New traffic laws... Am I the only one confused?

[LowGo]

So... Oregon has a new law going into effect at the first of the year, making it illegal for anyone 18 and under to use a 2 way communication device while driving. And, Washington has a new law that makes text messaging while driving illegal. Okay... I'm okay with both of those. In fact, I think that anything except hands free cell use should be illegal.

But, in both of these cases, the police can't pull you over and give you a ticket for the offense. They can only pull you over for some other offense, and then give you a ticket for these as well. Why, if you bother to make something illegal, do you tie the hands of the police to enforce it? and I don't understand the logic... can someone please explain!!!

[hawkxp]

At least in OR, its because they actually care about civil liberties

Oregon's supreme court has limited many traffic violations to "add ons" only.

Seatbelts were that way for a long time... Its one of the reasons oregon cant have dragnet drunk driving stops..

[LowGo]

At least in OR, its because they actually care about civil liberties

Oregon's supreme court has limited many traffic violations to "add ons" only.

Seatbelts were that way for a long time... Its one of the reasons oregon cant have dragnet drunk driving stops..

Why don't they do that with speeding tickets too then?!

[Derek Mc]

This sounds daft! why? I mean, Oh I give in,,,,,,,, Daft ruling IMO

[lowriderman3]

Believe it or not in almost all states already, a lot of non-moving violations are like that, but police ignore it. i.e. tinted window, taillight covers, etc. So if you have illegally tinted windows in otherwords, you are not supposed to get pulled over for it alone, but during a moving violation offense, they can then cite you for the windows etc. Stops harassment which happens in my town all the time since it is a Military town. I have not yet had the oppurtunity to challenge that since I have not received a ticket for something like that, but have been pulled over and warned several times.

[SilvaSurfer]

People would always blame the police of profiling if they only got stop for non moving violation. When I was a para legal years ago. There was a big case against the police for doing so (profiling).

It's like you as a parent can't wipe your child or they call it child abuse, but once your child is in custody. They can hammer the kid... Twisted laws

[Super T]

Phones don't kill people, a lack of coordination does.

[lowriderman3]

Phones don't kill people, a lack of coordination does.

^^Exactly..So they ban talking on phones that are not hands free..What about eating, putting on makeup, etc. In that case they need to put us in a straight jacket when we drive! LOL

[Super T]

^^Exactly..So they ban talking on phones that are not hands free..What about eating, putting on makeup, etc. In that case they need to put us in a straight jacket when we drive! LOL

Last time I was in traffic school (about three years now) they gave us a list of the top six distractions as cited by drivers at fault in accidents in Illinois. I'm sure I don't have the order exactly correct, but it was roughly
1. children
2. pets
3. other drivers/roadside objects
4. radio
5. "daydreaming"
6. cellular phone

Tell you what... you ban the other five, and I'll gladly slingshot my phone into Lake Michigan. In the meantime, stop making placebo laws to appease the paranoid population and start working on real solutions... like plastic bags for kids, and blacked-out windows for roadside distractions...

[SmoovC]

I am going with the dark tint approach: if you can't see me doing it, then no reason to stop me. If you stop me for the tint, it is way cheaper than a ticket for the other reasons!

[OSUThunder]

hehehe plastic bags for kids. I like it.


...... I dont know, we just go for a drive and the kids fall right asleep ..... works like a charm!

[DarthMuffin]

It's a "camel's nose under the tent" deal. I'm sure they made it not a primary offense so that it would be much easier to get the votes to make it pass. So it's like that for political reasons, rather than any logical ones Later on they'll change it to be a primary offense, just like they did with the WA seatbelt law--just watch.

[MADDOG`]

The ruling seems daft to me as well but I can reason out how it gets used...here's a scenario...

Cop pulls driver over for speeding. Notices other violations (dark tint, open cel phone on speaker with the caller saying "Hello, Hello???") and based on the driver's attitude or cooperation, may only cite for speeding but may also "add on" the tint and cel phone usage as secondary violations. It may not be a primary violation but it will be a secondary violation.

What I don't get is how this will reduce the incident rate of crashes and/or moving violations because the driver is pre-occupied. So, I expect some of this will move to a primary violation classification. Seems half-a$$ed to me to go this route...

[hawkxp]

The issue is probable cause.

Speeding in itself is probable cause for pulling you over. The courts have said, that most non-moving violations are not.

Some state courts have said, that the simple act of performing the privilege of driving (ie its not a right) allows for inspection... Read no cause necessary.

Oregon's court has ruled, that with cause, you cant pull over... There is a huge case going on in portland over profiling right now...

In oregon, when they pass new non-moving violation laws, they tend to put it on the side of other cause needed for citation. Just to avoid the court cases

[ToddStone]

It's a "camel's nose under the tent" deal. I'm sure they made it not a primary offense so that it would be much easier to get the votes to make it pass. So it's like that for political reasons, rather than any logical ones Later on they'll change it to be a primary offense, just like they did with the WA seatbelt law--just watch.

If I remember right, the seatbelt law was passed nation wide at the same time along with the .08 for DUIs just before Clinton moved out of the White House.

As for the Cell phone usage, I'm glad they passed it. Most people don't know how to drive and talk at the same time. How many of you get stuck behind someone who is driving slower than the rest of traffic and when you get a chance to pass them, you noticed that they're talking on their cell? I get pissed because it's like they're focused more on talking than on driving.

Don't get me wrong, I do talk on the phone and drive when I need to, but my main concern is driving. I have a pretty spotless record and I like to keep it that way. Most people don't care otherwise.