California Vehicle Code changes taking effect on 7/1/08 next week

[OCCCW]

Just a reminder to try to minimize unnecessary "official" contact while CCW, I recieved an email that the following are changes that are about to take effect. Some are just increases in fines, some are new reasons for a traffic stop:

1. Carpool lane - 1st time $1068.50 starting 7/1/08 (The $271 posted on the highway is old). Don't do it again because 2nd time is going to be double. 3rd time triple, and 4th time license suspended.


2. Incorrect lane change - $380. Don't cross the lane on solid lines or intersections.


3. Block intersection - $485


4. Driving on the shoulder - $450


5. Cell phone use in the construction zone. - Double fine as of 07/01/08.
Cell phone use must be "hands free" while driving.


6. Passengers over 18 not in their seatbelts - both passengers and drivers get tickets

7. Speeders can only drive 3 miles above the limit.


8. DUI = JAIL (Stays on your driving record for 10 years!)


9. As of 07/01/08 cell phone use must be "hands free" while driving.

[Dan M.]

3 mph over? That will be interesting.

[DVSmith]

Snopes is your friend:

snopes.com: New Traffic Laws for 2007

[OCCCW]

I am so embarrassed, however, they will still stop you for the cell phone violation, right?

[45 ACP]

Some of the items are correct......some are ALREADY the law.....some are just plain WRONG

Originally Posted by OCCCW

1. Carpool lane - 1st time $1068.50 starting 7/1/08 (The $271 posted on the highway is old). Don't do it again because 2nd time is going to be double. 3rd time triple, and 4th time license suspended.

WRONG. See here

Originally Posted by OCCCW

2. Incorrect lane change - $380. Don't cross the lane on solid lines or intersections.

WRONG. See here

Originally Posted by OCCCW

3. Block intersection - $485

WRONG. See here

Originally Posted by OCCCW

4. Driving on the shoulder - $450

WRONG. See here

Originally Posted by OCCCW

5. Cell phone use in the construction zone. - Double fine as of 07/01/08.
Cell phone use must be "hands free" while driving.

Yes. However, keep in mind the only reason this is right is because due to the handsfree law going into effect, it's just another one of the violations that will get you double fines in a construction zone. Every other traffic violation is ALREADY a double-fine in a construction zone SO LONG AS IT IS CLEARLY MARKED AS A DOUBLE-FINE ZONE.

Originally Posted by OCCCW

6. Passengers over 18 not in their seatbelts - both passengers and drivers get tickets

Already the law.

Originally Posted by OCCCW

7. Speeders can only drive 3 miles above the limit.

WRONG. No such thing in the VC.

Originally Posted by OCCCW

8. DUI = JAIL (Stays on your driving record for 10 years!)

Right and WRONG. DUI is *still* a misdemeanor, therefore it is up to the officer if you are arrested or just get a ride in a taxi.

It DOES stay on your driving record for 10 years, but that's for insurance company purposes. It stays on your driving record FOREVER in other cases (such as LE background checks......you know, like for CCW)

Originally Posted by OCCCW

9. As of 07/01/08 cell phone use must be "hands free" while driving.

There are exceptions. See here

[DVSmith]

45,

does the following statement pertain to land mobile communications devices such as amateur radios?

Q: May I use the hands-free feature while driving if my car has the feature built in?
A: No. The law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from using any type of wireless device while driving, except in an emergency situation.

[OCCCW]

Thanks for taking the time for providing the links 45, that was over the top and just plain Awsome. At least the thread got some attention regarding the cell phone use.

Thanks again.

[PUNK]

Originally Posted by DVSmith

45,

does the following statement pertain to land mobile communications devices such as amateur radios?

Q: May I use the hands-free feature while driving if my car has the feature built in?
A: No. The law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from using any type of wireless device while driving, except in an emergency situation.

That was taken from the Under 18 section.

No one under the age of 18 driving a vehicle on public roads can use a phone even if its handsfree.

also...

Q: Can my parents give me permission to allow me to use my wireless telephone while driving?
A: No. The only exception is an emergency situation that requires you to call a law enforcement agency, a health care provider, the fire department or other emergency agency entity.

Q: May I use the hands-free feature while driving if my car has the feature built in?
A: No. The law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from using any type of wireless device while driving, except in an emergency situation.

[DVSmith]

Originally Posted by AMS MIKE

That was taken from the Under 18 section.

No one under the age of 18 driving a vehicle on public roads can use a phone even if its handsfree.

also...

We know that. The question is: Does this apply to any form of wireless communications such as amateur radio?

[PUNK]

Originally Posted by DVSmith

We know that. The question is: Does this apply to any form of wireless communications such as amateur radio?

only thing i see that is even close is this below. But this is all Wireless Cell Phones. Amateur Radio isn't a cell phone.

