This afternoon my Mum and I almost got head-on'ed on 164th because some stupid-ass teenager was punching away at his text-message device while he should have been watching the road before him. Needless to say, Mum and I got into a rather heated debate as to whether or not the law states that using a cellular telephone here while driving is a primary infraction (i.e. the police can pull you over and ding you for it if they see it happening) or a secondary infraction (i.e. police can ding you for it but another offence has to occur to make it valid, such as not wearing your seat belt.)

My position was that it's a secondary offence and Mum's position was it's a primary offence. Naturally the argument ended with no real resolution.

So, maybe someone here would know fer shore: is it primary or secondary? We have dinner riding on this one!

In Washington its a secondary infraction. Keep those license plates light bulbs working.

ps: was any middle finger greetings exchanged?

Thanks!

ps: was any middle finger greetings exchanged?

Unfortunately no, but then again I wasn't on my bike...........

("Horn doesn't exist-WATCH FOR FINGER!")

I thought they change the law last summer to being a primary offense.

Wouldn't bet lunch on it, but I thought I remember it changing.

Skybill - the law, as a secondary infraction, went into effect July 1st.

The seat belt law was changed from a secondary to a primary infraction last year, maybe you're thinking of that one.

.....The seat belt law was changed from a secondary to a primary infraction...

Can't wait for prison terms for seatbelt offenders.

BTW, if you are killed in a car accident without wearing a seatbelt, do the next of kin get the ticket?

Also shouldn't you be rewarded for wearing the belt....

Get pulled over for speeding, but the officer notices you have your seatbelt on so they knock 50 percent off the ticket! If it costs extra for not wearing it, you should get a discount on other fines if you were stopped while wearing it.

(:-)

California's new texting law just came on the books Thursday. You can't text or READ a text while driving. The 2nd part of that one might be a little hard to enforce.

CA's cell-phone ban started last July, and is primary. Interestingly, CA, OR, & WA are all primary, Montana, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho are all secondary. Red State, Blue State thing? (except Nevada)

The seatbelt law is stupid.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say seatbelts were stupid, just the law.

Here's my point; In IL, WI, CO and several other states you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but you can't drive your car without wearing a seatbelt.

Yeah. They're REAL concerned about our safety. NOT.

The ONLY thing they are concerned with is how much revenue they can extract from the citizens.

I don't think that's the primary motive. Besides, a goverment needs "x" amount of revenue to function and they'll get it one way or another.

Up until recently, it cost just $5 for a seatbelt infraction in Idaho. And you had to be stopped for something else. But now even Idaho has joined the "click-it-or-ticket" brigade.

That's because Trauma is the leading cause of death in the United States. Trauma leads heart disease, strokes, cancer, you name it. It leads by a wide margin.

The cost of treatment on this is absolutely huge, so the returns are huge, and that's why seat belts being required works.

Cost of treatment is huge because there is so much Trauma that death is really only part of the story. People just get mangled up doing all sorts of things.

Go do the math sometime. If things, including people, are not properly constrained in a moving vehicle, and that vehicle is doing more than 40 MPH, the forces involved far exceed our tolerance for handling them.

That includes, "hanging on", BTW.

The motive is revenue, but not what you think. It's a reduction in the revenue required to deal with people, not additional revenue. For the most part, the fines pay to administer the program. There might be some minor league slush here or there, but it's nothing by comparison to the reduction in costs realized from the use of the safety devices.

That's where the goal is. Public safety. And we decide public safety issues, largely by their cost, and the cost for trauma is extremely high.

Two questions to ponder

It is illegal to text or read text while driving......does that include the text of a newspaper or book?

Seat belts...... why are school buses not equipped with them so that our children can be better protected when driving with someone you don't know and don't know if they are on anti-depressants or other mood altering drugs?

That's where the goal is. Public safety. And we decide public safety issues, largely by their cost, and the cost for trauma is extremely high.

Nope.

It all stems from the insurance industry. They convinced someone at the Federal Highway Administration to threaten the states with the loss of their Federal highway funds if they didn't buy into the ticket-or-click-it scam program.

So in a sense, Missing, your are correct. It does stem from "trauma dollars" but from the insurance companies.

A bonus for the municipalities is the revenue tax they collect from the people.

They don't give a rat’s patootie about our safety, only our money.

Dollars are dollars.

If those dollars are not spent, we save. Now, who saves and why is a different discussion. Totally give you that.

However, the core justification for the laws, and the success of the laws, clearly seen in the form of fairly rapid adoption, remains intact as I posted it.

It sucks, but keeping us safer is cheaper, and we measure things with dollars. That's how it is. Insurance companies placing side bets in what is otherwise a simple game sucks too, of course, but the primary metric by which we see safety is dollars.

The small municipal tax collected, again, largely pays for the program. Sure, it keeps a trooper or two on the street in every district. No worries there.

