Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: OT: WA hands free law does not apply to police

  1. #1
    Regular Member SnarlyWino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, United States
    Posts
    375

    OT: WA hands free law does not apply to police

    I am rolling down Broadway Ave in Spokane Valley tonight on my bike and pull up next to a local Police Officer holding a phone up to his head. I look at him, he looks at me, I hold my hand up to my helmet gesturing "Nice Phone" and he gives me the dirtiest look. The light changes and I follow him for three miles while his right hand is holding his phone to his head and his left hand is hanging out the window. I didn't know "Hands Free" was referring to the steering wheel.

    Meanwhile, they are ticketing people left and right around here for doing the same thing.

    WTF?
    Keep Calm and Carry On,

    Snarly

    Pro Deo, Pro Familia, Pro Patria

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Virtually all laws exempt LEO...

    (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person
    30 operating:
    31 (a) An authorized emergency vehicle, or a tow truck responding to
    32 a disabled vehicle;

    Read the bill. (Click on the updated link at the top for the new language.)
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 07-11-2010 at 01:18 AM. Reason: correct link
    Live Free or Die!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Plains, ,
    Posts
    388
    IIRC they don't have to wear a seatbelt either.

    You could always get one of these things. Not only for cops, but all of those annoying cell phone yappers who seem to impede progress, in cars and on foot.

    http://www.thesignaljammer.com/

    bob
    Last edited by BobR; 07-11-2010 at 12:58 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I have pulled beside officers driving and they are on their computer. All that hype about talking on cell phones and driving without seat belts being so dangerous...obviously not that dangerous.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  5. #5
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    redacted
    Last edited by Bill Starks; 07-11-2010 at 10:46 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    This should be an OSHA issue.

    It is not a safe work environment for police to talk on a hand held cell phone while driving.

    It is not a safe work environment for police to not wear a safety belt while driving a vehicle.

    In fact since they drive 'commercially,' and often have passnagers in their vehicle, this could be considered a vital public safety issue too.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    Dead Link

    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person

    30 operating:
    31 (a) An authorized emergency vehicle, or a tow truck responding to
    32 a disabled vehicle;

    Read the bill. (Click on the updated link at the top for the new language.)
    Corrected.
    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    I have no problem with LEO being exempt.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398
    I find this thread silly. Don't you know the police can do anything? Even with non emergency calls, they just light up for a couple seconds to pass red lights. You silly citizen.


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  10. #10
    Regular Member SnarlyWino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, United States
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person
    30 operating:
    31 (a) An authorized emergency vehicle, or a tow truck responding to
    32 a disabled vehicle;

    Read the bill. (Click on the updated link at the top for the new language.)
    I guess I stand corrected. Thanks for the link gogodawgs.
    Keep Calm and Carry On,

    Snarly

    Pro Deo, Pro Familia, Pro Patria

  11. #11
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    I have no problem with LEO being exempt.
    Some even think they are exempt from using common sense and good judgement.

    If they need to use the phone in order to get their job done, fine. If they are just talking with their "buds" to set up a coffee break or lunch destination, then they should be held to the same standards as the rest of us. FWIW, why can't they use hands-free devices? Sure see enough of them being used on the Reality TV shows like "Cops", etc. Maybe this provision will be removed after a few LEO's run over a pedestrian or two, rear-end a couple of stopped vehicles, or even run off the road while farting around with their phone.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    IIRC the law also exempts bus drivers, taxi drivers, and other commercial drivers while communicating "time sensitive" info to their dispatcher.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Some even think they are exempt from using common sense and good judgement.

    If they need to use the phone in order to get their job done, fine. If they are just talking with their "buds" to set up a coffee break or lunch destination, then they should be held to the same standards as the rest of us.
    The problem with that is you can't prove if they're using their phone for official purposes or not... so they just use the blanket law to exempt them. I have no idea why they don't issue hands free devices, or at least require them when driving.

  14. #14
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Maple Valley, Washington, USA
    Posts
    48
    This is one of a few news reports regarding WSP's policy from about 3 months ago.

    "Washington's cell phone law exempts police officers from the hands-free requirement. But WSP Chief John Batiste believes that even highly trained professional drivers should focus on the task at hand. "

    http://www.khq.com/global/story.asp?s=12297509

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    If you think they are causing you some sort of direct physical harm by talking on their phone, then sue them in court for damages, otherwise, mind your own business. This goes for all, not just LEO.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    If you think they are causing you some sort of direct physical harm by talking on their phone, then sue them in court for damages, otherwise, mind your own business. This goes for all, not just LEO.
    SO, think people should 'mind their own business' over drunk drivers too?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    SO, think people should 'mind their own business' over drunk drivers too?
    Your not seriously going to fall for the media hype and want to control the free flow of information, commerce and liberty are you?

    What other (and there are plenty) activities would you like to control while people are driving?
    Live Free or Die!

  18. #18
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Your not seriously going to fall for the media hype and want to control the free flow of information, commerce and liberty are you?