Q: What if my phone has a push-to-talk feature, can I use that?
A: No. The law does provide an exception for those operating a commercial motor truck or truck tractor (excluding pickups), implements of husbandry, farm vehicle or tow truck, to use a two-way radio operated by a “push-to-talk” feature. However, a push-to-talk feature attached to a hands-free ear piece or other hands-free device is acceptable.

[45 ACP]

Originally Posted by DVSmith

45,

does the following statement pertain to land mobile communications devices such as amateur radios?

Q: May I use the hands-free feature while driving if my car has the feature built in?
A: No. The law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from using any type of wireless device while driving, except in an emergency situation.

Well, Division 1 of the CVC does not define "telephone" or "wireless telephone" (at least not that I can find)

In the case of mobile CB's and HAM radios, I think the law does NOT apply (it's not wireless, the mic is attached to the device)

However, in the case of portable CB/HAM, I think it's a bit more complicated.

Since there's no VC definition for "telephone" or "wireless telephone", we are left with Websters which defines it as:

"an instrument for reproducing sounds at a distance; specifically : one in which sound is converted into electrical impulses for transmission"

That being the case, I would say "Yes", the law applies to portable radios.

I don't think portable CB/HAM falls within the spirit of the law, but that's just me.



*IMPORTANT NOTE TO THE HAND-WRINGERS OUT THERE*

I'm not a judge or pro-tem, nor do I wish to be one. The preceding statements are based on how *I* would interpret the law and present my case (i.e. plaintiff) in traffic court should I decide to cite someone for the aforementioned law.

[45 ACP]

Originally Posted by AMS MIKE

only thing i see that is even close is this below. But this is all Wireless Cell Phones. Amateur Radio isn't a cell phone.

Per 23123(a) CVC, the prohibited devices are "wireless telephones". The term "Cell" or "Cellular" is not mentioned ANYWHERE.

[45 ACP]

.......and if anyone is interested in a bail schedule, here is one for Orange County.

Other county bail schedules may vary, as the county "Penalty Assessment" varies from one to another. The state base fines and P.A. remain the same.

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by 45 ACP

Well, Division 1 of the CVC does not define "telephone" or "wireless telephone" (at least not that I can find)

In the case of mobile CB's and HAM radios, I think the law does NOT apply (it's not wireless, the mic is attached to the device)

However, in the case of portable CB/HAM, I think it's a bit more complicated.

Since there's no VC definition for "telephone" or "wireless telephone", we are left with Websters which defines it as:

"an instrument for reproducing sounds at a distance; specifically : one in which sound is converted into electrical impulses for transmission"

That being the case, I would say "Yes", the law applies to portable radios.

I don't think portable CB/HAM falls within the spirit of the law, but that's just me.



*IMPORTANT NOTE TO THE HAND-WRINGERS OUT THERE*

I'm not a judge or pro-tem, nor do I wish to be one. The preceding statements are based on how *I* would interpret the law and present my case (i.e. plaintiff) in traffic court should I decide to cite someone for the aforementioned law.

Interesting. FCC has a very specific definition of cellular and wireless telephones, and what we have in our pockets aren't "telephones" under their regs. They are "PCS devices". "Cellular Telephones" are the old big old high powered analog phones.

(I did a lot of research once on cell phones in airplanes.)

[Spicy McHaggis]

Originally Posted by 45 ACP

Well, Division 1 of the CVC does not define "telephone" or "wireless telephone" (at least not that I can find)

In the case of mobile CB's and HAM radios, I think the law does NOT apply (it's not wireless, the mic is attached to the device)

However, in the case of portable CB/HAM, I think it's a bit more complicated.

Since there's no VC definition for "telephone" or "wireless telephone", we are left with Websters which defines it as:

"an instrument for reproducing sounds at a distance; specifically : one in which sound is converted into electrical impulses for transmission"

That being the case, I would say "Yes", the law applies to portable radios.

I don't think portable CB/HAM falls within the spirit of the law, but that's just me.



*IMPORTANT NOTE TO THE HAND-WRINGERS OUT THERE*

I'm not a judge or pro-tem, nor do I wish to be one. The preceding statements are based on how *I* would interpret the law and present my case (i.e. plaintiff) in traffic court should I decide to cite someone for the aforementioned law.

One of the issues I see with this code is part (e) that could cause a lot of confusion for HAMs. They specifically mention digital two-way radios with a push to talk feature, limited to a certain number of people. So does this mean they are saying nobody else can use them? This is why I dislike this stuff, because it says it doesn't apply to these certain people. Yet, they didn't say it was illegal in the first place. So they provided an exemption for something that wasn't "illegal" per this code.

And my HAM radio is analog, not digital. As well as it not being a two-way radio because they broadcast on a number of different of frequencies for everyone to hear.

(e) This section does not apply to a person when using a digital two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of the following vehicles: