[FoRK] I just had to do it
lawnun at gmail.com
Thu Feb 17 07:58:46 PST 2011
Well -- I'll say this much -- its wordy. Echoing what Martin stated, being a
smug bastard isn't really going to help win cases or influence folks. Plus,
if, as I divined, your argument is that the police are mis-applying the
vehicle code by either a) not tapping everyone who missed whatever it is you
missed (a sign? its unclear) or b) for standing behind an ordinance to
penalize individuals for what amounts to a minor, inconsequential
infraction, I suggest you get to that point first, and not screw around with
your credentials and general awesomeness up front.
Remember Stephen -- someone actually has to read this. Lawyers (and by
extension, judges and magistrates) like clear, coherent and to-the-point
writing. If I lost you (amidst your rambling about the right to travel and
the four corners rule (seriously?), you can damn well bet others will as
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
> At the risk of several untoward things, including pissing people off (for
> talk'n back to The Man etc.), looking like a smug self-aggrandizer (hey, you
> have to sell yourself in resumes and proving your ability to a skeptical
> court), bla bla, I'd like to share this for entertainment, comment,
> correction, improvement, and general abuse. And cause some things just need
> say'n. I have no illusions of my success likelihood anywhere including here
> in Santa Clara County, CA, at least on the first pass. (In Virginia,
> District Court seems like a rigged game w/ rubber stamping, while Circuit
> Court was actually serious (and where I won my appeal)). In my defense (of
> my defense), I'll point out that A) I'm 4 for 4 (3 pro se, 2 times defending
> against the local government) and B) my legal education just leaped to
> another plateau and has been updated for California. Plus, I've convinced
> myself that I've found Constitutional grounding on some points that affect
> many people which could be fun. I did my first four public records
> requests, with good results from a couple of them. Apologies for rambling a
> bit, but I was striving for continuity of "foundation". If nothing else,
> perhaps I have an essay for law school admission. ;-)
> Pre-hearing statement:
> Please note that I am requesting a record of the proceedings and I ask that
> all issues be preserved for appeal. I understand that I may purchase an
> audio CD of the proceedings for a nominal fee. Please advise if there is
> anything I need to do beforehand.
> I received a citation for a violation of VC-21461A-1 . I assert that
> this citation was an improper, illegal, and unconstitutional application of
> this law to the circumstance. I also assert that this law is overbroad as
> written if it is applied without consideration of safety, skill of the
> driver, and abilities of the vehicle. Additionally, I will prove that I
> acted in a manner that was safe beyond the legal threshold required to be
> considered "safe". I also argue that, by the officer's own admissions, that
> this should be considered an instance of a speed trap based on the
> principles of the speed trap laws. 
> Evidence relied upon:
> My testimony, my driver's license and private pilot certification card
> Public records for engineering studies (Exhibit A), accident statistics
> (Exhibit B) provided by SJPD, CHP, Caltrans, City of San Jose
> Site survey / photographs / timing tests (Which I plan to bring to court.
> Exhibit C)
> Officer testimony. It is requested that the prosecutor stipulate that the
> officer is a traffic safety expert.
> Legal reasoning for defense:
> This is a necessary defense because: I have a civic duty to object to
> illegal application of law. And because I perceive a gap between safe
> action and possibly ticketable action for the letter of the law when it is
> not actual law, which is unfair and in error. Also, "errors of simplicity"
> are not legal past a certain threshold. That threshold is when it has a
> noticeable impact on basic rights, including time delay, large fines, and
> effects such as expensive insurance or career impact. An error of
> simplicity is when there is a gap between a law or interpretation and the
> nuanced situation that it is applied to. For instance, in every locality,
> there might not be a rule, law, or clause allowing for disregard of various
> traffic and other legal restrictions during a parade or road race, but when
> everyone agrees informally to suspend those rules, there is a positive
> instance of an error of simplicity in the law.
> Citizens truly operate under de facto law which is a result of
> Constitutional application of the letter of the law plus common law and
> other principles, informed by fact not myth. Here, de facto is used to mean
> the fair, proper application of all active legal principles rather than de
> jure practice wherein some laws are misapplied through errors of simplicity
> and lack of vigorous defense of those affected. Economically speaking, it
> has often not been worth mounting a proper defense. Most of the public have
> a shallow understanding of the law to any great degree and are not regularly
> taught how to properly work with the court system to defend their rights
> without very expensive counsel. Local government benefits from these gaps
> in a way that is often approved of socially. Because of the, possibly
> sometimes improper, relationship between the State and insurance companies,
> additional negative impact can accrue through higher rates for insurance or
> credit. That does not make the situation fair or correct.
> The extent of de facto law is a combination of the use of the four corners
> rule  of all of the sections in something like the Code of California,
> the Constitution with all derived case law and settled legal reasoning,
> choice of application of laws by the Executive branch, scientific facts that
> may be relevant, and common law.
> By application of the four corners rule to the Vehicle Code of California,
> I assert that all rules are intended to be applied only when a standard of
> safety is not being met or it is significantly likely not to be met. I find
> this by the legislative intent  and stated scope of infractions  and
> through observed and widely acknowledged  demonstration of the standard
> of safety threshold by public officials, including law enforcement at all
> levels of California. Everyone in California is bound to Vehicle Code (and
> other laws) to the same extent, with only narrow exceptions for active
> pursuit and with required use of warning lights. I have
> recently observed CHP and San Jose Police officers traveling much faster
> than the posted speed (more than 80mph on 101 in at least one case) while
> not in pursuit or with any safety lights or sirens activated. They
> frequently ignore parking, distance to corner parking, and other regulations
> in downtown San Jose. In the case of traveling faster than the speed limit,
> but still at a safe speed, they are demonstrating performance of the de
> facto and widely assumed social and legal contract that approximating the
> speed limit at a safe level is legal and acceptable. This is another
> instance of an error of simplicity: the engineering and speed studies
> process produces a recommendation of a speed limit of approximately the 85th
> percentile without regard to overall safety. It also demonstrates that the
> de facto Vehicle Code in California is based on safety, not the letter of
> the law. This is widely known, if not explicitly and formally codified. It
> is well known, noted, and hated when this is abused by a locality or local
> office of CHP. The vehicle code in California, unlike many other more
> backward areas of the country, has anti-speed trap laws that provide
> modest protection from abuse. The net result of this is that if it is
> proved that safety was not an issue, then a citation is invalid and illegal
> as applied.
> Citizens of, and visitors to the United States have certain rights and
> privileges. Among these are the Right to Travel  and a set of rights
> referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "Life, Liberty, and the
> Pursuit of Happiness" and in the 5th and 14th amendments as "life, liberty,
> or property". The specific type of direct and derived rights relied on here
> is the right to freedom from impedance, fines, and restraint when they do
> not meet a compelling state interest . Laws in the US are subject to the
> Constitution and the privileges and rights directly and indirectly
> guaranteed. Tests of whether the law and its application are constitutional
> include whether it: uses the least restrictive means , is overbroad, and
> whether it is too vague. In this case, VC-21461A-1 was applied incorrectly
> as I will prove that there was no safety issue, and it is overbroad because
> as written it could be interpreted to apply even when safety is not an
> issue, and it is vague because it does not note when it does not apply.
> The purpose of traffic laws are safety and public welfare.   
>   Any other purpose is improper, illegal, unfair, and ungrounded in
> de facto law.