    What other (and there are plenty) activities would you like to control while people are driving?
    Dude, are you serious or am I just missing the sarcasm? I don't need the media hype. I'm on the road 8+ hours a day trying to keep my passengers from being hurt or killed by these asshats who can't get the damn phone out of their ear for 20 freaking minutes. This has nothing to do with liberty, it's about RESPONSIBILITY. No one, let me repeat that, NO ONE can safely operate a motor vehicle while using a cell phone! How many studies do you need to see before you'll believe its JUST AS BAD AS BEING DRUNK! People who use their phones while driving are a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO EVERYONE AROUND THEM, just like running down the street randomly firing a gun around would be, and therefore NEEDS LEGAL RESTRICTION.

    What else needs to be restricted while driving? EVERYTHING. Reading, shaving, fixing your makeup, eating lunch, yelling at the kids in the back seat, playing with the radio, EVERYTHING. Drivers need to concentrate on DRIVING. Now if we had a nice, concise, distracted driving statute THAT WAS ACTUALLY ENFORCED we wouldn't need a cell phone-specific law. But until we do have such an enforced statute, or another one that lets me legally ram these fools and take them off the road myself, I'll continue to support the talking/texting law.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Zero sarcasm.

    Show me a study, provide a link. I have read several, AMA, Harvard and have seen no conclusive evidence that it is a more prevalent cause of injury or death that needs special treatment under the law. All of the other things you mentioned, when actively engaged in behind the wheel of a moving vehicle are distracting and dangerous. I agree on that point. However, there are allready laws in place that are enforcebable regarding poor driving.

    AS to your statement "its JUST AS BAD AS BEING DRUNK!" That statement is patently false. When someone is drunk, they are a risk for the entire trip home in their vehicle. While someone is talking on the phone they are not a risk for the entire trip, the risk is decidedly different when they are dialing, texting and handling the phone versus when they are talking on the phone.

    This is a law that serves no purpose, as you stated there is allready a law in place and this is a direct attack on liberty.


    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Dude, are you serious or am I just missing the sarcasm? I don't need the media hype. I'm on the road 8+ hours a day trying to keep my passengers from being hurt or killed by these asshats who can't get the damn phone out of their ear for 20 freaking minutes. This has nothing to do with liberty, it's about RESPONSIBILITY. No one, let me repeat that, NO ONE can safely operate a motor vehicle while using a cell phone! How many studies do you need to see before you'll believe its JUST AS BAD AS BEING DRUNK! People who use their phones while driving are a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO EVERYONE AROUND THEM, just like running down the street randomly firing a gun around would be, and therefore NEEDS LEGAL RESTRICTION.

    What else needs to be restricted while driving? EVERYTHING. Reading, shaving, fixing your makeup, eating lunch, yelling at the kids in the back seat, playing with the radio, EVERYTHING. Drivers need to concentrate on DRIVING. Now if we had a nice, concise, distracted driving statute THAT WAS ACTUALLY ENFORCED we wouldn't need a cell phone-specific law. But until we do have such an enforced statute, or another one that lets me legally ram these fools and take them off the road myself, I'll continue to support the talking/texting law.
    Live Free or Die!

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Question ???

    Dangerous burned child with fire from life separates a hot fire Schrei Bäng bäng free!

    Is that the translation of your signiture line?
    Live Free or Die!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    SO, think people should 'mind their own business' over drunk drivers too?
    Yes.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Bang Bang - Feuer Frei (Fire Freely)

    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Dangerous burned child with fire from life separates a hot fire Schrei Bäng bäng free!

    Is that the translation of your signiture line?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjVb89uEeIM

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Didn't Mythbusters do an episode on driving while buzzed VS driving while on the phone?

  24. #24
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    Didn't Mythbusters do an episode on driving while buzzed VS driving while on the phone?
    Yes. If I recall the episode correctly, those on the cell phone did worse than those that were drunk (degally).

    Why is it that so many feel that THEY are imune from the problems caused by drunks, and people using cell phones while driving. All the studies must have focused on inferior subjects, not the ones that think that THEY will never have a problem.

    The reason their is a law now that allows people to be stopped as a primary infraction is that too many didn't get the message. If you aren't paying full attention to your driving you are a hazard. That goes for phones, joking with your passengers, or just playing with yourself.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Show me a study, provide a link. I have read several, AMA, Harvard and have seen no conclusive evidence that it is a more prevalent cause of injury or death that needs special treatment under the law. All of the other things you mentioned, when actively engaged in behind the wheel of a moving vehicle are distracting and dangerous. I agree on that point. However, there are allready laws in place that are enforcebable regarding poor driving.

    AS to your statement "its JUST AS BAD AS BEING DRUNK!" That statement is patently false. When someone is drunk, they are a risk for the entire trip home in their vehicle. While someone is talking on the phone they are not a risk for the entire trip, the risk is decidedly different when they are dialing, texting and handling the phone versus when they are talking on the phone.

    This is a law that serves no purpose, as you stated there is allready a law in place and this is a direct attack on liberty.
    Just to play devils advocate here there was an episode of Effin Science that tested the drunk/texting driving conundrum. They actually discovered that DD is LESS hazardous than texting. Not sure what episode it was but it was just on a few nights ago....

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •