California residents--ticketed for having Euro front plates! - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

BENZ-LGB · #61 03-24-2007, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truckinik

She was probably having her period or who knows what.

That comment is demeaning to women.

Quote:

Originally Posted by truckinik

" Do you mean you don't know?.. That's it right there, your still doing it." I looked around for anything out of the ordinary, and found nothing wrong. He said " Son, Don't you know it's against the law, in the state of California, to smoke cigarettes, in the work place?!!" I was in shock. First off, I'm in MY tractor trailer, second off, it's registered to North Carolina, and third off.. I was the only one in the truck anyways.. $177.00 Ticket, for "Smoking in the work place" was my final result.

I want to see proof that your story is true.

Make a copy of the ticket, white out any personally identifying information, and post a copy of the ticket here.

I want to see that a chippie actually wrote you up for smoking in the work place.

Until that time, I call BS on your story.

Frosty: I had a cop also write me up for not having a front license plate. I didn't like it, but oh well. FWIW I didn't think that you were whining about getting the ticket, I think that you were upset with the officer's attitude. She should have written the ticket and let it go at that.

Also, just so that you know. The California Vehicle Code applies to all of California. So Vehicle Code Sec. 5200 would apply to ALL of California, not just to your particular locality.

Mespe: California law applies the moment you cross state line, regardless of what state your car is registered to. The law of the jurisdiction applies. So assuming that nik's story is true (and I am still calling BS on it until I see evidence to the contrary) the fact that his truck is licensed in NC would not prevent him from getting a ticket for violating California law.

AustinsCE · #62 03-24-2007, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Imagine if he found you doing 110 mph with that rig.

Probably makes that ticket for smoking in the workplace look downright cheap.

Did you ever think that "what goes around...........comes around?

Give it up with the 110 already!!! Oh my god, nothing happened, obviously wasn't too dangerous....

Brian Carlton · #63 03-24-2007, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

Oh my god, nothing happened, obviously wasn't too dangerous....

Please..........tell me you're not serious...........

By your logic, all the 18 wheelers would be permitted to do 110 mph, provided that they are sure "nothing is going to happen".

I really think your mind is above this stupidity.

t walgamuth · #64 03-24-2007, 11:31 PM

sounds dangerous and faster than any speed i have ever heard for a big truck, excepting of course the gale banks dodge that they tweaked and took to bonneville.

actually very hard to imagine.

tom w

truckinik · #65 03-24-2007, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

That comment is demeaning to women.

I call BS on your story truckinik.

Make a copy of the ticket, white out any presonally identifying information, and post a copy of the ticket here.

I want to see what chippie actually wrote you up for smoking in the work place.

Frosty, I had a cop also writ eme up for not having a front license plate. I didn't like it, but oh well. FWIW I didn't think that you were whining about getting the ticket, I think you were probably upset with the officer's attitude. She should have written the ticket and let it go at that.

Also, just so that you know. The California Vehicle Code applies to all of California. So Vehicle Code Sec. 5200 would apply to ALL of California, not just to your particular locality.

The ticket, got sent in with the money order to pay for it, for one thing. For another thing, How would I do that? Don't I need a scanner, for something like that?
Finally, what the heck do I care if you believe it or not ?
I was only pointing the whole thing out and talking about my ticket, not to complain about it, but simply to point out a ridiculous law, that the state of California DOES in fact have. They CAN and do, in fact legitimately give the same ticket out to a lot of truck driver, Cabbies, Pizza delivery people, Auto parts delivery dudes, and likely a lot of other people with driving jobs. What's the difference, and why does it matter to you?

AustinsCE · #66 03-24-2007, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Please..........tell me you're not serious...........

By your logic, all the 18 wheelers would be permitted to do 110 mph, provided that they are sure "nothing is going to happen".

I really think your mind is above this stupidity.

Learn how to read, i didnt say going to happen, i said nothing did happen. You're making a villain out of someone for something they did, in which nothing harmful took place. My logic, never entered the picture till you started putting your own ideas of what was plain to read into what you wanted it to say. I said let it go, for gods sake its stale! We get it, 110s fast in a semi. Good thing nothing bad happened, that is did happen already, past tense, so lets move on already.

t walgamuth · #67 03-24-2007, 11:47 PM

any body else heard of a ticket for smoking in a semi tractor??

inquiring minds want to know.

if any body else has heard of such a thing i will apologize for doubting.

ditto for a semi that will run 110 or 120.....miles per hour, not kilos.

i am just trying to imagine the rpm one would have to turn to reach a speed that is nearly double what most of them cruise at.

my dodge pickup with cummins will turn 3200 rpm and about 108 empty. and the governor kicks in. to pull 80,000 # a semi must surely use a lower gear ratio.

they really aren't geared for top end rushes are they?

tom w

Brian Carlton · #68 03-24-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

You're making a villain out of someone for something they did, in which nothing harmful took place.

And, again, by your logic, which, unfortunately you don't even understand, anybody who drives an 18 wheeler at 110 mph and doesn't harm anyone is perfectly OK in your book.

Do I have that right?

I agree with you. Your logic never did enter the picture.

BENZ-LGB · #69 03-24-2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truckinik

What's the difference, and why does it matter to you?

Yes, you WOULD need a scanner for that.

And it matters to me because I have a very low threshold level of tolerance for BS.

I don't think that I am the only one here who thinks that your story about getting ticketed by a chippie, for (all of things) smoking in the work place is utter and complete....

