MattFancy Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Don't forget starting today that it is a secondary offense for talking on your cell phone while driving in MD. You can have your phone on speaker or use bluetooth, but you can't have the phone in your hand. Since its only a secondary offense, you can only get pulled over for it if you are speeding or something else. So be smart and go get a bluetooth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 I only use speakers or bluetooth anyway. I hate talking on my phone while driving without it. Thanks for the heads up for those that are still a few years behind on this whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted October 1, 2010 Author Share Posted October 1, 2010 I only use speakers or bluetooth anyway. I hate talking on my phone while driving without it. Thanks for the heads up for those that are still a few years behind on this whole thing. When I bough my car about a year and a half ago it came with bluetooth installed in it. Probably the greatest thing ever invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Yeah, you guys are years late on this one. Welcome to 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Flanders Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Do secondary offenses really exist anymore? Seat belts are/used to be secondary, but I've been pulled over for it in the past 2 years. I wouldn't test the secondary theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Seat belt laws have changed over recent years and is now a reason to stop people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Every time I see someone driving erratically they have a cell phone in hand - so the police will erratic driving as a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Why bother passing a secondary law? Make it a primary law, and make the fine ridiculous (like $300 + court costs and processing fees). I HATE that VA has passed the buck on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Why bother passing a secondary law? Make it a primary law, and make the fine ridiculous (like $300 + court costs and processing fees). I HATE that VA has passed the buck on this. Don't even get me started on VA driving laws. A driving offense from 2003 almost cost me a job this week - I don't understand this state sometimes. I miss Maryland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 And quit texting and just talk on the phone. I dunno why they made this a secondary offense. Texting while driving should have the equivalent consequences as a DUI. I'm sure that this measure is to aid in ticketing for texting. Why not just go all the way? Phone in your hand, 6 months suspended, 10 points, and SR22 insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 And quit texting and just talk on the phone. I dunno why they made this a secondary offense. Texting while driving should have the equivalent consequences as a DUI. I'm sure that this measure is to aid in ticketing for texting. Why not just go all the way? Phone in your hand, 6 months suspended, 10 points, and SR22 insurance. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than punishing me for my entire life for driving 81 in a 65 when it's the only time I've ever been pulled over. Backwards ass state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Don't even get me started on VA driving laws. A driving offense from 2003 almost cost me a job this week - I don't understand this state sometimes. I miss Maryland.[/QUOTE] Oh the humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Oh the humanity. Maryland never screwed me over like Virginia - or should I say Lexington, VA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 81 in a 65 is reckless everywhere. Anything 20 MPH over the posted speed or over 80 is reckless. Count your blessings that you weren't arrested. VA can arrest you on the spot for exceeding 80 MPH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 81 in a 65 is reckless everywhere. Anything 20 MPH over the posted speed or over 80 is reckless. Count your blessings that you weren't arrested. VA can arrest you on the spot for exceeding 80 MPH. I understand that you can be arrested. However, I don't think someone should be punished forever for going 81 in a 65 if it is their only driving offense . . . ever. Reckless driving is also not a misdemeanor in most states and even in VA most people in my situation would have had it reduced to speeding. I understand that I made a mistake (7 years ago when I was 18) but I don't think the price I paid was a bit steep given the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 I understand that I made a mistake (7 years ago when I was 18) but I don't think the price I paid was a bit steep given the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 video That's messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Funny thing is that a new study has shown that bans on cell phones lead to no decrease in accidents Cell Phone Bans Don't Decrease Accidents, Study Says http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123084040 The study, conducted by the Highway Loss Data Institute, an insurance industry group, looked at accident rates before and after cell phone bans took effect in New York, the District of Columbia, Connecticut and California.It found that month-to-month fluctuations in collision accident claims didn't change before and after cell phone bans took effect. Nor did accident patterns change compared with those in nearby states without cell phone bans. "The laws aren't reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and several studies have established that phoning while driving increases crash risk," said Adrian Lund, president of the HLDI. As I've said