User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 7:33:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Count me in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 7:36:22 PM EDT
[#2]
I'm all for no texting and holding the phone.. but eating, drinking and smoking? Fuck you!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 8:57:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Fuck that law, guess what I'm still going to eat and drink while I'm driving, give me a ticket for it and you prove your just another tax collector to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 7:39:09 PM EDT
[#4]
I like this part:
...does not restrict the operation of an amateur radio station by a person who holds a valid amateur radio operator license issued by the federal communications commission. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2017 3:40:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm all for no texting and holding the phone.. but eating, drinking and smoking? Fuck you! Don't get me wrong, texting and driving I get it. But the additional government intrusion into watching? As you hold here by mentioninge eating, drinking, smoking (and more) are all a part of the overreach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2017 11:49:45 AM EDT
[#6]
Does anyone have the full RCW text of the law?
What I found this weekend said nothing about eating & drinking; not talking to passengers, or any of the other BS I have heard on the TV, or from AAA web-sight. If you are going to run an initiative make it simple and one issue: No traffic violation shall exceed $1.00 US currency. Set the fine so low it is not worth giving. Frees up the cops, and courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2017 12:59:30 PM EDT
[#7]
I'm all for stopping texting while driving. But what I don't understand is the need for a new law. It's really pretty simple, If a car is swerving all over the road, pull it over! It's not that hard. I see at least three to four of them everyday on my ride to work. The fuckers really make you nervous when you're on a bike. That added bit about not being able to smoke in my own car really piss's me off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2017 2:12:35 PM EDT
[#8]
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5289-S.SL.pdf
I'm actually quite surprised how poorly that statute is written. It's so full of loop-holes, exceptions and what-nots... Here's a 
(b) "Personal electronic device" means any portable electronic
device that is capable of wireless communication or electronic data retrieval and is not manufactured primarily for hands-free use in a motor vehicle. Then there's my favorite: (ii) Using your hand or finger to compose, send, read, view,
access, browse, transmit, save, or retrieve email, text messages, instant messages, photographs, or other electronic data; however, this does not preclude the minimal use of a finger to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of the device; 
Honest officer, I was just finger activating the function on my device! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2017 3:19:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5289-S.SL.pdf I'm actually quite surprises how poorly that statute is written. It's so full of loop-holes, exceptions and what-nots... Here's a
A wireless device that is not normally made for hands-free use... So, a non-hands-free phone is good to go? Then there's my favorite:
Honest officer, I was just finger activating the function on my device! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2017 9:09:51 PM EDT
[#10]
What Im wondering is did they amend the RCW (or wtv it is) to compel you to unlock your phone for a LEO pursuant to a stop? Similar to being compelled to give a breath/blood sample for DUI.
15 digit pin and data wipe turned on for me. ETA: Not in the linked text above that I can find. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2017 12:34:24 AM EDT
[#11]
My understanding is that this was pushed for BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, which really makes me suspicious of the actual need for this type of intrusion.
I'd like to know from any rank and file Officers what they think of this. Are the guys on the ground fully behind this and planning aggressive enforcement? Or is this really more political in nature and likely to be enforced mostly where the "behavior" also results in observably bad driving? Rob |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2017 8:36:36 PM EDT
[#12]
If it's about distracted driving, what about ignition interlocks? I've never had one but rode with a friend who had one once, going down the road it starts beeping so A. You pull over and blow to keep going or B. You look down, get the mouth piece and blow. Either way their a huge distraction but I guess their ok because their a revenue source?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 1:57:02 PM EDT
[#13]
When the seatbelt law was enacted it was enacted as a secondary offense. Shortly thereafter it was a primary reason to stop people and now they have special emphasis days and weekends on seat belts.
It's a slippery slope, folks. Give an inch, they'll take a mile. It just takes time is all. 
Some of you are sure all for "MUH GUVAMENTZ" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 4:30:45 PM EDT
[#14]
There is currently no new RCW yet. This had been passed by the legislature with the intent of a warning period and then taking full effect in the winter or next spring. The governor skipped a couple steps by making it effective immediately so he could look good on TV.
The best part is when he made it immediately effective, it retired the old distracted driving rcw in exchange for the new one. The new one that doesn't exist and won't for several months. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 4:51:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is currently no new RCW yet. This had been passed by the legislature with the intent of a warning period and then taking full effect in the winter or next spring. The governor skipped a couple steps by making it effective immediately so he could look good on TV. The best part is when he made it immediately effective, it retired the old distracted driving rcw in exchange for the new one. The new one that doesn't exist and won't for several months. The online version of the RCW is only updated twice a year, so it's possible the "real" version has already been updated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2017 3:36:30 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're all for the tax collector to look inside your vehicle and determine what you're doing wrong and should be penalized for? Don't get me wrong, texting and driving I get it. But the additional government intrusion into watching? As you hold here by mentioninge eating, drinking, smoking (and more) are all a part of the overreach. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm all for no texting and holding the phone.. but eating, drinking and smoking? Fuck you! Don't get me wrong, texting and driving I get it. But the additional government intrusion into watching? As you hold here by mentioninge eating, drinking, smoking (and more) are all a part of the overreach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2017 10:35:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I'm all for a cop pulling over someone who is paying attention to their damn phone instead of the road. If the officer sees the individual in the act they need to pull them over. That's it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm all for no texting and holding the phone.. but eating, drinking and smoking? Fuck you! Don't get me wrong, texting and driving I get it. But the additional government intrusion into watching? As you hold here by mentioninge eating, drinking, smoking (and more) are all a part of the overreach. They don't seem to care about stop signs and red lights, which are a real danger to the pedestrians crossing the street; why will they care about something hard to see like cell phones or eating? Likewise the "emphasis" patrols they advertise for the left lane hogs that won't let you pass. Every year they announce they're cracking down. I guess they mean crack-down in the sense that their butts are glued to the seat. Meanwhile they're in their cars on the phone, on the computer, and on the radio all at the same time while driving! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2017 2:16:09 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's interesting. It's my understanding that the law took effect as soon as he signed it, but how do they charge someone without an RCW number? All of the news organizations made a big deal about it going into effect last weekend and I expected follow-up stories bragging about how many hundreds of people were caught and ticketed but I have not heard a single thing. The online version of the RCW is only updated twice a year, so it's possible the "real" version has already been updated. The existing RCWs 46.61.667 and 668 were repealed as of July 23rd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2017 9:26:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Notice was sent out to law enforcement state wide that if someone really wants to write the citation they can try to refer to the legislature session law SB5289 but it will be up to prosecutors to decide if that's valid until a RCW is written and published. The existing RCWs 46.61.667 and 668 were repealed as of July 23rd. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's interesting. It's my understanding that the law took effect as soon as he signed it, but how do they charge someone without an RCW number? All of the news organizations made a big deal about it going into effect last weekend and I expected follow-up stories bragging about how many hundreds of people were caught and ticketed but I have not heard a single thing. The online version of the RCW is only updated twice a year, so it's possible the "real" version has already been updated. The existing RCWs 46.61.667 and 668 were repealed as of July 23rd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2017 10:47:45 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I'm all for a cop pulling over someone who is paying attention to their damn phone instead of the road. If the officer sees the individual in the act they need to pull them over. That's it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 11:38:37 PM EDT
[#21]
line 38 of the proposed law says alcohol concentration of "0.04", but doesn't say if that is percent, weight per ounce/pound, or per cubic foot of breath....that could be problematic. They can't simply assume that "everyone knows" what the underlying amount they were referring to represents.
