Driving while on the phone is illegal, but this is legal still?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 10:40 AM
  #16  
Shagon Wagon's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,250
From: Yea, you like my JDM backside. Quit staring ^^
Car Info: A crazy ass wagon ! Voltex and 18x9.5 +22 FTW !
So Onemanarmy just curious... if someone smashed into that beautiful wagon of yours cause his/her dog was in their view or caused them to swerve... would you not be upset??? or chalk it up to every individuals freedom to do what they want?

Edit: by the way <------ ive had that up way before this conversation started... drives a stock 05 wagon with groceries and a DOG IN THE BACK ! in the back not only for my safety but his .
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 10:47 AM
  #17  
psoper's Avatar
250,000-mile Club President
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,770
From: Bizerkeley
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
Originally Posted by GotBoost?
Funny you should say this...

Every morning on my way in to work, I drive past a little dead Dachshund (sp?) dog, lying in the center divide on Hwy 17N near the 101 interchange, and I can guarantee you that this was the exact scenario that played out. IMO it is just as much of a distraction as talking on your cell phone, doing makeup, eating, shaving, reading, or doing anything OTHER than driving while behind the wheel of a moving car...and those things aren't "illegal," but that doesn't mean it is not just as dangerous.
Actually CVC 21701 states that it is "illegal to interfere with a driver", they could just run around citing dogs for that violation under current laws, we don't need another law.
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 10:51 AM
  #18  
OneManArmy's Avatar
General Pimpin'
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 23,019
From: Knee deep in beer. subabrew crew, ca.
Car Info: MY04 aspen wrx wagon.
Originally Posted by Shagon Wagon
So Onemanarmy just curious... if someone smashed into that beautiful wagon of yours cause his/her dog was in their view or caused them to swerve... would you not be upset??? or chalk it up to every individuals freedom to do what they want?

Edit: by the way <------ ive had that up way before this conversation started... drives a stock 05 wagon with groceries and a DOG IN THE BACK ! in the back not only for my safety but his .
Sure I'd be pissed but you know what... it would be called their fault and they'd be forced to pay for repairs or replacement. That's what insurance is for. I'd probably feel more sorry for them because the airbag smashed their dog into their face.

My dog stays in the back. I don't do the full seat belt safety harness thing but he pretty much just lays down and chills.


oh... and thanks for the compliment.
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 11:13 AM
  #19  
kYLEMtnCRUZr's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,892
From: Hangin in Placerville youtube.com/rallydude1515
Car Info: 1999 RS Coupé- 1995 Mazda Miata -KTM 300
Originally Posted by SSFWRX
man all i can think of is that kid on Road Trip that talks about peanut butter on his ***** and letting the dog lick it off...I need to stop eating PB&J sandwiches everyday! LOL.
another "kyle" character that added nothing to the name lol, except bonors in tighty whities and sleeping with huge leopard print panties lol
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 11:20 AM
  #20  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally Posted by psoper
The whole deal is political, Arnold vetoed it so he could hammer on the state legislature for wasting their time on trivial stuff like this while they should be working out a balanced budget and other higher priority items.

I think if it weren't buried in a whole pile of similar BS laws he might have signed on even, although it probably really comes down to liking to have his Doberman ride in his lap when he drives the hummer...
Yes

and

Probably, but he's the best Gov we've had in a long while. He's pushing our congress and he's shelling out the punishment for being fat cats...
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 11:22 AM
  #21  
GotBoost?'s Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,648
From: SBAIC-South BayArea Impreza Club-Campbell, CA-Thur
Car Info: 2003 PSM STi
Originally Posted by psoper
Actually CVC 21701 states that it is "illegal to interfere with a driver", they could just run around citing dogs for that violation under current laws, we don't need another law.

I don't know the actual wording of that law, but "illegal to interfere with a driver," sounds more like it is directed at passengers in the vehicle as opposed to the driver him/herself. How does a driver interfere with himself if he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong? That is a very vague and unclear law.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
blacktraxgirl
Bay Area
21
Jan 16, 2007 08:32 PM
Zoeb2s
Bay Area
26
Sep 16, 2006 06:12 PM
alchemyst[wrx]
Engine/Power - EJ20T (pre-2006 WRX and JDM)
42
May 9, 2005 10:00 AM




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:14 AM.