> As I stated to the officer, I am 45 years old and a highly experienced
> driver with a nearly perfect safety record. I have better than 20:15
> distance eyesight with far better than normal peripheral vision, fast
> reaction time and reflexes, have driven well over 500,000 miles in many
> dense traffic areas including years in rush hour traffic in DC, days in
> London, and super dangerous roads elsewhere. I have run well over 10,000
> miles on city streets, roads, and highways of all kinds. Inline skated for
> many years in DC and other metro areas, biked in many areas with traffic. I
> have never caused a serious accident and, other than sliding on ice as a
> teenager, never had a real accident of any kind. I also have a private
> pilot's license with over 100 hours of flying in DC, the Bay Area, and
> Hawaii. All of my driving is mostly automatic, highly precise, and I have
> repeatedly demonstrated unusual skill avoiding sudden surprises by other
> drivers or conditions. All of this was demonstrated while living 13 years
> in the DC area, driving 100 miles per day through the worst traffic in the
> US for years without incident. I am also a security and safety consultant
> with CISSP certification, expert level compared to the average person, with
> a very good grasp of probability, risk, physics, psychological and emotional
> performance, and other related topics.
> While it is a popular notion that no one can multitask, many know that to
> be untrue to various extents. Clearly, humans can learn to multitask in
> various senses to a large degree. At a basic level, involved both in
> driving and flying along with riding a bike, skateboarding, etc., our brains
> learn to completely automate much of the mechanics and sensory-motor
> coordination of driving. It is well recognized that this can be safe. In
> California law, this is even acknowledged to be true for professionals like
> police, emergency, and delivery drivers where texting, cell use without a
> headset, and other multitasking is specifically allowed. I assert that this
> narrow and selective exemption while restricting others blindly is a
> violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution as it penalizes
> even those that would as safe or safer than the listed categories.
> Additionally, I assert that I am a "supertasker" [20-24]. As I have
> FAA private pilot certification, I would say that I am Federally certified
> to multitask in a highly demanding and potentially dangerous situation:
> flying an airplane, with passengers, in many conditions potentially at
> nearly anywhere in the US or world. Furthermore, as  make
> clear, this ability can be learned, at least by some people, and they become
> more proficient with practice over time. The 2.5% mentioned in  is from
> a sample of 200 undergraduate students rather than mature, experienced,
> accomplished individuals where the percentage is likely to be much higher.
> I also argue by analogy to FAR 91.3 that just as any rule can be ignored in
> an emergency when following a rule is deemed by a driver to be more
> dangerous than an alternative, when laws and rules become useless and
> counter to freedoms, at a certain threshold they become temporarily null.
> Clearly, on a closed road, when a stop light is malfunctioning, or other
> unusual circumstance, this is true.
> This citation is about turning right on red at an intersection of a flat,
> good pavement, wide, multi-lane road with generous lane sizes, good
> visibility past the overpass at the airport.
> In Exhibit A, the Engineering and Traffic Survey by the City of San Jose
> for Skyport Drive, I note several things. First, note that the report is
> dated February 16th, 1998, 13 years ago. Any analogous or actual
> application of the CA speed trap laws  would render this citation
> invalid. Also, there have been significant improvements to the road,
> intersections, and area in general during the $1.5B airport renovation. It
> is clear that the area is much safer while having higher traffic and better
> visibility than when this study was performed. The study in 1998 notes
> there was an average of 3640 vehicles per day, which is 1328600 vehicles per
> year. I estimate that there are approximately 3 million vehicles passing
> that intersection per day now. The traffic accident report for January 1st
> to present (Exhibit B) shows 4 minor accidents at that corner, and one of
> those was DUI related. There are no real obstructions at that intersection
> to hit. Clearly, none of those accidents happened when there was only a
> single vehicle at the corner, which is the situation here. Additionally, as
> the officer noted, they find it profitable to give tickets at that
> intersection every morning. Therefore, many people turn right on red
> despite the sign without any measurable safety issue at all.