These dollars are minor league compare to the absolutely huge dollars associated with trauma. That's where the savings is.

Think about our health care costs. Trauma is the number one killer and mangler there is. If it's cut by some percentage, the returns are huge.

We see that in the form of shorter emergency room times, lower overall cost burden in terms of the sheer number of facilities, and all sorts of other downstream things.

If you take a holistic view, ripping that many cost dollars out of the system just pays off huge, and that's why the program works. The rest is just nasty side effects, that either piss us off or not, but are not the focus of the thing at the core.

Sorry. Welcome to the capitalist USA!

@Darktemper: DAMN good question! Been wondering that for years.

Sorry. Welcome to the capitalist USA!

Not sorry at all. Capitalism is good!

I just hate insurance companies, but I also realize that they are a necessary evil.

There is just something wrong about their whole business model; "Give us as much of your money as we can get from you then when you need some of it back, we are going to fight you for it"

......they are a necessary evil.......

Private companies that government mandates that you purchase their product. Might not be able to afford medical insurance but you damn well better pony up for that minimum coverage auto policy that really protects you from nothing and pays nothing. Your minimum coverage policy buys you a little square card that might as well say "no ticket, but don't get in an accident 'cause this won't pay nothing!"

"no ticket, but don't get in an accident 'cause this won't pay nothing!"

Actually it does pay. Just not to you. Hit someone with your car, liability coverage takes care of the lawsuits.

Capitalism is good!

We will be watching your future posts carefully . . . a contradiction surely will surface shortly.

They don't give a rat’s patootie about our safety

Your opinion of course, unfortunately not based on fact. Safety saves money on so many levels that it would be stupid NOT to enact some of these laws.

Capitalism is good!

We will be watching your future posts carefully . . . a contradiction surely will surface shortly.

Nope. I'm a capitalist pig!

Is socialism that I don't agree with or like.

You work; You eat. No work; No eat.

So then if something backfires as a result of excess Capitalism you won't be complaining, right? Even if you lose your house. Right?

"You work; You eat. No work; No eat."

Bill, I aint tryin' to pick on you. You nicely paraphrased the words of the Apostle Paul, and later Captain John Smith, but this is the 21st century. That phrase is remarkably similar to this once popular slogan:

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

The modern use of that truism was first adopted by Vladimir Lenin in his 1917 book, State & Revolution. Joseph Stalin later included the mandate in the Soviet Constitution of 1936.

I am not an expert at such things, but it sure sounds a whole lot like communism to me.

As for yipping on a cell phone while you drive, well, it is really stupid. So is skipping your seat belt. The rules are there to protect other drivers and passengers, not the stubborn moron who feels entitled to break them.

I in no way intended for that to sound like communism. Commies suck!

What I had intended for it to mean was that there should be no free ride. If are on the government dole, then you need to work for it if you are able.

i.e. If you are on welfare, then expect to be on a road crew, construction crew, litter crew, clean government buildings, etc.

If you are TRULY unable to work, then I don't have a problem with someone receiving government help.

What I do have an issue with is the people that have 2 or 3 (or more) SSN's and collect food stamps, AFDC, welfare etc. and just sit on their porch and do nothing when they are able bodied.

BTW, Paul was one of the good guys!!!

Most of the people on welfare are mothers and children. There are not really that many people that can work as you suggest. Its better to require them to look for work or lose benefits.

Besides, isn't providing "free" government labor in conflict with capitalism?

and just sit on their porch and do nothing when they are able bodied

Most people applying for SSD benefits are denied. Of those that appeal (a 2-3 year wait) only about 1/3 of those succeed. There was a major story in The Oregonian about this last month.

Getting those who truly misuse SS off the system isn't going to make much of a dent in the overall cost.

Again, multiple ssn numbers are families. Congress has seen it fit to give disabled parents a supplement for each kid. You'll have to get your Congressman to propose cutting benefits to kids.

ps: you can't get welfare AND SSD. You'll have to pay back welfare if you later get SSD benefits. Its not so easy to get "both". Welfare automatically assumes (requires?) disabled people will apply for SSD and will track the process.

ps:2 The amount of SSD depends on the amount of work you've done over the years -- the harder one works the more the benfefit amount. One can argue that disabled people EARNED the benefits, even if they look "able bodied".

Bill, I actually agree with most of what you just said.

The big difference between our system and the system of the Soviet Union is that the disabled are not killed off, but instead, given opportunities.

If wages are not driven down by employing folks in short-term state jobs to get them on their feet, I am all for that too. As for defrauding the government for assistance, I think that it is theft and ought to be prosecuted as such.

I agree, Paul was definitely one of the good guys.

Skep is correct. Social Security benefits are refused to virtually all first time applicants, and usually disability claims are denied too. Also, by shifting the retirement age to a later date, they can avoid paying back the taxes that were collected for decades by Social Security.

The theory is that the really old and really sick will probably die before being approved. Minorities with traditionally shorter life spans will also be locked out. This practice is routine in corporate circles. In the end, the system will save money by burying their claim, and soon, without too much further expense, their body too.

I'm not talking about families with multiple SSN's.

We all have them or you can’t count the kids as a deduction on your tax return.

I'm talking about people that in some way acquired multiple SSN's.

And sure it won't make a huge dent in the overall scope of things, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted for it.

Most of the people on welfare are mothers and children...

OK. Fine. Provide child care for the kids so the mother can attend school and get an education to get her off the welfare system. She must attend school (unless there is some REAL valid reason she can't) or the aid stops.

Also, unless they name the father of the kid(s) then they don't get ADFC. Then the state needs to go after the father for child support.

The people who get welfare need to make some kind of effort to get off the system.

The way the system is right now, it's too easy to get on the system and stay there.

I firmly agree that the problems with welfare are enormous. Were you aware, for example, that for years the laws on the books actually mandated divorce for folks on the dole? The breakdown of the African-American family can be directly traced to rules that were specifically designed by state legislatures to tear them apart.

I also think that sending an able bodied fellow to jail because he lost his job and cannot pay child support is beyond stupid. This kind of system can damage a family beyond repair. If the father is gainfully employed, he ought to make good, but forcing the state to prevent him from being a breadwinner for his kids is equally criminal.

At the same time, women should be required to itemize every single expense when they are receiving child support. There must be no exceptions. Every diaper, every daycare bill, and every pair of mittens should be accounted for with receipts. Too many mommies think that it is their money to spend when it is not. It is only for needs of the children.

I know, we are now wildly off topic.

Perhaps we ought to discuss the merits of prosecuting people who cause one car accidents while conversing on their cell phones. Remember this local yokel who was trying to drive while prattling to her sister about coloring her hair? I am truly glad she survived, but the fact that her mind was not fully focused on driving caused the crash that almost took her life.

Go through the defense budget with a fine tooth comb and I'll bet you could find billions more in savings than you would by stopping all fraud within the welfare system. And while we're at it, cut all aid to Israel, those billions could be used at home. The Israelis can defend themselves just fine without my tax dollars.

... cut all aid to Israel...

I'll take it one step further. Cut aid to ALL foreign countries, and cut all funding to the UN until we have our house in order.

Then, slowly begin aid again only if it is humanitarian aid, and NEVER start funding the UN again.

I agree, there i probably lots of waste in the defense budget. Most of that can be attributed to contractors that think they can charge $900 for a hammer just because it’s the military.

Then once they have found and cut some of the waste, increase the number of soldiers in all the branches, give them all 25% pay increases and another 25% if they are sent out of country.

Of course the last part will NEVER happen. The Dems and Libs want to cut the military.

I say, let THEM try and negotiate with the terrorists.

Over 40 percent of your tax dollar goes to war / military related expenses and debt.

I can't find the chart I used to link, but all the humanitarian aid combined is maybe 20 percent, with our social programs, I think it's maybe 40.

So truth is, we could cut it all off to everybody, leave the military and your tax bill wouldn't even drop to half.

For most people, that's not a huge amount. By percentage of their income, it's significant. I'll easily grant that, but in the overall scheme of things, particularly considering the sharp inflation we've seen and downward wage pressure for 30 years, it's a drop in the bucket!

Want more of your money to be available for your own purposes?

Promote any and all programs that eliminate wage pressure. It's really that simple.

As with so many of these things, we don't often link our amounts to the value of the currency, and the cost of goods.

Go do the math. (I have) Your buying power per hour worked is at an all time low right now. That's your problem. It's my problem --all of our problem!

It's not taxes, it's not social programs, aid or even that big ass military budget. It's the fact that despite year over year productivity gains realized here, we are paid less and less for them year over year.

Been basically flat since the 70's man, and now it's caught up to us.

Again, if we build stuff here, pay people good wages here, employ tariffs to prevent foreign goods from undercutting our own companies, then we once again can control what an hour of work is worth, how our currency performs, and that will mean taxes make a whole lot more sense.

Most people I know, who are sore about their tax burden, completely ignore the reality of their grossly lower wages as of late.

Do it. Go inflation adjust your wage now, vs every 5 years back for 30 years. I think you will be quite surprised at just how screwed you are being right now!

Oh, and I too didn't imply that capitalism is bad. It just isn't (given it's regulated, of course).

What is bad is that we have to boil down lives to dollars and make decisions on that basis. That is just somehow wrong on many levels for me.

That's all!

With the uncountable number of times I've almost been in an accident with some Eff-Wit on a cellphone,I WANT to buckle up,law or not.

DT-
"It is illegal to text or read text while driving......does that include the text of a newspaper or book?"

I should sure hope so!!
I once saw a woman driving down I-205,while reading a book.

I've never understood the school bus thing either,especially considering the seats are solid metal!

The mind boggles.