Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: AJL <noemail@none.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: No fault cell phone law
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:45:54 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <utacmi$d43k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ut4s0v$9ei$1@toxic.dizum.net> <ut5bef$353ou$2@dont-email.me>
 <ut5s9m$3bjd7$2@dont-email.me>
 <MPG.4060b42225f15ccb9902c4@news.individual.net>
 <ut793f$3krla$1@dont-email.me>
 <MPG.406228b7abad68fc9902c6@news.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:45:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="85ebbe4b46166299b8748b0e01c9b520";
	logging-data="430196"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19XoDGfhMOJ/KPPbolisQfB"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NXrd/+5WbCzu0rMN1CZ/4DRMmFk=
In-Reply-To: <MPG.406228b7abad68fc9902c6@news.individual.net>
Bytes: 2643

On 3/18/2024 11:32 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:26:07 -0700, AJL wrote:
>> On 3/17/2024 9:03 AM, Stan Brown wrote:

>> All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.

>>> There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
>>> way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.

>> A driver can have the right of way.

> I wonder about your source for Arizona law.

It's simple logic. At the accident scene the cop is talking to the
drivers. He tells the one getting the ticket that he's at fault because
the other driver had the right of way.

> When I checked for California, there were lots of pages claiming
> circumstances where the driver has the right of way, but they are
> all just trying to keep things simple and readable.

And factual. You're arguing semantics. Even though the code may say
'vehicle', it is not the responsible party in traffic law. The driver is...

> The actual code doesn't give anyone the right of way at an
> intersection:

I spent hundreds of hours in traffic court in a prior life and no lawyer
or judge ever had a problem with with the codified driver-vehicle right
of way distinction.

> <https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/veh/21800-21807.html>
> As I said, it details circumstances under which you must yield to
> another vehicle.

Yup. AZ law is written pretty much the same...