> The vehicle that I drive is a Mazda RX-8 that I have owned since the end of
> 2003, which I've driven over 70,000 miles in dense traffic and long-distance
> on highways. I am now highly proficient in that vehicle and can reliably
> use a significant amount of its abilities. The relevant issue here would be
> acceleration, handling, and braking. With respect to any vehicle traveling
> anywhere near the speed limit that was not visible to me while stopped at
> that intersection: I assert that under no circumstances could such a vehicle
> reach the intersection before I had performed a turn and accelerated to
> parity. This is especially true if I spotted such an oncoming vehicle after
> a turn decision point and chose to expedite. The acceleration of that
> vehicle with a single occupant is very quick. The intersection and choice
> of signal and signage was chosen for a wide safety margin for even the worst
> case vehicles, conditions, and driver ability. Based partly on ,
> I would argue that most modern sedans, and many sports cars in particular,
> are so far removed by performance characteristics, safety and control
> features, and overall ability that they are much safer when driven by an
> experienced, competent driver that they constitute a new type of vehicle on
> the road. This is different from several decades ago where a muscle car
> might be able to accelerate and travel much faster but still had very poor
> suspension, steering, braking, and high mass which meant that stopping
> power, overcorrection, impacts, and control in general were very poor
> compared to today's foremost vehicles. An officer must make an overall
> assessment of lack of safety, explicit in V C Section 22350 , reckless
> driving, disturbing the pease, etc., but implicit to various degrees in
> enforcement for all other laws. To the extent that an officer does not
> exercise discretion properly in application of laws, they are acting in a
> way that is illegal, unfair, unethical, and capricious. To the extent this
> is done purposefully, both in personal choice and through assignment to such
> a task by their supervisors, possibly with the intent of tax-like community
> fee collection or personal gain in stature, standing, or bonus, this becomes
> illegal taxation. I assert that by the passing of Prop 26  by the
> people of California, along with other common law principles, has made the
> inappropriate addition, increase, or triggering of fees, such as by over
> application of a law, illegal and fraudulent.
> As has been noted for more than 100 years , safety is not absolute, nor
> is warranty against risk in public areas. Safety is very important yet
> it needs to be balanced against costs, including impact to personal rights,
> to reach a balance that makes sense. OSHA does this with their careful
> accounting of cost per life saved. The FAA, similarly, while reaching
> extreme safety levels, never enacts a rule that is not directly tied to
> probability of failure. Yet politicians, some of the general public, and,
> when it is convenient and profitable for them, the police and local
> jurisdictions seek to selectively enforce sometimes irrationally widely
> applied standards of perfect safety seeking. One clear and widely
> repudiated example is the 1970's push for a national maximum speed limit of
> 55. While some small part was a perception that fuel would be saved, the
> main push was for safety and, I strongly believe, for the speed trap
> opportunities that it provided. While such a speed limit might have been
> reasonable for certain areas, it was clearly far out of balance with
> actually saving hours lived and opportunity to do constructive things from
> being outright wasted by millions of people. To the extent that actual
> benefit far outweighs cost, measurable as the probability and likely
> severity of failure cases, application of laws is wrong and, as I've worked
> to show, illegal. Frequently it is hard to prove safety, probability,
> situation, etc., but not here.
> Testimony of event:
> I have always used a headset of some kind while using a cell phone while
> driving. On this day, I was not on the phone, texting, or doing anything
> other than driving and thinking. I always automatically maintain a safe,
> defensive driving stance, while working to be efficient with my time.
> Secondarily, I watch for instances where signage or police watchfulness
> might be counterintuitive or overly strict. I am normally very good and
> rapidly reading all signs and being aware of even non-safety related
> information along my course. I was very familiar with that corner as I
> worked 2 blocks away and had recently moved so that I took that exit on many
> days. I was very familiar with the physical layout, and traffic
> characteristics. I often hit the light as it was green or was waiting
> behind other traffic, although I had a few times stopped myself before
> turning right on red after noticing the sign near the light. While the sign
> is plainly visible, there is not one at the actual corner. Noting the
> status of the light far from the intersection, I automatically scanned for
> oncoming traffic. After coming to a complete stop, which I always do no
> matter what, I saw that there was no traffic at all on my side of Skyport
> Drive. Since I would notice the light change without looking directly at
> it, and knowing the intersection well in other respects, I turned
> automatically after I verified there was no safety issue at all.
> The officer asked if I had seen him in the parking lot at the corner since
> he is there every morning giving tickets for turning right at that light.
> (Paraphrased, apparently violation of spirit and intent of California
> anti-speed trap laws.)
> I replied "No, because I had no intent to break any laws and was not paying
> attention to things that were not safety relevant."(paraphrased) I outlined
> my experience and safety record and stated that I didn't believe that I had
> done anything unsafe.
> The officer quickly responded with "No, you didn't do anything unsafe."
> The officer later discouraged me from going to court, vaguely saying that
> there was something bad about doing so.
> Stephen D. Williams
> V C Section 21461 Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
> Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
> 21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign
> or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic
> Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to
> that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic
> safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this
> code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local
> traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by
> lawful authority of a public body or official.
> (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to acts constituting violations under
> Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts
> constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to
> Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500).
> Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 203, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.
> The Right To Travel
> As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution
> does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit
> right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the
> right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel,
> however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest,
> 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly
> established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394
> U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a
> right broadly assertable against private interference as well as
> governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually
> unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It
> is interesting to note that theArticles of Confederation had an explicit
> right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the
> Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or
> the Bill of Rights.
>  Rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness, and
> therefore right to efficient application of law and unnecessary interference
> by Constitution, common law, and implications of law:
> "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
> This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from
> the Declaration of Independence. The 5th Amendment does offer protections to
> our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of
> them without due process of law.
> Section 1
> shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
> due process of law
> "Strict scrutiny test" : the state action must be "necessary to promote a
> compelling state interest.". vs. "rational basis standard of review".
> Shapiro v. Thompson
> Conclusion: penalizing safe operation is "penalizing the right to travel".
> Least restrictive means, less drastic means
> Overbreadth doctrine - applies even when not providing for safety
> Vagueness doctrine - not told when it doesn't apply
> by implication of law
> The road rights and liabilities of wheelmen: with tables of contents and
> lists; By George Burr Clementson, 1895
> Macomber v. Nichols, 34 Mich. 212.
> "Improved methods of locomotion are admissible and an not be excluded from
> existing public roads, if not inconsistent with the present methods.
> Mercer v. Corbin, 117 Ind. 450.
> "A prudent and moderate speed can not be defined in terms of miles per
> hour, since the rate of speed should be proprotioned to the danger, and a
> rate which in one place and under one set of circumstances would indicate
> culpable negligence, might in another place and under other circumstances be
> neither reckless nor negligent. "
> I would argue that laws in fact should serve the larger purpose of
> promoting the public good. In the case of traffic laws, one of the public
> goods the law promotes is public safety. Therefore, laws addressing right of
> way theft are in keeping with the goal of promoting public safety, while
> laws that penalize cyclists for not stopping at stop signs do not add any
> additional layer of safety.
> Under New York City’s Traffic Code of 1897, pedestrians always had the
> right of way, cyclists were required to signal their intent to pass with a
> bell, and horses had a speed limit of five miles per hour, while cyclists
> were allowed a higher limit of eight miles per hour. So acknowledging that
> bicycles are different from automobiles, and thus have different needs, as
> theBicycle Transportation Alliance’s Scott Bricker argues, has both
> historical and contemporary precedent, and may indeed be the cognitive shift
> we need to make in order to improve cycling conditions.
> Right-of-way rules, together with courtesy and common sense, help to
> promote traffic safety.
