NJ Wants "Strictest Cell Phone Law" in the Country

[George Costanza]

Where did you get that insane impression?

There was an article in the Los Angeles Times which mentioned a survey finding that talking (not texting) on a cell phone had little or no effect on the accident rate. It was either last year or earlier this year, so I probably won't be able to find it now, but I do clearly remember reading it.

Also, how can you claim that you have a client doing 36 months for violating this law? That is a gross misrepresentation in general. I would venture that he got CAUGHT because of this law and is doing 36 months because of possession of methamphetamine.

I'm not "claiming" anything of the sort - I'm flat TELLING you that this is the case. I'm the defense lawyer that watched him go out the back door of the courtroom on his way to state prison for 32 months in this case - that's how I know what happened.

OBVIOUSLY he got caught because he was talking on the phone. If it weren't for that law, however, he would be happily on the streets as we speak. In that sense, I (and I'm sure my client as well) blame the cell phone law for his present predicament.

If you want to parse phrases, do it with someone else - I don't have the time or the patience for it.

 

[ConHog]

Where did you get that insane impression?

There was an article in the Los Angeles Times which mentioned a survey finding that talking (not texting) on a cell phone had little or no effect on the accident rate. It was either last year or earlier this year, so I probably won't be able to find it now, but I do clearly remember reading it.

Also, how can you claim that you have a client doing 36 months for violating this law? That is a gross misrepresentation in general. I would venture that he got CAUGHT because of this law and is doing 36 months because of possession of methamphetamine.

I'm not "claiming" anything of the sort - I'm flat TELLING you that this is the case. I'm the defense lawyer that watched him go out the back door of the courtroom on his way to state prison for 32 months in this case - that's how I know what happened.

OBVIOUSLY he got caught because he was talking on the phone. If it weren't for that law, however, he would be happily on the streets as we speak. In that sense, I (and I'm sure my client as well) blame the cell phone law for his present predicament.

If you want to parse phrases, do it with someone else - I don't have the time or the patience for it.

George, let's practice a little integrity shall we?

Timothy McVeigh was apprehended because he was driving down the Hwy with a busted tail light. Does it follow that he was executed for that crime? Of course not.

Your client is serving 36 months for drugs and being a repeat offender.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Woman who was using cell phone before crash that killed Harrisburg teacher is sentenced to probation | PennLive.com

Report: Woman Was Talking On Cell Phone, Failed To Stop In Efland Train Accident - Orange County - MyNC.com

Driver on Cell Phone Kills 73-Year-Old Man in Hit-and-Run on Eighth Street - Miami News - Riptide 2.0

CP24- Man talking on cellphone hit by streetcar, critcally injured - CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television


I call bullshit on the 'cell phones don't really distract' slant. I have repeatedly had near-miss accidents due to the other driver talking and/or texting on their phone. Do some research into how the mind works while driving and talking/texting. It's a piss poor thing to do, there is nothing that cannot wait until you arrive at your destination to discuss. IF there is, then pull over and have your conversation before getting back on the road. Why do people think that driving is some kind of 'passive' activity that you can combine with other things? Good for NJ and this law, I hope other states follow suit.

 

[FA_Q2]

Where did you get that insane impression?

There was an article in the Los Angeles Times which mentioned a survey finding that talking (not texting) on a cell phone had little or no effect on the accident rate. It was either last year or earlier this year, so I probably won't be able to find it now, but I do clearly remember reading it.

Also, how can you claim that you have a client doing 36 months for violating this law? That is a gross misrepresentation in general. I would venture that he got CAUGHT because of this law and is doing 36 months because of possession of methamphetamine.

I'm not "claiming" anything of the sort - I'm flat TELLING you that this is the case. I'm the defense lawyer that watched him go out the back door of the courtroom on his way to state prison for 32 months in this case - that's how I know what happened.

OBVIOUSLY he got caught because he was talking on the phone. If it weren't for that law, however, he would be happily on the streets as we speak. In that sense, I (and I'm sure my client as well) blame the cell phone law for his present predicament.

If you want to parse phrases, do it with someone else - I don't have the time or the patience for it.

1. A single article in the LA times is quite meaningless. The fact is there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A simple Google search will yield that result. It has been found that it is no more distracting than any other conversation in a vehicle however there are other circumstances that I covered earlier that help negate that effect that a cell phone does not have. It has also been shown that hands free and Bluetooth mean nothing.

