[Billup]

Originally Posted by kits135i

Yes, deaf drivers can get a license in all states. However there is some buts to get it.

Don't forget about the blind!

[Titanium3er]

Originally Posted by kits135i

Yes, deaf drivers can get a license in all states. However there is some buts to get it.

I know that. My question was rhetorical and made in an attempt to show that I find this law illogical. I also think the fact that it is on the books probably has more to do with government revenue than safety.

Everyone saying OP broke the law and got caught is correct. He should deal with the consequences. That doesn't mean that he should be barred from expressing disagreement with it or fighting it in court if he so chooses.

If you find his position wrong, lets see some research or data showing how many wrecks and injuries are caused by people wearing headphones. Attacking him personally just makes you look silly.

Freedom of speech ya'll

[UncleWede]

Every single time I make a left turn on a red arrow that I know eventually turns green with no oncoming traffic, I practice my argument that a red light is really a communication device, and since there was no one else to communicate to, it was invalid.

I haven't got the ticket yet, but don't really expect my argument to work. . .

[passing]

TLDR comes first. not last.

write a better story next time.

[carogers86]

Originally Posted by passing

TLDR comes first. not last.

write a better story next time.

So you mean TLWR (too long won't read)

TLDR makes more sense at the end. You can scroll past the wall of text to the synopsis.

[catcher22]

I dunno, I have a pet peeve about people who use both headphones while driving. It makes no sense at all.

I don't even walk to the gym down the street from where I live with two headphones in because they significantly reduce the amount of background noise I can hear. Even when I'm not listening to music during the walk - only 1 headphone in. I'm not even comfortable crossing the street with two headphones in. Why would anybody voluntarily drive with reduced situational awareness? I don't get it.

For all the cop knew, you could have been blasting music yet still "situationally aware" enough to drive. Although you saw him and yielded, what about that one chance you are distracted and don't notice sirens, or a honk, or a pedestrian, or other forms of noise?

You situation is not unique just because you think you were situationally aware. The law says you weren't. Just pay it and move on! I understand you're upset because I agree, the ticket is very expensive for the violation. But, also usually reflects the seriousness of the offense. There's a reason a parking ticket is $35.

[Bobble]

Concerning your ticket cost, it could be small they tack admin costs, case in point. Awhile ago, 18 months or so, I had a loaner, was on the toll roads in SoCal, went thru transponder did not work battery dead, CHP stops me. Explains the whole thing says get letter from toll road authority go to court etc. they'll dismiss it. I get said letter, go to court, court administrator hears story, get's bailiff to bring letter reads letter says really unfortunate looks like a simple problem I'm reducing the ticket to $5, I think instantly cool $5 BUT cannot reduce court fees since you did come to court so total cost was $119. Not a lot of money but I hit the roof, $114 dollars for 5 minutes tops, he said well than it'll be $189 with no reduction you choose sir. Of course I say the $114 he says pay at the window next. Morale of story ticket could be small, you'll still be on the hook for the court cost and fees, may want to just pay the damn thing if it's no points as I took a 1/2 day form work, I'm self employed and lost way more than the additional $75. Lesson learned.

I personally do not think you have a leg to stand on in the defense of your ticket but hell it's your time and money.

[EmoticonsOnly]

Originally Posted by catcher22

I dunno, I have a pet peeve about people who use both headphones while driving. It makes no sense at all.

I don't even walk to the gym down the street from where I live with two headphones in because they significantly reduce the amount of background noise I can hear. Even when I'm not listening to music during the walk - only 1 headphone in. I'm not even comfortable crossing the street with two headphones in. Why would anybody voluntarily drive with reduced situational awareness? I don't get it.

For all the cop knew, you could have been blasting music yet still "situationally aware" enough to drive. Although you saw him and yielded, what about that one chance you are distracted and don't notice sirens, or a honk, or a pedestrian, or other forms of noise?

You situation is not unique just because you think you were situationally aware. The law says you weren't. Just pay it and move on! I understand you're upset because I agree, the ticket is very expensive for the violation. But, also usually reflects the seriousness of the offense. There's a reason a parking ticket is $35.

[carogers86]

Showed up to the superior court in and for the county of Alameda yesterday. Listened to CHP's testimony, cross-examined with a prepared line of questions to illustrate reasoning, followed by my defence; voila! Judge dismissed ticket.