> No one ever seems to observe the limits strictly; not even the police
> (except when revenue is getting low). In general, it seems that 30 M.P.H. is
> the norm for 25 M.P.H. areas, 60-65 M.P.H. for 55 M.P.H. freeways, and 70
> M.P.H. for 65 M.P.H. roads, etc.; the police generally don't seem to worry
> about this sort of speeding (but don't count on it — enforcement has been
> tightened up a bit since the freeway speed limits were raised from 55
> M.P.H., and there are places like Alameda where even a couple of MPH's over
> the limit can get you a ticket).
> My theory: In appropriate application of a law is an illegal tax.
>  pages 148,
> p162 The Law of the Street is the law of the road. But the rules of the
> law of the road are not inflexible, and
> "in the crowded streets of a city, situations and circumstances might
> frequently arise where a deviation from what is called the law of the road
> would be not only justifiable, but absolutely necessary." Wayde v. Carr, 2
> Dow. & Ry. 255.
> In the congested condition of travel in large cities, the law of the road
> is perhaps as often honored in the breach as in the observance. Still,
> wherever practicable, the law of the road should be followed in the city as
> well as in the country, for its tendency is to diminish the dangers of
> travel ... The wheelman can more readily thread his way among the vehicles
> which swarm in the streets than can drivers of other vehicles, and ex
> necessitate rei witll often be called upon to honor the law of the road in
> the aforesaid breach. The general rules for the safe passage of vehicles in
> cities and villages are the same as in the rural districts; only they are
> more elastic and flexible because of the greater exigencies of urban life,
> travel, and traffic.
> Macomber v. Nichols 34 Mich. 212
> "Improved methods of locomotion are admissible, if any shall be discovered,
> and they can not be excluded from the existing public roads, provided their
> use is consistent with the present methods. A highway is a public way for
> the use of the public in general, for passage and traffic, without
> distinction." Stark v. C. & A. Railroad Co., 4 Zab. 597.
> The restrictions upon its use are only such as are calculated to secure to
> the general public the largest practical benefit from the enjoyment of the
> easement, and the inconveniences must be submitted to when they are only
> such as are incident to a reasonable use under impartial regulations. When
> the highway is not restricted in its dedication to some particular mode of
> use, it is open to all suitable methods; and it can not be assumed that
> these will be the same from age to age, or that new means of making the way
> useful must be excluded because of their introduction may tend to the
> inconvenience or even to the injury of those who continue to use the road
> after the same manner as formerly. A highway established for the general
> benefit of passage and traffic must admit of new methods of use whenever it
> is found that the general benefit requires them; and if the law should
> preclude the adaptation of the use to the new methods, it would defeat, in
> greater or less degree, the purpose for which highways are established.
> Four corners rule
> (n) Four Corners Rule requires to interpret the meaning and understanding
> of the provisions contained in a document by considering the overall meaning
> and intention of that document. In such an interpretation of document, the
> external factors will not influence the meaning. But the meaning of a
> sentence or clause is influenced by the document as a whole.
> This act is a remedial law and shall be liberally construed to promote the
> public health, safety and welfare.
> V C Section 15200 Legislative Intent
> Legislative Intent
> 15200. It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this chapter, to
> adopt those standards required of drivers by the Federal ( )1 Motor Carrier
> Safety Administration of the United States Department of Transportation, as
> set forth in the ( )2federal Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
> (Public Law 106-159) and to reduce or prevent commercial motor vehicle
> accidents, fatalities, and injuries by permitting drivers to hold only one
> license, disqualifying drivers for certain criminal offenses and serious
> traffic violations, and strengthening licensing and testing standards. This
> act is a remedial law and shall be liberally construed to promote the public
> health, safety and welfare. To the extent that this ( )3 chapterconflicts
> with general driver licensing provisions, this ( )3 chapter shall prevail.
> Where this ( )3 chapter is silent, the general driver licensing provisions
> shall apply. It is the further intent of the Legislature that this program
> be fee supported, and that the department fully recoup its costs within four
> years of the program's enactment.
