Is there such a thing as "reasonable"?

[JIMinCA]

In a different thread, I made the statement that the following would be an unreasonable interpretation of "failing to yield to pedestrian":

If I am at a crosswalk on a multilane road and I am in the far right lane, a pedestrian could cross in front of me from my right to left. By the twisted interpretations in the court you [Carl] refer to, I would have to allow the pedestrian to go all the way past at least 3 more lanes, a center divider and a bicycle lane before I could proceed.

I felt like I was posing a ridiculous example to make a point that there IS such a time where grey no longer exists... a matter does become black and white by REASONABLE standards.

Carl responded later with:

It may come as a surprise to you, Jim, but people can hold a different opinion than yours and still be "reasonable" ... the world and the Vehicle Code are not the Gospel according to Jim.

To me, this meant that any extreme situation, as long as it met any possible (possibly bizzare) interpretation of the statute, should be deemed reasonable and that we as citizens (or maybe Carl was just throwing rocks at me) should accept any such interpretation as "reasonable".


On another thread, an OP talks about getting a cell phone use ticket because he was listening to music on his cell phone. Sniper pointed out that he was USING the cell phone, therefore, he could be found guilty. I pointed out that he could be USING his cell phone to stir his coffee, and by strict reading of the statute, that would be a violaion... but that certainly doesn't follow the intent of the statute. I was basing this on a REASONABLE interpretation. However, I am beginning to wonder... Does "reasonable" exist in traffic court?? Should it exist in traffic court?? What do we as citizens expect of the government entities that exist to serve us??

[justalayman]

the traffic thing; once the pedestrian has crossed your lane, you have yielded to them. Unless the attempt to turn around and go back to the right, I can;t see a problem.

the cell phone thing; how did the officer know what the phone was being used for? That is why using a cellphone (in any manner that may appear to be using it as a cellphone) is justified in recieving a ticket.

I would say you 1 for 2. Obviously Carl gave you an 0 for 2.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by justalayman

the traffic thing; once the pedestrian has crossed your lane, you have yielded to them. Unless the attempt to turn around and go back to the right, I can;t see a problem.

the cell phone thing; how did the officer know what the phone was being used for? That is why using a cellphone (in any manner that may appear to be using it as a cellphone) is justified in recieving a ticket.

I would say you 1 for 2. Obviously Carl gave you an 0 for 2.

I offered the hypothetical situation that a person was "using" a cell phone to stir a cup of coffee. By a strict reading of the statute, that would appear to be a violation. I made the hypothetical situation ridiculous to emphasize the question.... does reason exist in traffic court?

[tranquility]

Whenever the term "reasonable" comes up it is generally a question of fact and not of law. What our reasonably acting reasonable person would do in a certain situation is theoretically an objective test decided on by a judge or jury as a general rule.

If there is a specific instance of a court case finding a certain thing, and that case has precedential authority over the matter, then a judge can decide the reasonableness of something as a matter of law. Also, a judge can determine that, in a certain set of facts, there could be no question about if some behavior is reasonable or not as a matter of law.

Of course, statutory interrpetation on words like "using" is a long and complicated process. Our best way is the courts who give us definitions of words in specific statutes. They will go to legislative intent and precedent and other methods based on their judicial temperment and theory to determine what it means. One cannot read a statute and understand what it really means--unless the legislature earned their pay that day. How many days do your representatives earn their pay?

[JIMinCA]

Tranquility...

good points. But my question is: should we as a public demand "reasonableness" or should we simply allow any bizarre interpretation that an activist judge comes up with on the bench? Also... should we state that while there is a LOT of grey area for reasonableness, there are clear boundries of what is NOT reasonable?

[Dougthegreat]

'reasonable' is definitely real, and is definitely a legal concept. The SCOTUS documents I read on CaseLaw constantly reference reasonable interpretation, reasonable response, and reasonable penalty. However, I doubt that a higher court will hear your traffic ticket case.

This isn't to say I don't think your ticket is ridiculous, because it is; the obscenely bizarre political and legal goings-on of California are a major reason why I have refused to move there, despite the career advancement I could probably realize.

[tranquility]

But my question is: should we as a public demand "reasonableness" or should we simply allow any bizarre interpretation that an activist judge comes up with on the bench?

How shall we write the law you speak of?

Any time a person is in the crosswalk you can't drive over the lines?

Any time a person in a crosswalk is within 10 ft of where a car wants to turn, the turn is illegal?

The law is meant to fit many situations. When the legislature writes with sureity as it seems you want, we get stuck with stopping on the opposite side of the street whenever a school bus lets out children even there is no chance or danger to the child if we kept going. What a pain. Might be good in a rural two lane highway, but I'm city folk and we got's us big 'ol streets which makes the law silly.

We are *always* stuck with bizzare interpretations since Marbury v. Madison pretty much decided the courts are the final say on the constitutionality of a matter.

should we state that while there is a LOT of grey area for reasonableness, there are clear boundries of what is NOT reasonable?

Nope. Well, I guess if you hit someone while making a turn through a crosswalk that would not be reasonable.

[JIMinCA]

tranquility,

I don't think you understand the point of my post. But, I appreciate your input.

[tranquility]

I don't think you understand the point of my post.

Maybe. Why don't you explain the point and we will refilter my post through it and see if I did or not?

[JIMinCA]

The intent was to pose the question... should we accept any possible interpretation of a law as "reasonable" or do some interpretations go so far afoul of the obvious intent of the law that it is CLEARLY unreasonable... even if it fits the specific language of the law. The hypothetical case I posted is a good example of this, where a motorist is "using" a cell phone to stir coffee... is that a "reasonable" interpretation of the statute.

The reason I ask this is that there are many "pro-state" activists on this site (I am obviously not one of them). These activists would have OPs believe that if there is any twisted interpretation that fits within the letter of a statute which could possibly be used against them... then it likely will be interpreted against them and they should just accept their fate. I believe the State is to be held at a much higher standard than a defendant. The State's margin of reasonableness is and should be much narrower than a defendant's. I'm just curious if this board is filled with mostly State activists leaving me in the vast minority.

[tranquility]

The intent

was to pose the question... should we accept any possible interpretation of a law as "reasonable" or do some interpretations go so far afoul of the obvious intent of the law that it is CLEARLY unreasonable... even if it fits the specific language of the law. The hypothetical case I posted is a good example of this, where a motorist is "using" a cell phone to stir coffee... is that a "reasonable" interpretation of the statute.

I guess I did understand and answered it directly. It was you who did not understand what I wrote.

The courts determine the interpretation of reasonable according to the facts. The question put to the fact finder would be if the action was reasonable. How else should we decide? If the courts don't determine the facts of reasonableness, then the law itself must define it--limiting the law to preconcieved situation and leading to ridgid enforcement for no purpose.

What is the "purpose" behind the statute of using a cell phone?

1. prevent people from using cell phone as a phone
2. recognizing the danger when a person using a cell phone when driving

If #1, then the stirring of your coffee, if I WERE THE JUDGE, would not be using it as the law envisions. If #2, I'd say they were not being safe and would be in violation of this or the basic speed law.

When you look at facts and work backwards, things are a lot easier then when you want to accomplish a goal and then write a law (or make a plan) which covers the vast complexity of human interaction and choices. You're all stuck in this traffic ticket deal, how about negligence? That takes a lot more money and time from the public than traffic tickets, how do we precisely define what is reasonable in a traffic accident?

[The Occultist]

I think Jim's question isn't actually about what is reasonable or not, but whether we, as American citizens, should be forced to accept whatever the judge says is "reasonable". I don't think Jim wants an actual answer here.