Mon, 10/20/2008 - 9:09pm

In reference to 10/15/2008 11:56AM, I have been reading the English language for for at least 25 years and I was wondering if anyone can translate what the *** wrote.

Sat, 10/18/2008 - 7:20am

Wed, 10/15/2008 - 11:55am, *** no you don't pass me with kids jumping all over as I do work up tp 60 hours a week to support my family. So sorry to bust your holier than thou attitude. If you would of read the entire opinion it says OVER 18 so when the gov't and insurance companies can start didctating what you can and cannot do in your car
then you roll over belly up, I did write a letter expressing my view to the Gov. and of course it fell on in the hands of the person who writes the form letter back to you saying they appreciate you taking the time to writing the Govenor.
The ones that win in this argument are, The politicians who get money for pushing and passing the bill to make it law to wear the seatbelts.
the insurance companies, who don't have to pay out so much cause statistics say it reduces death/injuries. The municapalities who make the money on the fines that the local police give you for the lack of use. and of course, the local police depts who recieve grants from the state for the enforcment of the click it or ticket campaigns.
That is all i was trying to get across. out of the 724 people who died in car accidents
just how many were from lack of belts or cell phone usage ? statisicaly half os statistics are made up by people who make up statistics

Wed, 10/15/2008 - 9:37pm

10/15 @ 10:56 WHAT?????? What were you taping the weed too?
And so what a cop was on their cell phone. Like it was said before, he or she may have been on the phone doing their job. If a scanner picks up what they are trying to do, they make never make an arrest. So when your child dies because someone sold him a bad batch of heroin, maybe the cops would've been able to stop it if that person didn't have a scanner and know what was going on.
10/15 @ 12:57 You are absolutely right. They are doing their jobs. They don't make the laws- they enforce the laws.

Wed, 10/15/2008 - 12:47pm

I'n not a cop or know any but let me ask a question. Why do we bash the POlice for enforcing these laws? THey don't write the law. To be honest, they probably couldn't care less if you were on the phone unless there is a law for it. Why aren't we bashing the numnutz in trenton or washington that make these laws. Vote em out. It's not fair to hit up the people that are doing their job. That ijust my outsider point of view.

Wed, 10/15/2008 - 11:56am

sad tooo say ,after ready all this cooment .its true i my selk have seen capemay police oficer on thaer phone.i isualy was tapeing a weeding in the tape u could see 1 talking in a cell...verry sad bit true....appply this too every body not only too thoughs unfortureing...plssssss

Wed, 10/15/2008 - 11:55am

Wed, 10/15/2008 - 8:39am - I TOTALLY agree with you. All you complainers and haters out there, DON'T EVER CALL THE COPS IF YOU HATE THEM THAT MUCH. I hope you run into the wrong person some day and get the crap beat out of you and all the "low life" cops that are on their cell phones aren't around to help you.

To all the rest of the crybabies...it is a law. Just like we have to pay taxes (except most of you probably don't do that either) and have a license to drive (woops sorry again) so just do it and shut up. As far as the person who wants to choose to wear a seat belt, you are probably the *** I pass all the time with their kids jumping around in the car instead of in a carseat. After you pick up your welfare check we are all paying for take a trip to Trenton and try to change the law instead of crying about it.

Wed, 10/15/2008 - 8:39am

Pointing out the accidents that occur while talking on the cell phone is probably a good point, however, many accidents occur while not on the phone also. I'm not so sure that there is a strong correlation there. It just so happens that so many people are on their phone that the chances of the person involved in the accident being on the phone, is high. As for the police, everyone complaining about them doing their job, don't call them! When someone has you at gunpoint- don't call! Like someone commented- so many people have scanners that they need to use their cell phones so that everything that is going on isn't broadcasted. Seriously though, no doubt that one day in your life, you WILL need a police officer.

Tue, 10/14/2008 - 3:15pm

i think its about time action has been taken regarding cell phone usage during transit. also i think this rule should apply to "All " whom use their phone behind the wheel. if anyone out there reject this, go search online and watch the videos of drivers that get into a motor vehicle accident while being on their cell phone. It's not a pretty site.

Mon, 10/13/2008 - 6:07pm

To quote the person who commented this garbage:
Sun, 10/12/2008 - 5:02pm
"Just another way for the police to harass people. I hope they pull over the wrong person."
Thats A Real Nice Threat Lowlife! What an upstanding kind-hearted citizen you must be. NOT!