> Amended Sec. 3, Ch. 216, Stats. 2010. Effective January 1, 2011.
> The 2010 amendment added the italicized material, and at the point(s)
> indicated, deleted the following:
> 1. “Highway”
> 2. “Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (Title XII of P.L. 99-570)”
> 3. “Chapter”
> V C Section 21052 Public Officers and Employees
> Public Officers and Employees
> 21052. The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles
> upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the
> course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any
> municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency
> vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency
> vehicles in this code.
> V C Section 21055 Exemption of Authorized Emergency Vehicles
> Exemption of Authorized Emergency Vehicles
> 21055. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is exempt from
> Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 21350), Chapter 3 (commencing with
> Section 21650), Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800), Chapter 5
> (commencing with Section 21950), Chapter 6 (commencing with 22100), Chapter
> 7 (commencing with Section 22348), Chapter 8 (commencing with Section
> 22450), Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500), and Chapter 10
> (commencing with Section 22650) of this division, and Article 3 (commencing
> with Section 38305) and Article 4 (commencing with Section 38312) of Chapter
> 5 of Division 16.5, under all of the following conditions:
> (a) If the vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency call or
> while engaged in rescue operations or is being used in the immediate pursuit
> of an actual or suspected violator of the law or is responding to, but not
> returning from, a fire alarm, except that fire department vehicles are
> exempt whether directly responding to an emergency call or operated from one
> place to another as rendered desirable or necessary by reason of an
> emergency call and operated to the scene of the emergency or operated from
> one fire station to another or to some other location by reason of the
> emergency call.
> (b) If the driver of the vehicle sounds a siren as may be reasonably
> necessary and the vehicle displays a lighted red lamp visible from the front
> as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians.
> A siren shall not be sounded by an authorized emergency vehicle except when
> required under this section.
> Amended Ch. 1017, Stats. 1977. Effective September 23, 1977 by terms of an
> urgency clause.
> V C Section 21056 Effect of Exemption
> Effect of Exemption
> 21056. Section 21055 does not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the
> duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the
> highway, nor protect him from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of
> the privileges granted in that section.
> V C Section 21070 Public Offense Unsafe Operation of Motor Vehicle
> Public Offense: Unsafe Operation of Motor Vehicle
> 21070. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a driver who violates
> any provision of this division, that is punishable as an infraction, and as
> a result of that violation proximately causes bodily injury or great bodily
> injury, as defined in Section 12022.7 of the Penal Code, to another person
> is guilty of the public offense of unsafe operation of a motor vehicle with
> bodily injury or great bodily injury. That violation is punishable as an
> infraction pursuant to Section 42001.19.
> Added Sec. 3, Ch. 898, Stats. 2006. Effective January 1, 2007.
>  Note that this is 2.5% of a sample of 200 undergraduate students from
> Utah. From , , other sources, and common sense, it follows that the
> percentage for older and more experienced people would likely be much higher
> and more proficient.
> "But it is not impossible, for a very select few: 2.5% of subjects (whom
> researchers dubbed "supertaskers") were able to successfully operate a
> driving simulator and chat on a cell phone simultaneously without noticeable
> impairment. "
> "Yet for the "supertaskers," there was no change in their braking times,
> following distances or mathematical ability - and their memory improved by 3
> Researchers found this small group of "supertaskers" also displayed better
> performance when performing a single task than did the rest of the subjects.
> "A new study, however, illustrates how the brain can simultaneously keep
> track of two separate goals, even while it is busy performing a task related
> to one of the aims, hinting that the mind might be better at multitasking
> than previously thought. "
> "Frequent Mobile Phone Use “Might” Improve Mental Concentration"
> "the researchers concluded that frequent mobile phone users demonstrated
> slowed brain function, but the users also showed better focused attention.
> The researchers attribute better focused attention as a ‘learning effect’
> related to cell phone users filtering out distractions when making phone
> calls in distractive surroundings."