I don't drink and drive, so I don't care, but I really dislike poorly written laws or instructions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2017 6:07:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're cute. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, I'm all for a cop pulling over someone who is paying attention to their damn phone instead of the road. If the officer sees the individual in the act they need to pull them over. That's it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2017 1:54:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Drive I-5 and see how many people have their noses buried in their phones. Maybe paying attention to the road will cut down on how many accidents occur and how poorly they drive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, I'm all for a cop pulling over someone who is paying attention to their damn phone instead of the road. If the officer sees the individual in the act they need to pull them over. That's it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2017 3:22:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Anyone know if this has officially been added to the RCW yet? If so, what is the section?
I'm just curious. Not planning to intentionally ignore this. I found this: Chapter 46.61.667 RCW Dispositions RULES OF THE ROAD 46.61.667 Using a wireless communications device or handheld mobile telephone while driving. [2013 c 224 § 15; 2010 c 223 § 3; 2007 c 417 § 2.] Repealed by 2017 c 334 § 2. 46.61.668 Sending, reading, or writing a text message while driving. [2013 c 224 § 16; 2010 c 223 § 4; 2007 c 416 § 1.] Repealed by 2017 c 334 § 2. EDIT: found it 46.61.672 They did get it in there Rob |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 12:34:37 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5289-S.SL.pdf I'm actually quite surprised how poorly that statute is written. It's so full of loop-holes, exceptions and what-nots... Here's a
A wireless device that is not normally made for hands-free use in a motor vehicle... So, a non-hands-free phone is good to go? Does that mean that if the device isn't made to be primarily used in a motor vehicle then it is legal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 1:59:33 PM EDT
[#26]
You beat me to it, new RCWs were published a week or two ago. 46.61.672 and .673.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 4:30:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5289-S.SL.pdf I'm actually quite surprised how poorly that statute is written. It's so full of loop-holes, exceptions and what-nots... Here's a
A wireless device that is not normally made for hands-free use in a motor vehicle... So, a non-hands-free phone is good to go? Does that mean that if the device isn't made to be primarily used in a motor vehicle then it is legal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2017 11:20:36 AM EDT
[#28]
Are they seriously saying that people can't have a smoke while they drive? I don't smoke in my car, but the freedom to do so is mine. When I did smoke in my car, I would have found this law just as stupid then. I completely understand about not texting and driving, but that's about it. I pose a question, what about the cops who are on their phones, or sending messages on their in car computers? Anyone who says it doesn't happen is either foolish, or lying. I wore the badge most of my adult life. We used to MDC message each other all of the damn time. This is a BS law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2017 11:35:34 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they seriously saying that people can't have a smoke while they drive? I don't smoke in my car, but the freedom to do so is mine. When I did smoke in my car, I would have found this law just as stupid then. I completely understand about not texting and driving, but that's about it. I pose a question, what about the cops who are on their phones, or sending messages on their in car computers? Anyone who says it doesn't happen is either foolish, or lying. I wore the badge most of my adult life. We used to MDC message each other all of the damn time. This is a BS law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2017 12:56:02 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they seriously saying that people can't have a smoke while they drive? I don't smoke in my car, but the freedom to do so is mine. When I did smoke in my car, I would have found this law just as stupid then. I completely understand about not texting and driving, but that's about it. I pose a question, what about the cops who are on their phones, or sending messages on their in car computers? Anyone who says it doesn't happen is either foolish, or lying. I wore the badge most of my adult life. We used to MDC message each other all of the damn time. This is a BS law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2017 7:33:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5289-S.SL.pdf I'm actually quite surprised how poorly that statute is written. It's so full of loop-holes, exceptions and what-nots... Here's a
A wireless device that is not normally made for hands-free use... So, a non-hands-free phone is good to go? I think my antique Garmin GPS would fit the definition for getting me a violation, even though it just sits in a holder stuck to the windshield. Apparently, so would any other GPS device because they electronically receive data. Then there's my favorite:
Honest officer, I was just finger activating the function on my device! As has been said before, the law is poorly written. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
