🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 00:12:36 -0400, Mike Sweeney <msweeney@lr.net> wrote:
>Joel Garry wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 19:57:28 -0400, Scott M. Kozel <kozelsm@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>> >Joel Garry <joelga@pebble.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> 21703.  The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another
>> vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due
>> regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the
>> condition of, the roadway.
>>
>> I would have had a bit of difficulty had I searched for "tailgaiting."
>> Ain't no law agin that, for those of you from outside of ca.driving.
>
>For those of you who are not a part of this planet, or tailgate while on drugs and
>speeding:
>
>There are numerous laws which are not known by their technical name, but rather are
>either known by the class of law under which they fall, or by a common law-type name.
>
>One would be Jaywalking.  Our MV Code does not contain an entry under that name.  Try it,
>though and you will receive a citation with the proper name.
>
>Another would be tailgating, which our code lists as "Following too closely."
>
>"Peeping Toms" are not guilty of peeping, but Violation of Privacy.
>
>Assault and battery are considered to be two different things, with assault being the
>threat and battery being the carrying out of the threat.  Our code says that Assault is
>the bodily injury or unprivileged physical contact, and the threat is Criminal
>Threatening.
>
>Get with the program; when everyone else uses the common terms, it seems to be understood
>no matter the audience.

Yes, you are correct that the semantics are less than important.  Lots of
people don't know the assault & battery thing too, although from your 
description they still might not know that it is the perception of the 
assaulted that is important as well as the intent, and that the battery 
could be a light touch with the little finger, and that there are different 
definitions for torts.  So, if some Chippie is perfoming a speed survey 
from an overpass using a radar detector mounted on a shoulder stock, and 
I'm driving along and look up and see a nutcase pointing a rifle at me, 
has an assault been committed?  Criminally, no (unless he somehow knew I 
would think it is a rifle - would the reasonable man think so?  perhaps, 
in the '70s) and tortiously, perhaps yes (less proof required of his intent), 
subject, of course, to all the vagaries of our legal system.  And of course, 
NO IANAL.

But really, I was just trying to tweak the non-Californians among us, and for
the more astute point out the reasonable and prudent part, which says 
absolutely nothing about number of seconds or carlengths.

>
>M
>
>


-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest or 
Pebble In The Sky http://www.informationquest.com mailto:jgarry@nospameiq.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  "See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!