> "The frequent mobile phone user group used their mobile phone – at the time
> of data collection – only 2.4 years on average which can currently be
> considered as a short time. Therefore, it is to be expected that the
> observed effects in this study can be more severe with prolonged mobile
> phone use” according to Martijn Arns, co-author of the study."
> "A new study supports those findings, but it also uncovered a rare group of
> people who perform as well or better when multitasking.
> About 1 in 40 people are "supertaskers," the study found. "
> "The team wrote at the time that the assertion that gray matter can't ever
> multitask efficiently seems "implausible."
> Meyer's lab also conducted studies in the '90s showing that, under certain
> conditions, some test subjects achieved equally fast response times when
> multitasking and single-tasking."
> "He's planning to study fighter pilots' brains, based on the idea that
> supertaskers might self-select into jobs that require extraordinary
> multitasking ability."
> Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary
> multitasking ability
> "An airplane's cockpit is a very busy place, what with all the instrument
> arrays and things to be looked at, checked and adjusted. Competent pilots
> need to be able to control the aircraft's altitude, airspeed and direction
> at all times, simultaneously and consistently. At the same time, the pilot
> needs to communicate with air traffic controllers on the radio, navigate the
> aircraft and keep an eye out of the window for any other aircraft flying in
> the vicinity.
> With all these duties involved, it's little wonder that beginner pilots
> find themselves overwhelmed by the multitasking required in flying an
> aircraft! One of the most common problems that student pilots face is that
> they tend to focus on one instrument too much, while losing track of others.
> Another common example is that students will only keep their eyes inside the
> plane, focusing on the instrument panel, and neglect to look out of the
> cockpit window from time to time.
> While these problems are of course only natural, they do need to be
> overcome if a student pilot wants to progress. Many flight instructors
> realize this, and they are able to spot when a student's eyes are not moving
> around enough, and will quickly bring this to the attention of the student
> when it happens.
> In order to help their students master the skill of cockpit multi-tasking,
> flight instructors will instruct their students on how to perform a
> systematic cockpit scan. This involves the pilot quickly panning their eyes
> over the cockpit from one side to the other in a systematic pattern. This
> method allows pilots to quickly survey all of the necessary instruments
> without wasting any time focusing on just one thing.
> One good tip for students is to remember that much the same task is
> performed, albeit on a much lesser scale, when driving a car. While driving,
> we are constantly shifting our attention from the front window, to the
> mirrors, to the speedometer and back to the window again, while performing
> tasks such as gear changes, braking and so on. Flying is just the same, only
> there are more things involved. It certainly gets easier over time, so don't
> give up, keep your mind in the zone and always think logically, one step at
> a time. Before you know it multitasking in the cockpit will be second nature
> to you and flying under stressful conditions will no longer worry you."
> "That's because, when faced with two tasks, a part of the brain known as
> the medial prefrontal cortex (MFC) divides so that half of the region
> focuses on one task and the other half on the other task. This division of
> labor allows a person to keep track of two tasks pretty readily"
> 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
> "(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and
> is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
> (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
> command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
> meet that emergency."
> "40801 Speed Trap Prohibition
> 40802 Definition of a Speed Trap
> 40803 Speed Trap Evidence
> 40804 Testimony Based on Speed Trap
> 40805 Admission of Speed Trap Evidence
> 40808 Speed Trap Evidense
> Here are the most important paragraphs:
> No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or
> participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged
> violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence
> as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution
> under this code."
> V C Section 22350 Basic Speed Law
> Basic Speed Law
> 22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater
> than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the
> traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a
> speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
> California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan
> By Ken Kochevar, Safety Engineer, Federal Highway Administration
> Randy Warden, Safety Specialist, Federal Highway Administration
> A National Overview
> The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act –
> A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires each state to develop and implement
> a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The SHSP must provide a
> comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries
> on all public roads.
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK