how cool I am and to hell with other drivers.

I drive at night consistently for the last 12 years, and you are right, in the last year people have gone to some obnoxiously bright headlights. Some of the ones I see I think are stock as well, but when they get behind you they beam very brightly in your rearview mirror and I need to flip it down. Coming head on through a curve, I'll lose sight of the road for a second. I hate the ones that seem to change hues as the car hits bumps. Again, I think these are stock lights.

I understand what yall are referring to but that has nothing to do with "fog lights". Fog lights are traditionally mounted low on the bumper and would never effect other drivers.

What I think yall are referring to are the aftermarket HID bulbs that people put in headlight housings that arent designed for them. The problem isnt the bulbs themselves, those HID bulbs are actually safer because they are brighter and light the road up better for everyone, the problem is that if your vehicle didnt originally come with HID bulbs then the reflectors in the housings arent shaped to properly direct and focus the beam from that style, not brightness, of bulb/lamp. Instead it will scatter the beam all over the place. Regular halogen "old style" headlight bulbs will blind you just as much at the right angle you just dont notice it as much because most vehicles headlight housings throughout history were made for this type of bulb.

A problem bigger than any of the issues with reflector housings and mismatching bulbs is that very few people ever "aim" their headlights. Just about every vehicle has a process and adjustment for aiming the headlights to the right vertical and horizontal heading so not to blind other drivers.Nobody does this. Its a matter of routine maintenance as the headlights will shift over time from the vibration of the vehicle or the fatigue of the parts.

I sometimes drive my Civic which sits very low to the ground and I get blinded by trucks and SUVs with stock headlights all the time. Those same trucks and SUVs never blind me when Im in my lifted Land Rover Discovery. When your eyes are at the same level as the oncoming headlights you will always be blinded by them no matter the type of headlight coming at you. Even worse are lifted trucks and trucks with heavy loads in the bed or are pulling trailers or boats with a lot of tongue weight as this sags the rear of the vehicle and changes the aim point of the headlights right into the eyes of the oncoming drivers. Europe, always being ahead of the U.S., is now requiring that vehicle manufacturers design auto-adjusting headlights that level out automatically to help mitigate this problem.

So would yall suggest banning lifted hunting trucks? Pulling people over if their rear end is sagging too much from pulling their yacht? Got too much lumber in the back of you truck? Get a ticket. See its not just "those damn kids" or "rapper thugs". Change your tune when the shoe is on the other foot, dont ya?

Every problem in the U.S. cant be legislated away by one group of people who arent affected or understand or care about "those other people". We all are "those other people" when we're on the road. My solution is a simple one. I wear lightly shaded polarized glasses at night. You wouldnt think wearing sunglasses at night, as the song goes, would be a good idea but I can actually see a lot better like this as it cuts out all the glare from the road. Also works very well in the rain for the same reason. I actually use my sunglasses more at night and in the rain than during a bright day. For a bright day nothing is better than your sun visor. Duh.

 

[nola000]

Some of the ones I see I think are stock as well, but when they get behind you they beam very brightly in your rearview mirror and I need to flip it down. Coming head on through a curve, I'll lose sight of the road for a second. I hate the ones that seem to change hues as the car hits bumps.

By the way, you flip your mirror up at night not down. Auto dimming mirrors are the beeknees and they sell aftermarket versions you can put on any vehicle.

Im always looking for ways to make my driving experience more enjoyable.