But if you can prove it....then I will stand corrected.

Hatterasguy · #70 03-24-2007, 11:59 PM

If you use the logic and only obay laws that you think are not "lame" society would fall apart. Certainly some people think its lame that you can't walk into a bank with a .45 and leave with $20k. Certainly some think its lame that you cannot drive through the center of a town and fire off an AK47 out of the back of the old pick up. Who does it bother if a fire off a few rounds out of the old Ak47? I'm not aiming at anyone.

The law is the law, it doesn't matter if you think its lame or not, you are an American citizen and are bound by that law. But thats whats great about this country, if a law pisses you off enough you can lobby and maybe get it changed.

Its just like driving a car, truck whatever at high speeds. Is it more dangerious to drive an S600 at 100mph then 60? I don't know probably not, but what if said S600 nails a van that merged into the left lane all of a sudden full of 6 kids and killed all of them.

The world doesn't work in a vacuum, a truck going 118mph down an empty desert road in and of itself can only be dangerious to the driver. Its whats around the truck that causes the danger.

The laws exist for a reason, and as US citizens we are bound to follow them. Break them at your own risk, or as I like to say "You have to pay, to play".

BENZ-LGB · #71 03-25-2007, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The world doesn't work in a vacuum, a truck going 118mph down an empty desert road in and of itself can only be dangerious to the driver. Its whats around the truck that causes the danger.

Unless you are hauling hazardous waste, hazardous material, explosives, etc....

BENZ-LGB · #72 03-25-2007, 12:15 AM

California Labor Code, Sec. 6404.5 provides, in relevant parts, as follows:

Legislative findings and declarations; Prohibition of smoking in the workplace; Exceptions for specified periods:

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that regulation of smoking in the workplace is a matter of statewide interest and concern. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to prohibit the smoking of tobacco products in all (100 percent of) enclosed places of employment in this state, as covered by this section, thereby eliminating the need of local governments to enact workplace smoking restrictions within their respective jurisdictions. It is further the intent of the Legislature to create a uniform statewide standard to restrict and prohibit the smoking of tobacco products in enclosed places of employment, as specified in this section, in order to reduce employee exposure to environmental tobacco smoke to a level that will prevent anything other than insignificantly harmful effects to exposed employees, and also to eliminate the confusion and hardship that can result from enactment or enforcement of disparate local workplace smoking restrictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is the intent of the Legislature that any area not defined as a "place of employment" pursuant to subdivision (d) or in which the smoking of tobacco products is not regulated pursuant to subdivision (e) shall be subject to local regulation of smoking of tobacco products.

(b) No employer shall knowingly or intentionally permit, and no person shall engage in, the smoking of tobacco products in an enclosed space at a place of employment. "Enclosed space" includes lobbies, lounges, waiting areas, elevators, stairwells, and restrooms that are a structural part of the building and not specifically defined in subdivision (d).

(c) For purposes of this section, an employer who permits any nonemployee access to his or her place of employment on a regular basis has not acted knowingly or intentionally in violation of this section if he or she has taken the following reasonable steps to prevent smoking by a nonemployee:

(1) Posted clear and prominent signs, as follows:

(A) Where smoking is prohibited throughout the building or structure, a sign stating "No smoking" shall be posted at each entrance to the building or structure.

(B) Where smoking is permitted in designated areas of the building or structure, a sign stating "Smoking is prohibited except in designated areas" shall be posted at each entrance to the building or structure.

(2) Has requested, when appropriate, that a nonemployee who is smoking refrain from smoking in the enclosed workplace.

For purposes of this subdivision, "reasonable steps" does not include (A) the physical ejection of a nonemployee from the place of employment or (B) any requirement for making a request to a nonemployee to refrain from smoking, under circumstances involving a risk of physical harm to the employer or any employee.

(d) For purposes of this section, "place of employment" does not include any of the following:

[Note: A list of exceptions are listed, I didn't want to write all of them down. Subparagrpah (5), below would seem to be the one exception relevant to this discussion.]

... .

(5) Cabs of motortrucks, as defined in Section 410 of the Vehicle Code, or truck tractors, as defined in Section 655 of the Vehicle Code, if no nonsmoking employees are present.

In his post trukinik wrote that he was alone in the truck's cab. So the exception above would apply to his case.

Plus, absent a moving violation, the chippie wouldn't pull him over just for smoking a cigarette while alone in the cab of his truck.

PaulC · #73 03-25-2007, 12:22 AM

Hey! A basis for appeal!

BENZ-LGB · #74 03-25-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

Hey! A basis for appeal!

Assuming the story is true.

A CHP officer enforcing a Labor Code section is a far, far stretch.

In California the CHP barely has enough manpower to enforce equipment violations.

Also, the story about the chippie pulling a driver over and then, just for kicks, pulling a big rig, does not make sense.

But I stand to be corrected if I am shown evidence to the contrary.

AustinsCE · #75 03-25-2007, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

And, again, by your logic, which, unfortunately you don't even understand, anybody who drives an 18 wheeler at 110 mph and doesn't harm anyone is perfectly OK in your book.

Do I have that right?

I agree with you. Your logic never did enter the picture.

Are you retarded? Why cant you read? Its simple. Not drives, drove. They did it, nothing happened, thus it can be said it wasnt dangerous because nothing happened. Do they not teach english in Canada? No logic came in but that something happened and nothing came of it but here you are on how many times about it? You dont have it right until you learn to read.