|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Bay Area residents who text while driving are in for a wake-up call on Wednesday when authorities plan to crack down on the violators, a California Highway Patrol officer said.
The CHP and local police will work together all day, starting at midnight, to pull over people who are sending text messages or talking without a hands-free device, CHP Sgt. Trent Cross said.
“We want to be optimistic and we hope there are fewer violators than last time, but we can’t predict these things,” Cross said.
Authorities issued more than 900 citations to violators of the cell phone law during the first part the crackdown on Aug. 10, Cross said.
Drivers may be pulled over for inappropriate use of cell phones at any time, Cross said. This includes talking on a cell phone or sending text messages, but Cross said motorists could be stopped simply for looking at a cell phone while holding it.
Saul Sugarman, Bay City News
Saul Sugarman, Bay City News
For the school fee information check the school district website. The developer has put in writing that they will honor the $8.62 per sq ft gift tax and John Casey said he plans on executing that agreement at a school board meeting, I believe in late March.
The 2 million is arrived at by taking 5000 sg ft homes and multiplying that by 51. That actually comes to $2.2 million. If the homes are larger it will be more money up to 7000 sq ft. That figure does not include ADA on the projected student population already included in the school district future demographics. It also does not include bond money paid. That is how they arrived at the $300,000 more each year.
Glad you are asking questions! I asked too!
I am voting yes on Measure D
I am surprised that Tanya was involved in this ad of deception. There are no fees from this development that will go into teachers, books, or any other operational costs. The bond money is not an increase to the school district either. The bond is for paying off a loan for previous capital improvements and the price is fixed as well as the payment. While new homes pay the bond, other property owners will see their property tax go down by a few pennies (when the property value of Pleasanton is over 17.2B, everybody’s percentage is small so not much changes when a new house is added). The school district does not get any more money for the bond from these new houses.
There is also no additional money for operations except for the new students who go to the schools where the state pays ADA per student. Don’t think the district would want this as the district is already telling people we do not get enough from the state on a per pupil basis; that is why they tried for a parcel tax and now a fundraiser. Simple economics is if you loose money selling one item, you don’t make up for it in quantity.
A current school board member and three previous school board members signed the ballot arguments against this development. No school board members, past or current, signed the ballot arguments in favor. That says something!
I don’t think you can do the fool me twice thing here. Ruby Hill homeowners paid developer fees to mitigate growth. If Signature was promising Neal, they did not make the decision not to build it–that was the district. The reasons for the lawsuits that followed were a lousy choice over negotiating.
So the decision on Oak Grove is separate. My personal belief is that we cannot debate about OUR hills or our anything; it isn’t ours unless we choose as a community to buy it from the Lins for our collective desires. Otherwise, I’ll be over to hang out in your backyard, uninvited, because I hear its pretty nice.
Ruby Hill and Oak Grove two different issues. If the district had built the school when they said they would there would NEVER have been an issue. They waited until the cost escalated and the original negotiated amount was never meant to be a blank check. The district refused the amount of money offered in a negotiated settlement. Bad choice. If you signed a contract for one thing and the amount rises due to inflation, what would you do?
The fact that Tanya, who has demonstrated her commitment to the children of this community, would come out in full support of Measure D should tell you something. People care about this city.
What I find reprehensible is the personal demonization that is going on. When did we, as a community, get to the point that a difference of opinion would result is this type of nastiness? Is this who we are? Is this what we have become?
That is where the shame lies!
I love how Kathleen will use any opportunity to throw her sour grapes at the current administration when it was Mary Frances’ reign that negotiated the faulty contracts. It was her tenure that did not get the school built. Then she abruptly left the district, with the current administration to resolve the already rising costs to build the school. Interesting also how she left PAUSD with pending threats of investigation. AND she was Kathleen’s boss. Hmmmm…. it all seems to come together.
Signature agreed to build a school. The school district never wanted the school. The school district enjoyed collecting fees in the name of the school. These facts are why the district lost in court…
longtime parent wrote: “Your statement indicates the city should approve every development plan it receives since every house pays developer impact fees.”
Follow what I’ve written on this subject in the other related threads. I indicate that voters should look at the Oak Grove plan in its entirety, the net effect. Personally for me, having 90% of the property put into a conservation easement to protect the hills from future development in exchange for half the legally allowed homes is the big plus. Now THAT is in writing, signed, and legal.
“More students is not the answer. Let me do the math here…. 51 homes, 3 kids per home (very large houses normally mean bigger families), 153 kids.. right? at 30 students per class (25 for younger grades).”
Very large houses = more kids? I cry BS on this point. I know VERY few families with 3 or more children who could afford a 5000 SF house. They’re more likely to be homes of couples with just 1 or 2 children or the wealthy childless among us.
Thank you Patriot. I own a house on a large yard. I would like to tear down my house and put up a bunch of duplexes or townhouses. It is zoned residential, so why cannot I do what I want on my parcel. Since the Oak Grove houses can be up to three stories tall from what I have read, three story condos would be even better for my parcel. Shouldn’t I be able to put 12 or so homes on my parcel if I can physically fit them there?
Overly simplistic example meant to distract from the actual issue…
The Oak Grove plan conforms to zoning as well as offering half the amount of housing than is legally allowed. A closer analogy would be if Anonymous above were to tear down their house and build one half the size.
Watch out folks…here they come. It appears the first fundraiser event had a great return. They are doing it again…$250.00 per ticket x’s 900 = $22K…not bad.
Yes, I’m sure that’s the main reason they are doing this – to make 22k.
These tickets are some of the lowest value tickets to give. If they need to make money so badly speed traps are bigger money makers as would be enforcing the commuter lane or red light/stop sign runners. It’s illegal to do a ‘california roll’ through a red light on red or stop sign but it happens at every light/sign everyday. Those tickets are at least twice as expensive.
How about viewing this at face value? It’s sending a message to not talk on the phone while driving unless using hands free. I happen to think it’s a pretty good idea and I’m glad they’re enforcing it.
This is about awareness.
It’s about time. Everyday I see these A-Holes driving around town chatting away on their cell phones and not at all focused on their driving. They are endangering everyone in our town so I hope our P-town finest really crack down on these lawbreakers.
Police issuing tickets news? Yawn..
I, for one, am elated to read this article. It’s been a long time coming. I mean, seriously, who thinks it’s okay to be talking on the phone while driving? Hands free or not, I think, it should be illegal to talk on your phone!! Texting…come on people….are you really that important? I think not.
I am not surprised anymore of responses that this is merely a “fundraiser” by the local police to raise money. That is a disgusting and ignorant response, I’m just saying.
I agree, definitely not a fundraiser scheme.
With that said, how are the police going to prove you were texting? “I was checking the time”, “I was dialing for my blue-tooth”, etc.
Already happened. On First Street by Wayside Park. Had speaker phone open and on dashboard. I was given a ticket because the officer said it was not an approved hands free device. Cost $146.00
The new law, Section 12810.3, is ambiguous with regard to what is allowed or not allowed.
“A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.”
The DMV site (dmv.ca.gov) says that Bluetooh and “other” earpieces are allowe as long as they do not cover both ears. Speaker phone can also be used, but only if you do not touch the phone.
Minors and public transit drivers are further restricted to no personal cell phone conversations.
Exceptions are allowed for emergency calls.
A search for words such as dialing or placing or making, provided no information about how to place a call while driving. The DMV web site only stated the following:
This law does not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name in an electronic wireless device for the purpose of making or receiving a phone call. Drivers are strongly urged not to enter a phone number while driving. How you can convince the officer that you were doing this and not texting is never stated.
to “Member” I would fight that ticket if you didn’t already pay it. As “Law is Ambiguous” states the law is not clear. It might take a few hours from your day but the police should NOT be giving out erroneous tickets when there are much bigger problems going on in the city.
Is there any exclusion for dialing (or looking at an email) while stopped at a light?
Or do you have to swerve over and idle at the curb for a few seconds while dialing and then merge back into traffic when you’re done?
I may be the only one but I feel I’m more distracted fiddling with all the wires and earpieces related to my “hands free” device than I ever was before when I could just pick up the phone and hold it to my ear. I don’t usually drive with both hands on the wheel anyway.
I was ticketed yesterday on the crackdown for texting (Though my opinion is the citation was in error). They setup a trap where an officer was siting next the road I assume and calling ahead cars for the 6 or 7 CHP officers to pull out of traffic and issue citations. When I was pulled out of traffic, the officer first indicated that I was talking on my cell phone. When I pointed out that I have a blue tooth device and can prove to him that no phone call was in session, he responded with “We’re just gonna go with this.” Upon returning to my vehicle after calling in my license and registration information, the citation was for texting. I again, offered to show him my phone to prove that no text messaging had taken place. He was not interested in seeing that either and stated I could take my phone records to court to dispute it.
Best I can figure is when I was glancing down at my MP3 player and selecting a song, the viewing officer thought I was texting. Not that being distracted by making a music selection is without risk, the law specifically states “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication.” Selecting a song on a MP3 device is not a text-based communication.
I personally would prefer to see the CHP crackdown on drivers that are following too close or drivers that are making radical lane changes. While I do see people using their phones while driving, I see more tailgaters. Not to mention the number of law enforcement I see using phones while driving; laughing, making hand gestures, etc. Even if they are “trained” to multi-task, there is no way to ensure they will not make a mistake. I would be interested in seeing of the number of collisions related to cell phone usage, how many of those were in law enforcement.
I love it when people say it is a trap… first off you should not be using your phone without a hands free device… it is as simple as that…if you see them before they see you then you get away… so that is you getting away with doing something against the law… the police on the other hand have every right to catch you by any means if you are putting other people at risk.
There are no traps just laws…abide by them thats all the cops are enforcing…
Suck it up and pay the fine.
Fair enough. Not a trap but a temporary high enforcement zone. Read more closely to my original post. I was NOT using my phone therefore citation of VC 23123.5, in my opinion, should not apply.
dt – I hope you do take your phone records to court and fight it. I don’t have anything against the police enforcing laws, however, having worked very closely with a police department in another city, know that errors happen and many times they are under pressure to “perform” and it’s a pride thing to back down. Chances are, you show the court proof the ticket was in error and you will be let off. Of course you have to decide whether it is worth your vacation day.
Remember 10:00 and 2:00. No room for a cell phone there. How simple
What about manual transmissions? Can’t very well 10:00 and 2:00 all the time, especially in commute traffic. Definitely no room for cell phones with manual transmissions either.
found your site on del.icio.us today and really liked it.. i bookmarked it and will be back to check it out some more later
I wonder how much money was spent to run this sweep? Not just the CHP wages but how much will it cost as a whole? Add to CHP wages, the cost for fueling CHP patrol cars, the cost of new ticket books, the cost of additional pollution clean-up because commuters had to sit in traffic longer than usual, the cost of processing the paperwork, the cost of courts having to process the additional infractions and I’m sure the list probably goes on.
It’s never really cut and dry when you try to factor in the all the little pieces it takes to run an operation like this. If violations of hands free laws was the leading cause of fatality or injury collisions then perhaps the money would have been well spent but last I heard, the number one cause of fatality and injury collisions was excessive speed. I just hope my tax dollars was spent well.
I think ANYONE AND EVERYONE who uses their cell phone in ANY way while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle should have the phone confiscated IMMEDIATELY, and heave it held for a minimum of 1 year AND be charged a MINIMUM $1,000 fine. It is beyond dangerous and wholly unnecessary.
Since when did people become so indispensible that they HAD to be conactable 24/7/365? Does no one recall the “old days” when we needed to get to a landline to use the phone?
NO ONE is that important or in THAT much of a hurry to NEED to talk or text while driving. Period.
And, as there is NO reasonable argument or contradiction to one word I have just typed, Jeb, yo umay close this discussion.
Go Giants!
I love how everyone gets on their soapbox and is quick to complain about people using their phones while driving, stating it is such a cardinal sin but refuse to admit their own guilt of equally dangerous activities while driving. I can just hear the ones reading this saying “I never do anything to endanger others when I drive. I follow ALL of the rules.” I say BS. At some point, everyone that drives makes an error in judgement is introduce unacceptable risk to others when they drive. So for those that have a “Go get’em” attitude, watch out. It will eventually come full circle. Then where will you stand when others judge you?
fine i got a ticket and i will pay for it. but why should i pay $146.00 for a ticket that is suppose to cost $20.00? where is the fairness in that? How is this calculated? from $20.00 to $146.00 that is excessive. someone told me that includes court fees, security fees, etc,, well if i
just write a check for $20.00 for first time offense and not use any court time etc.. why should i pay for services i don’t use? can anyone tell me why?
Well, you see – it costs quite a bit to run the courts and even though it may not cost them $120 for YOU in particular, especially if you plead guilty and just pay up, they need to pay for the courts somehow and all of the (majority) of people who claim their innocence (whether they are or not is irreverent, it still costs) and tie up the system. This is where your fees go – since you admit guilt by paying the $20, their argument is that they might as well extract an extra $120 penalty from you while at their mercy rather than try to pass it all on to the law-abiding tax payers. Your options are to fight it or not, and you always have the choice to not break the law in the first place, but once you’re caught the odds are not on your side.
I know that for every ticket that I’ve received I’ve probably gotten lucky and avoided 2 or 3 throughout the years so I can’t really complain.