Heard last week or so that 200 warnings had been given and 1, yes 1, ticket.
CS ordinance banning cell phone use while driving
39,773 Views |
271 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Clo004
I would imagine that the plan was to just issue warnings for the first few months. The 1 ticket was probably being an a**hole to the cop.ChampsAg said:
Heard last week or so that 200 warnings had been given and 1, yes 1, ticket.
Or maybe someone who had already been issued a warning. I have no idea or information surrounding the situation for issuing the citation but I know that the only time I issued a warning for a tail light being out was the time I pulled over the same car for the second time - a month later - and the girl had not had it fixed. I didnt realize it was the same car until I walked up and recognized the driver.redd38 said:I would imagine that the plan was to just issue warnings for the first few months. The 1 ticket was probably being an a**hole to the cop.ChampsAg said:
Heard last week or so that 200 warnings had been given and 1, yes 1, ticket.
Of all the threads I have read, no one seems to be aware of the fact that there is no texting or phone useage while riding a bicycle also.
My biggest complaint is the fact that the border isn't consistently marked so drivers don't know when they enter/leave the komrade's kollective. Driving south on Copperfield is a great example.
How about using some common sense and avoiding cell phone use, regardless of what municipality you're in?w8liftr said:
My biggest complaint is the fact that the border isn't consistently marked so drivers don't know when they enter/leave the komrade's kollective. Driving south on Copperfield is a great example.
I noticed that the CS ordinance sign was placed on FM60 for westbound immediately after turning from FM158 (Boonville Rd) and it made me chuckle. That is Bryan and remains so until you cross over to eastbound, turn south on Copperfield or get to the creek just before Earl Rudder Fwy.w8liftr said:
My biggest complaint is the fact that the border isn't consistently marked so drivers don't know when they enter/leave the komrade's kollective. Driving south on Copperfield is a great example.
Regardless, we would all do well if everyone would avoid device use while driving regardless of where they are.
Once you are on FM 60 from 158 you are in College Station. The road and all of the property to the south is College Station. Property to the north is Bryan until the creek area.
I just really wonder how they prove it in court?? It's a he said, she said. If i'm voice texting it looks no different on my phone than if I'm using my hands....
That's what I was saying. The sign is about 1,000 ft west of the intersection for westbound, on the north side of the road, which is in Bryan.Clo004 said:
Once you are on FM 60 from 158 you are in College Station. The road and all of the property to the south is College Station. Property to the north is Bryan until the creek area.
The City Limit line follows the Hwy Dept's right-of-way line, so land between the north side of Univ Dr and the private property (in Bryan) is inside College Station.
For a long time I thought it was the middle of FM60 because that ROW has been expanded in the past (if memory serves), but CoB GIS agrees with you. So thank you, I learned something new today.grumpyoldman said:
The City Limit line follows the Hwy Dept's right-of-way line, so land between the north side of Univ Dr and the private property (in Bryan) is inside College Station.
Honestly aren't the majority of traffic citations he said/she said?? He said I ran the stop sign. I say I didn't. He said I was speeding. I said I wasn't.MrsC2012 said:
I just really wonder how they prove it in court?? It's a he said, she said. If i'm voice texting it looks no different on my phone than if I'm using my hands....
I would imagine that someone running a stop sign is much easier to catch on a dash cam than someone holding a phone.TLIAC said:Honestly aren't the majority of traffic citations he said/she said?? He said I ran the stop sign. I say I didn't. He said I was speeding. I said I wasn't.MrsC2012 said:
I just really wonder how they prove it in court?? It's a he said, she said. If i'm voice texting it looks no different on my phone than if I'm using my hands....
Except when my daughter was ticketed for running a stop sign, and we asked to see the video, we were told they do not start the recording until after they start to pull you over.
***It's your money, not theIRS! (At least for a little while longer.)
Or when I was given a citation and requested the video, but it was 'lost due to a technical error' right after the prosecutor saw it.
This is a problem of the municipal court. Don't blame the PD. There is a set time videos from a dash cam stay on the server for a traffic stop. If the prosecutor views it and doesn't save it for their use in court, that's on them. If they lose because of it, so be it. If they win, well...it was up to the judge or jury.
TLIAC will back me on this one.
TLIAC will back me on this one.
Speaking about CSPD body cameras and in car videos will go back 30 seconds when the record button is pressed. If I see a violation I hit record so it can be captured on video. I know jurors want to see a violation.
Now if those videos are not tagged as case evidence (ie not traffic violations/citations) they are automatically deleted after a set time. I believe that is 90 days for all of our video.
Just a little information for those that are curious.
Now if those videos are not tagged as case evidence (ie not traffic violations/citations) they are automatically deleted after a set time. I believe that is 90 days for all of our video.
Just a little information for those that are curious.
I requested my video when I requested a trial, no more than 10 days after then citation. 90+ days later the prosecutor informed me that the video was removed from the servers after 90 days, but that she had been given a copy on DVD before that, which she watched, but then the DVD was subsequently damaged and would only play the audio and not the video. She refused to produce the DVD. She then told the judge it was lost and never mentioned a DVD, of course adding in that she had seen it and it confirmed the officer's story.
I ended up winning on appeal, so it all worked out, but for different reasons. Although I would have liked her to be charged with destruction of evidence. She is no longer a prosecutor around here.
I ended up winning on appeal, so it all worked out, but for different reasons. Although I would have liked her to be charged with destruction of evidence. She is no longer a prosecutor around here.
How long ago was this case? Curious because of your mention of the prosecutor. If what you're saying is true, I don't think there'd be enough for a criminal charge, but the case being dismissed wouldn't be out of the question at all.
In the end, like I said, what happened to you falls on the prosecutor at the court, not CSPD. They're two separate entities.
In the end, like I said, what happened to you falls on the prosecutor at the court, not CSPD. They're two separate entities.
If this is true as written, then you have experienced a shaddy prosecutor. That is conduct that should be reported to the bar.Quote:
I requested my video when I requested a trial, no more than 10 days after then citation. 90+ days later the prosecutor informed me that the video was removed from the servers after 90 days, but that she had been given a copy on DVD before that, which she watched, but then the DVD was subsequently damaged and would only play the audio and not the video. She refused to produce the DVD. She then told the judge it was lost and never mentioned a DVD, of course adding in that she had seen it and it confirmed the officer's story.
I should have written both a criminal and bar complaint.
I know it's not the PD's fault but I just feel like it would be extremely hard to prove a phone violation more so than speeding. Just curious.
Can I assume there was a steep decline in traffic accidents in the last couple months? When will that data be released?
How so? When I used to go to court on speeding violations I would say basically "the vehicle was moving at a high rate of speed, my radar said they were speeding, I saw the radar." If I were to issue a citation for a phone violation I would say "I saw them on the phone and I could tell that they were using the device while driving and explain the circumstances." Still my word against theirs. Of course, I would make sure that I was absolutely sure that they were in fact using the phone (ya'll know you can tell-you see it all the time) before I issued a warning or a citation.MrsC2012 said:
I know it's not the PD's fault but I just feel like it would be extremely hard to prove a phone violation more so than speeding. Just curious.
Like the woman last night driving 45 mph on Hwy6... on her phone. Ugh.
Saw someone roll slowly through a busy intersection yesterday, furiously banging away on her phone. People around here are amazing...
Just guessing it will be a year before we really know how effective or ineffective the ban has been. I believe Austin saw a drop in crashes at first then it went right back up.