[upstatedoc]

stickin' it to the man. only in 'murica.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by carogers86

Showed up to the superior court in and for the county of Alameda yesterday. Listened to CHP's testimony, cross-examined with a prepared line of questions to illustrate reasoning, followed by my defence; voila! Judge dismissed ticket.

Nice job! How much did you have to pay in court costs? And what questions did you ask during cross examination?

[carogers86]

Only costs I paid were time. My bail amount was $207, which I paid maybe 4 months ago. Court said I should receive a $207 check in the next 6-8 weeks.

Line of questioning followed what I wrote in earlier posts. I received a ticket for being "distracted." According to CHP, I became distracted once the second earpiece made contact with my ear.

FYI everyone has the right to a cross-examination. Judge almost advised me to get to my defense piece, but I knew I had the right to cross-examine CHP after his testimony.

I asked him how well he remembered the conditions on the freeway when he pulled me over. He said he remembered the conditions pretty well. I got him to agree with me that I was in traffic averaging 10-15mph. I asked him how he knew I was wearing a headset in a way that made me distracted. He said he was behind me for around a minute. I asked him if I was switching lanes or driving erratically while he observed me. He truthfully answered no, but did say he could tell I was on the phone because I was the only person in the car and I was talking (this is true). I asked him if he could remember how long it took me to pull over once he lit me up. He said not anything unusually long. I asked if he would agree that I pulled over prudently. He said, "sure." He made a point saying that being on the phone is a distraction, but I asked if it's against the law to be on the phone while operating a motor vehicle (obviously it is not against the law if you are using a hands-free device). It is against the law to be talking on the phone while operating a motor vehicle in a way that causes a distraction or attenuates the sound of emergency vehicles.

Summa Summarum: I received a ticket for being "distracted," but proved I was using an earpiece(s) that does not attenuate the sound of emergency vehicles, nor was I using the same earpiece(s) impaired my ability to be attentive to the road in the driving conditions in during which I was pulled over.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by carogers86

Only costs I paid were time. My bail amount was $207, which I paid maybe 4 months ago. Court said I should receive a $207 check in the next 6-8 weeks.

Line of questioning followed what I wrote in earlier posts. I received a ticket for being "distracted." According to CHP, I became distracted once the second earpiece made contact with my ear.

FYI everyone has the right to a cross-examination. Judge almost advised me to get to my defense piece, but I knew I had the right to cross-examine CHP after his testimony.

I asked him how well he remembered the conditions on the freeway when he pulled me over. He said he remembered the conditions pretty well. I got him to agree with me that I was in traffic averaging 10-15mph. I asked him how he knew I was wearing a headset in a way that made me distracted. He said he was behind me for around a minute. I asked him if I was switching lanes or driving erratically while he observed me. He truthfully answered no, but did say he could tell I was on the phone because I was the only person in the car and I was talking (this is true). I asked him if he could remember how long it took me to pull over once he lit me up. He said not anything unusually long. I asked if he would agree that I pulled over prudently. He said, "sure." He made a point saying that being on the phone is a distraction, but I asked if it's against the law to be on the phone while operating a motor vehicle (obviously it is not against the law if you are using a hands-free device). It is against the law to be talking on the phone while operating a motor vehicle in a way that causes a distraction or attenuates the sound of emergency vehicles.

Summa Summarum: I received a ticket for being "distracted," but proved I was using an earpiece(s) that does not attenuate the sound of emergency vehicles, nor was I using the same earpiece(s) impaired my ability to be attentive to the road in the driving conditions in during which I was pulled over.

I see well that worked out well then, good for you.

[Maestro]

This is what I tell people to fight tickets and do not let the judge tell you what your rights, you need to know your rights. Most time people walk in with excuses and never question the officer and what he thought he saw.

Good job!!!

[Mr Tonka]

Good job bro!

I'm a proponent of sticking to the spirit of the law. As you proved, you were not distracted to the extent that you were a danger to any drivers around you.

In my opinion, that law is a means to cite people who are clearly distracted by ANYTHING while causing or nearly causing an accident or driving erratically in any way. The fine of course is to discourage them for ever doing it again.

Nice to see you stand up to and prevail against improper use of the law.

[Cuz5150]

Hate to say this, but...........time to move out of CALI