Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

[Arthur L. Rubin]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

ColoradoSkiBum wrote:

Now *this* makes me laugh! Is it only in Colorado that if you go to traffic court, the fine *increases*?

I think so.

--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.

[Jenn]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:22:07 -0600, toto <[email protected]> wrote:

You might not be aware, but if this is how your group raises children,we are going to need a whole lot more prisons in the future.Neither the research nor the anecdotal evidence from my 30 yearsof contact with children supports you in that. The people in jailwere more likely abused than brought up with positive parenting.

True, but only because of the age of the jailbirds. Up until the 60's or 70's kids were hit as often as hugged. Since the 80's a larger number of kids have no discipline at all. We are seeing much larger juvenile crime rates as a result.

well actually we are not seeing amuch larger boost in juvenile crime --
it has in fact gone down

[Guest]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

toto <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:31:57 -0600, [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

If not speeding (and otherwise following the law) is such a good wayto avoid getting a ticket for a moving violation, how do you explaingetting one for an act which is not illegal (going through a yellowlight)? Are we supposed to know and follow all the nonexistent lawsas well as the real ones?

The way it is explained here is that you are supposed to anticipate and when you see the yellow, you know you are going to have to stop. Too many people speed up to get through that yellow, but by the time they are actually in the middle of the intersection, the light has turned to red. If the light turns red after you've passed that line and you're still in the intersection...you just ran a red.

There is no such law in California.

If you get even the fuzz on your bumper into the crosswalk while the
yellow light is still glowing in persistence, you haven't violated the
red light law.

If traffic is blocking the intersection and you enter the
intersection, even on a green, and get stuck, you have violated the
anti-gridlock law, but only (as far as I know) when there is a sign
that says "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION". I believe that the law gives
the state presumption if you enter on a yellow light with stopped
traffic still in the intersection ahead of you.

There is just no law that forbids vehicles from entering intersections
on a yellow light (pedestrians are not permitted to enter on a yellow,
however).

The point of yellow lights are to give fair warning that a red light
is about to appear and to allow motorists to judge whether they will
be able to enter the interection legally and to allow them to make
this decision while they are still some distance before the
intersection.

I believe that yellow lights have to be at least one-tenth second for
each MPH of the prima facie speed limit in order to substantiate a red
light conviction. Judges routinely dismiss "short yellow" tickets.
Traffic engineers also usually give a certain amount of all red time
to allow those vehicles that entered legally on the yellow to clear
the interection provided that they are traveling within a few km/h of
the prima facie speed limit.

[dragonlady]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:

toto <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<huj2svkqmdqu36lfpo2pq2ob4[email protected]>. ..

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:31:57 -0600, [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

If not speeding (and otherwise following the law) is such a good wayto avoid getting a ticket for a moving violation, how do you explaingetting one for an act which is not illegal (going through a yellowlight)? Are we supposed to know and follow all the nonexistent lawsas well as the real ones?

The way it is explained here is that you are supposed to anticipate and when you see the yellow, you know you are going to have to stop. Too many people speed up to get through that yellow, but by the time they are actually in the middle of the intersection, the light has turned to red. If the light turns red after you've passed that line and you're still in the intersection...you just ran a red.

There is no such law in California. If you get even the fuzz on your bumper into the crosswalk while the yellow light is still glowing in persistence, you haven't violated the red light law. If traffic is blocking the intersection and you enter the intersection, even on a green, and get stuck, you have violated the anti-gridlock law, but only (as far as I know) when there is a sign that says "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION". I believe that the law gives the state presumption if you enter on a yellow light with stopped traffic still in the intersection ahead of you.

No -- the intersection does not have to be marked in any way for the
anti-gridlock law to apply.

Around here, at least, the "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION" signs are only
painted on the pavement where there is an intersection that is NOT
4-way, and I don't think I've ever seen such a sign at an intersection
where there is a set of stop lights. For example, not far from where I
live there is a Fry's where the parking lot exits onto a side street
near an intersection with a stop light. The side street has "DO NOT
BLOCK INTERSECTION" painted in front of the Fry's exit, so that people
who are waiting for the light don't stop blocking the parking lot exit.

But the law to not enter an intersection (on a yellow or even on a
green) if you can't also clear it applies at all intersections.

Thank goodness!


meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[DTJ]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:53:49 -0600, Jenn <[email protected]> wrote:

True, but only because of the age of the jailbirds. Up until the 60's or 70's kids were hit as often as hugged. Since the 80's a larger number of kids have no discipline at all. We are seeing much larger juvenile crime rates as a result.well actually we are not seeing amuch larger boost in juvenile crime --it has in fact gone down

Sorry, that is bull****. Police are simply not reporting most crime,
and neither are crime victims. Crime is so bad that people don't call
the police because the police won't come. The main reason is teen
gangs.

Here is a simple question for you - if crime has gone down so much,
how come prisons are more full than ever, actual time served is at its
lowest point ever, and they are building more prisons every day.

[DTJ]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:17:04 GMT, dragonlady
<[email protected]> wrote:

I think you are seeing a problem where none exists. Some kids reallyhate the feeling of car seats and seat belts. So we tell them they cantake them off ONLY WHEN THE ENGINE IS TURNED OFF. And we don't turn theengine off until the car is parked in a safe space.

You are insane. The only safe space is in your garage. So unless you
never use your car, you are wrong.

[dragonlady]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:17:04 GMT, dragonlady <[email protected]> wrote:

I think you are seeing a problem where none exists. Some kids reallyhate the feeling of car seats and seat belts. So we tell them they cantake them off ONLY WHEN THE ENGINE IS TURNED OFF. And we don't turn theengine off until the car is parked in a safe space.

You are insane. The only safe space is in your garage. So unless you never use your car, you are wrong.

I've never had a garage. Well, not until we moved to California -- and
garages here are not for cars, they are for the washer and drier and
storage and . . . .

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[dragonlady]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:53:49 -0600, Jenn <[email protected]> wrote:

True, but only because of the age of the jailbirds. Up until the 60's or 70's kids were hit as often as hugged. Since the 80's a larger number of kids have no discipline at all. We are seeing much larger juvenile crime rates as a result.well actually we are not seeing amuch larger boost in juvenile crime --it has in fact gone down

Sorry, that is bull****. Police are simply not reporting most crime, and neither are crime victims. Crime is so bad that people don't call the police because the police won't come. The main reason is teen gangs. Here is a simple question for you - if crime has gone down so much, how come prisons are more full than ever, actual time served is at its lowest point ever, and they are building more prisons every day.

Because we have begun to criminalize naughtiness. Stuff that used to
not even get the attention of the police is now resulting in arrest and
jail time. This seems especially true for things that used to be
considered "youthful transgressions", like minor drug use.

Comparing crime statistics over time is almost impossible, since the
definition of what is a "crime" doesn't stay static.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[ColoradoSkiBum]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

: I believe that yellow lights have to be at least one-tenth second for
: each MPH of the prima facie speed limit in order to substantiate a red
: light conviction.

What are you saying? That if the speed limit is 50 mph, then the yellow
light only has to be 0.5 seconds long???
--
ColoradoSkiBum

[ColoradoSkiBum]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

: > I never thought I'd hear anyone say driving in the Bay Area was "sane"!
All
: > I can say is, thank God for cab drivers!
:
: I spent some time last summer back in the Boston area. Bay Area driving
: is truly much, much saner!

Personally I'll stick with Bay Area cab riding, whilst holding my breath and
squeezing my eyes shut. :-)
--
ColoradoSkiBum

[dragonlady]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

In article <[email protected]>,
"ColoradoSkiBum" <[email protected]> wrote:

: > I never thought I'd hear anyone say driving in the Bay Area was "sane"! All : > I can say is, thank God for cab drivers! : : I spent some time last summer back in the Boston area. Bay Area driving : is truly much, much saner! Personally I'll stick with Bay Area cab riding, whilst holding my breath and squeezing my eyes shut. :-)

You ought to try a Boston cab ride . . . . it's enough to curl your
hair (or straighten it, depending upon where it started.)

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Garth Almgren]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

Around 11/25/2003 8:11 PM, ColoradoSkiBum wrote:

: I believe that yellow lights have to be at least one-tenth second for : each MPH of the prima facie speed limit in order to substantiate a red : light conviction. What are you saying? That if the speed limit is 50 mph, then the yellow light only has to be 0.5 seconds long???

50 * 0.1 = 5 seconds.



--
~/Garth
"Genius is nothing but a great aptitude for patience."
- Comte Georges Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707-1788)

[ColoradoSkiBum]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??


"Garth Almgren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
: Around 11/25/2003 8:11 PM, ColoradoSkiBum wrote:
:
: > : I believe that yellow lights have to be at least one-tenth second for
: > : each MPH of the prima facie speed limit in order to substantiate a red
: > : light conviction.
: >
: > What are you saying? That if the speed limit is 50 mph, then the yellow
: > light only has to be 0.5 seconds long???
:
: 50 * 0.1 = 5 seconds.
:
:

Ahhh, right, I gotcha, I did misread the post. So I guess if I ever get a
ticket in such a situation, I should probably get a stopwatch and time the
yellow before I go to traffic court.
--
ColoradoSkiBum

[22Ted]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??

On 21 Nov 2003 16:45:41 -0800, [email protected] (nilanjan)
wrote:

In CA SF bay area :I got cited for driving at approx 60 mph at a street with 50mph speedlimit.Also I had my unruly 5 yr old kid in the backseat who had taken theseatbelt off after I was pulled over by the police officer.The officer cited me (1)22350 CVC for speed and (2) 27360.5 CVC forSeatbelt.I got a notice in the mail to pay a bail of $427.75.I think this is very high ! Any pointers / ideas on why this amount isso high and how can I get a break up of the amount ?

So you're speeding and have your kid unbuckled. If it was up to me
you'd be charged with child abuse and locked up forever. Why didn't
you just slit the kids throat and be done with it, you psychopath.?

[Geoff Miller]

Driving speed child seatbelt violation $430 ??



ColoradoSkiBum <[email protected]> writes:

I never thought I'd hear anyone say driving in the Bay Area was "sane"!

It's noticeably better since the dot-com bubble burst. Not
only are there fewer cars on the roads, but the downturn
seems to have had a chastening psychological effect on the
people who remain.

It was getting pretty bad for a while, though. Things had
gotten to the point where it seemed like I got into some
kind of altercation with another driver every time I drove
anywhere.



Geoff

--
"Do any men at all vote for the Democrats anymore?"
-- Ann Coulter