before. Cell phones are demonized because they are identifiable when people drive with one to their ear. They are no more of a distraction than reaching for gum or turning your head to talk to the person next to you. IT'S THE PEOPLE who don't focus who are the problem. Think about this. If you live in a place without a ban and look, you will see twenty drivers a day on the phone in their cars. AT LEAST. I've sat at a light and watched three or four cars in a row go by with the driver holding a phone to their ear. With as many phones as you see, and with the way cell phones are portrayed you would think there would be an accident at every street corner. Did anyone see the mythbusters cell phone test? They re-created one of the widely used studies by ban advocates using the same method. It was ridiculous. At one point as the driver was navigating a tight path through cones they were asking the driver for the answer to a math question. How ******** stupid do you have to be to think that the phone is more of a problem for the driver than trying to do calculations in your head while driving a tight course? But it's not really a matter of stupidity. It's a matter of prejudice. People have made their minds up and created studies with the goal of proving their theories. Don't believe me? From the link I posted... The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reacted strongly to the HLDI study. "It is irresponsible to suggest that laws banning cell phone use while driving have zero effect on the number of crashes on our nation's roadways," the agency said in a statement. In other words, they don't even want to consider data that conflicts with their pre-conceived notions. Now before anyone gets their panties in a wad. I really don't have a problem with banning hand held use but there has to be a responsible limitation to it's application. It may be a necessary evil to help keep the PEOPLE who are stupid enough to do something like texting or dialing at speed and/or in traffic (which are the real problems) from at least one common distraction. I'm just saying that we need to focus more on the driver than the object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted October 1, 2010 Author Share Posted October 1, 2010 I agree Mad Mike. What's the difference between texting and someone scrolling through their iPod looking for a song? What about talking on the phone and talking to the person sitting next to you? I feel like sooner or later you won't be able to ride with anyone else in the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Why bother passing a secondary law? Make it a primary law, and make the fine ridiculous (like $300 + court costs and processing fees). I HATE that VA has passed the buck on this. This. And it should be against the law in ALL states to drive while talking. Bunch of ****ing idiots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Or it could just be something like this from the article. Lund says the HLDI is gathering data to figure out the mismatch. It could be that drivers may be switching to hands-free phones in these jurisdictions. The institute says the risk of crashing while using a hands-free phone and holding a phone are about the same. Currently no state bans the use of hands-free devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 I understand that you can be arrested.However, I don't think someone should be punished forever for going 81 in a 65 if it is their only driving offense . . . ever. Reckless driving is also not a misdemeanor in most states and even in VA most people in my situation would have had it reduced to speeding. I understand that I made a mistake (7 years ago when I was 18) but I don't think the price I paid was a bit steep given the circumstances. Well the good news is that within the next year this will be removed from your record. The reason it stays on your record for 7 years is to prevent repeat offenders from continuing to offend. Imagine if you had received this 1 ticket and every 6 months got another. Wouldn't you want the state to eventually prevent you from driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted October 1, 2010 Author Share Posted October 1, 2010 Or it could just be something like this from the article. Now I do agree with that, what is the difference between holding the phone and using a hands free device? Is it because you can't have both hands on the wheel? I see tons of people that drive with only one hand, I'm one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Well the good news is that within the next year this will be removed from your record. The reason it stays on your record for 7 years is to prevent repeat offenders from continuing to offend. Imagine if you had received this 1 ticket and every 6 months got another. Wouldn't you want the state to eventually prevent you from driving? According to what I was told it will always show up when anyone is doing a "criminal" background check on me. To me that seems like a pretty harsh punishment for essentially speeding. (I realize I was going fast enough to be considered reckless but I do not normally speed) It just bugs the hell out of me that I no longer have a clean "criminal" record because of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 According to what I was told it will always show up when anyone is doing a "criminal" background check on me.To me that seems like a pretty harsh punishment for essentially speeding. (I realize I was going fast enough to be considered reckless but I do not normally speed) It just bugs the hell out of me that I no longer have a clean "criminal" record because of this. Actually, I was wrong. Reckless in excess of 80 remains on your record for 11 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.