A Nation of Troublemakers, We Are:
The Dixie Yid reports on how he used his statutory construction skills to get out of a ticket for using a cell phone while driving. And he raises the important question: What is "the immediate proximity of[] the user's ear"? An interesting post.
Why was he ignoring the definition of "immediate proximity" that was plainly stated in the statute? A reading of that definition seems to mean close enough to hear what's being said on the other end of the line, which could very easily be by the chin, even if it wasn't on speakerphone.
Thank you for the link. I'm a long time reader and am honored.
FantasiaWHT,
Thanks for your comment. I would disagree with you about the factual issue there. I can't really hear the person on the other end of the line if the phone is more than a couple of inches from my ear.
Luci,
Yowsers, ouch!
-Dixie Yid
Doesn't that depend to some extent on the volume to which the speaker is set? With the volume on my phone turned all the way up I could probably hear it when held next to my chin, even if not on speakerphone; I suspect the maximum hearing range varies from phone to phone, and from ear to ear. Perhaps the statute is void for vagueness?
Second, while the argument made was sound, does anyone else agree this is a badly drafted law and could have been written more clearly and effectively?
If that is the case then how do you justify allowing any conversation in the car? Is there something special about speaking on a phone as opposed to speaking to someone sitting next to you in the car that makes it more distracting? Moreover when people speak to someone in the car they seem to think that it is necessary to make eye contact with them. That has got to be more of a hazard then simply speaking on a phone.
From what I've read, studies have beared out what you're saying. There is no significant difference in accidents caused by talking on a cell phone while driving with or without a hands free device. But there was a significant difference between those talking on the phone at all while driving versus those who were not talking on the phone. I think this is why the National Safty Council is advocating laws which forbid talking on the phone at all while driving.
-Dixie Yid
I know that it is the conversation and not the phone that is the problem. I once blew through a red light while distracted by the conversation I was having on the phone.
Screaming at your kids in the back seat probably has the same effect, but I don't know if this has been empirically proven. I believe that having a conversation with another person in the car is not a dangerous since that person is usually watching what you are doing and is often in the position to correct your driving.
Please see my answer to SFlaw in the comment section back at Dixie Yid.
Interesting question! I don't watch television so I don't know how they hold their cell phones on reality shows. To be honest, I hold the phone that way because of my reading of the statute.
My understanding from when the law was debated locally: when you are talking to a real, live, passenger, and you are doing something that requires your full attention - merging in heavy traffic, perhaps - your passenger tends to 'pause' the conversation for a short time. The caller on the other end of a phone line doesn't have those situational clues, and keeps talking.
"The Dixie Yid reports on how he used his statutory construction skills to get out of a ticket for using a cell phone while driving."
My initial reaction: He did this all while driving:-)?
Lior said:
"Well, a law prohibiting talking on the phone while driving, since that distracts the driver, would make sense to me. Prohibiting holding the phone at all during the call would also make sense (need two hands on the wheel in case of emergency, say, but an earplug is no problem). I can't make policy sense of the law as written."
The law as written prohibits driving while talking over a phone one is holding. Presumably the lawmakers thought talking+holding more dangerous than talking alone. You may disagree, but is this really nonsensical?
I had the (mis)fortune of waiting in line behind a man fighting a ticket for using a cellphone while driving in Nassau County Traffic Court. He claimed that he hadn't yet made a phone call but was holding the phone in his hand. He admitted that he was about to make the call but dropped the phone into his lap as soon as he noticed the police car and he brought his phone bill of proof that no phone call was made or received before being pulled over by the cops. The response he got in traffic court was "The law says hands-free, that means you can't even hold it" and the ALJ refused to listen to him.
Also, what is the level of offensiveness? Is it clearly always out of bounds (the way I think "kike" is) or is it more like "colored" (offensive but not an atomic bomb, perhaps because was a common older expression)?
Okay, now that I'm on a roll: is it considered offensive or even weird for a non-Jew to refer to a Jew as a "Jew"? It feels inappropriate, so I always say "He's Jewish" rather than "He's a Jew." The fact that I've heard Jews use the latter expression doesn't answer the question; I'm talking about for non-Jews (goys? goyim? goyish person? For the record: we don't care).
Thanks.
The person in the car with you can stop the conversation and tell you to watch out if they see something dangerous, and will follow visual cues to not distract you if you fall silent and start concentrating on the road. The person on the cell phone will not notice the road, and if you fall silent to start concentrating will probably keep talking, distracting you further.
Fixed.
I don't think there's anything inherently offensive about the word "Yid." It's just the Yiddish word for "Jew." It's not comparable at all to "kike" or the "N word." Among Jewish people, it's often just used as an affectionate term, although not in the way that some African Americans may use the inherently offensive "N word" as a term of endearment among themselves.
I think that whether or not it would be taken offensively depends entirely on the context and tone of voice, since the word isn't inherently pejorative. If someone tells you they just lost a bunch of money in the market because those "Yids" control the financial markets, then... yeah, that might be offensive. But if you say to your best Jewish friend that he's your favorite "Yid," then I don't think anyone would be able to rationally take offense.
Hope that's helpful.
I suppose talking on the phone could be as bad as driving drunk (0.08%? Houston Lawyer can probably drink me under the table -- at 0.08% I have trouble lying on the floor without holding on) but when you're driving drunk you can't get sober when you're negotiating a merge or something hairy, and then get drunk when you're stuck at a red light or in slow traffic. You CAN put the phone down at those times.
Some conversations, on the phone or all of us inside the car, distract me. Some don't. Texting doesn't either, but it can take a long time to do that. (I don't fiddle with my radio or adjust my seats during the hairier driving bits either.)
As a side note, it would be interesting to see how Talmud looks from the eyes of a modern lawyer.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.