2. It is not parseing phrases. You 'flat out told me' the following:

I have a guy doing 32 months in state prison right now for violating this law.

and that is clearly bullshit. Had he been talking on the phone and did not have meth on him he would only have a fine. Had he been speeding and had the meth he would still be in for 36 months. What is wrong George, you are not normally so unreasonable?

 

[George Costanza]

To ConHog and FA_Q2 -

My client did not get 32 months for driving with a cell phone. I felt that should have been obvious to anyone who read the entireity of my post, which set forth the full sequence of events that led to his 32 month sentence.

If you birds want to deflect from my main point by screeching that my statement was "misleading," have at it. I would submit that discerning readers would easily understand why I made the statement I did about my client "getting" 32 months for talking on a cell phone while driving and see that, obviously, he did not receive that sentence for talking on the phone per se.

You boys wouldn't be hopping up and down about this, knowing full well that's what was going on, now would you? Golly, I hope not, because that would make you pretty damn disingenuous, now wouldn't it?

 

[FA_Q2]

It just seemed that you were voicing that you did not like this type of law because of instances like that. For me, his sentence has nothing to do with this law, that was attached to other crimes that were committed, ones I disagree with anyway. What was the point in bringing it up if you see this as a deflection?

 

[ConHog]

To ConHog and FA_Q2 -

My client did not get 32 months for driving with a cell phone. I felt that should have been obvious to anyone who read the entireity of my post, which set forth the full sequence of events that led to his 32 month sentence.

If you birds want to deflect from my main point by screeching that my statement was "misleading," have at it. I would submit that discerning readers would easily understand why I made the statement I did about my client "getting" 32 months for talking on a cell phone while driving and see that, obviously, he did not receive that sentence for talking on the phone per se.

You boys wouldn't be hopping up and down about this, knowing full well that's what was going on, now would you? Golly, I hope not, because that would make you pretty damn disingenuous, now wouldn't it?

George, I think you were intentionally trying to insinuate that he got jailed for 36 months for talking on a cell phone and are now trying to back off since you got called on it. Sorry but that's how I see it.

If that weren't the case you would have wrote " I have a client who was subsequently found guilty of other crimes and sent to jail for 36 months because he was talking on his cell phone while driving" or something to that effect.

It's really no different than when people make stupid claims that millions of people are in federal prison for simple MJ possession. Well, on the face of it people are saying WTF? Prison for simple possession? But in reality no one is in federal prison for simple MJ possession, instead they are dealers who plead down to avoid a trial or were guilty of OTHER crimes and the simple possession was tacked on for good measure.

 

[George Costanza]

George, I think you were intentionally trying to insinuate that he got jailed for 36 months for talking on a cell phone and are now trying to back off since you got called on it. Sorry but that's how I see it.

If that weren't the case you would have wrote " I have a client who was subsequently found guilty of other crimes and sent to jail for 36 months because he was talking on his cell phone while driving" or something to that effect.

Talking to you is like picking up a piece of flypaper - it never ends.

If I was truly trying to trick people into thinking my client got 32 months for talking on a cell phone, I would not have gone on to lay out all of the facts, now would I?

Discussion over.

 

[MikeK]

For Texting I agree with this.

For talking, it is a little overboard.

I disagree.

I started driving at age eighteen. That was fifty-six years ago. I've driven cross-country twice. I lived for most of my life in New York City and now I'm in New Jersey, both of which are known for heavy vehicular traffic.

I've never had an accident. Not so much as a minor scrape. And I firmly believe the reason for this is I will not take my eyes or my mind off the road and I remain consicous of what is behind and on both sides of me. The only time I relax while driving is when I am alone on a given road or highway. I believe the reason for this is when my father taught me to drive he pounded it into my mind that every other car on the road is determined to collide with me and I need to stay away from them and never take my mind off them.

I see the way others drive and I understand why there are so many accidents. My late father-in-law was talkative while driving and would frequently look away from the road and at the person in the passenger seat to emphasize the point he was making. I mentioned it to my wife several times and she shrugged it off. During Christmas week of 1975 he was nearly killed when he side-swiped the rear end of a stalled tractor-trailer.

If he'd been paying attention rather than talking and looking away from the road (by his own admission) it would not have happened. So no one can tell me that talking on a phone, even a hands-free phone, does not significantly divert a driver's attention from the task at hand.

How many drivers realize that while driving at 60mph, each time they blink their eyes for one second they travel about 100 feet in total blindness? And a lot of things can happen within a hundred feet.