Mon, 10/13/2008 - 12:30pm

i agree...i dont think i should be allowed to talk to passengers or change the radio...how about the police help when you have a flat or your car is broken down...dont pull people over to write tickets...dont claim your doing to save lives either...these checkpoints and "campaigns" are put into action to write tickets and collect fees...MONEY simple and plain...

Mon, 10/13/2008 - 12:16pm

Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm not a Lower Twp. Officer; never have been, and I have no connection with LTPD either personally or through business contacts. I "CITED" the law because many people are under the impression that the police are breaking the cell-phone law. They aren't. I can't -- and you can't either -- ascertain what they're phone calls involve. Could be a personal call, could be something they don't want to say over the air where others can hear by purchasing a scanner. Not too long ago there was a "mini-controversy" because an officer asked for a D.L. & registration check over the air and the dispatcher responded with the information over the air. The person involved was indignant that her personal information was broadcast.

I take it from your post that you believe is fine for everyone to "Give their thoughts." unless they happen to be the ones being castigated? Even the *** who, "Hopes they pull over the wrong one."? So he hopes an officer gets assaulted because he pulled someone over for a violation but that's OK?

Your lack of fair play is amazing.

Sun, 10/12/2008 - 5:36pm

Thats nice 2:42 post.You can site all your NJSA articles you want.Lets be real everytimewe see a cop driving with a cell to his ear that doesnt make it official buisness.Everybody and cops have used thier phone while driving dont get so offical about it people are just giving thier thoughts.Nobody suggested firing anybody lets just be real here.So thanks for checking in LTPD officer.

Sun, 10/12/2008 - 5:02pm

Just another way for the police to harass people. I hope they pull over the wrong person.

Sun, 10/12/2008 - 12:20pm

So as long as the cops are " on duty," they can call thier wives, friends, or whatever and just classify it as WHILE IN THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES;?
As for the seatbelt law, I like to believe that is a personal choice for those over 18
it's my car that's paid off, my insurance is up to date as well as the registration and inspection. What i choose to do in my car should be my choice.
Just because a insurance company goes to a lawmaker and promises funds for his election or whatever if he pushes a bill to make it mandatory for us to wear them. And then he pushes it saying he cares about the people in his state ( even though he doesn't know me from adam) No No i will choose if i want to wear it or not. not some money digging politician. Sure they save lives from car crashes and there are just as many that die wearing them. they will show you the statistics that they want to show you.

Sat, 10/11/2008 - 6:25pm

Looking good in your boots MOTOR ONE!!!

Sat, 10/11/2008 - 2:42pm

NJSA 39:4-97.3 Prohibits cell phone use in moving vehicles.

The following statute exempts police, fire, or other emergency vehicle operators WHILE IN THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES; therefore, a police officer on normal patrol is in the ACTUAL performance of his official duties. A paid or volunteer fire or ambulance driver while responding to or returning from an actual incident is performing his/her official duties. Membership in a paid/volunteer fire or ambulance does not exempt you from the statute while not actually responding, just as a police officer who is off duty is not exempt.

NJSA 39:4-97.4 Inapplicability of act to certain officials.

The prohibitions set forth in this act shall not be applicable to any of the following persons while in the actual performance of their official duties: a law enforcement officer; a member of a paid, part-paid, or volunteer fire department or company; or an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle.
L.2003,c.310,s.2.

Sat, 10/11/2008 - 11:12am

Hey Sat, 10/11/2008 - 8:40am

Maybe they should ban you from logging on to this blog!!

Sat, 10/11/2008 - 8:40am

Welcome to the paternalistic "Nanny State." While they're at it saving us from ourselves they should probably consider banning beverages in the car, adjusting the radio, and talking to passengers.

Sat, 10/11/2008 - 6:32am

For - Fri, 10/10/2008 - 6:44pm -

Great Post! The police are on their cells way to much while driving. Oh, I forgot, they are the police, it's allowed.

Fri, 10/10/2008 - 10:46pm

They're exempt from the law. Otherwise how would they talk on their radios? Duh!

Fri, 10/10/2008 - 6:44pm

I think this is a great idea and am glad they are making this a priority.I have just one question though who will get the cops to stop talking on phone and driving.was behind car 121 yesterday afternoon going out of villas was behind almost two miles before he put it down.So reverse the role I get pulled over and get a ticket,not real fair.