.
Feedback

What Gets You Stopped by CHP

Nobody wants to see the flashing lights of an advancing patrol car in the rear-view mirror. Here are some tips from Patch's Napa editor for avoiding the inconvenience and potential expense of being stopped, no matter where you live

No matter where you drive in the Golden State, you could be pulled over by the California Highway Patrol, which has jurisdiction not only on state highways but on all roadways open to the public.

And while the CHP is best known for nabbing speeders and drunk drivers and investigating highway crashes, the patrol also combats less-spectacular threats to public safety such as distracted driving, cell phone use and seat belt neglect.

"We're always enforcing these violations," said Napa-Sonoma CHP officer Jaret Paulson, who made a series of low-key stops as he drove a white cruiser through Napa city streets on a Monday morning earlier this month.

Pull over, call back or go hands-free

Motorists with hand-held cell phones were easy to spot: Starting in north Napa, Paulson first stopped a man in a Jeep, then a woman in an old Ford Escort wagon. 

"He had the right hand to the right ear," said Paulson as he pulled up behind the Jeep driver on Trancas Street.

"We're going to talk to him, and he knows it."

Drew Wigington, 19, admitted he'd just taken a call, saying his ailing grandfather had phoned him to ask for some coffee. A few minutes later on Jefferson Street, Escort driver Kathy Mathe also said she'd received a call from a sick relative, for whom she is sole caregiver.

Paulson let both off with a warning: When the phone rings, pull over or wait and call back.

"It's a small town. It takes minutes to get across it," Paulson said.

Another alternative is to use a hands-free phone device, he added.

"We've got a hands-free law that says that's still fine unless you're under 18, then no electronic devices at all when you're driving," he said.

Texting is also a hazard, and Paulson says he sees it all the time when he's driving his civilian personal vehicle.

"When you get in the patrol car, everybody's just twitching and dropping things," he said, pointing out a passing motorist who "did the cell-phone throw" when she saw the CHP cruiser.

Officers use cell phones themselves, Paulson acknowledged: "There are exceptions for us, but I try my best not to use it unless there's a radio discrepancy or a down area."

Unsafe at any speed?

While phone use is one of the main causes for distracted driving, Paulson said motorists do other risky things behind the wheel.

After one accident he investigated, he said, the motorist told him she "was just driving."

But, Paulson continued, "she had chicken and rice all over her speedometer cluster and all over the dash."

Eating while driving is not illegal in itself, but "if somebody eats food and that's a distraction, that's a problem," Paulson said.

The applicable law is the one that makes it illegal to drive at an "unsafe speed for the conditions," Paulson explained:

"Say someone's reading a book and driving with their knees: That's going to be an unsafe speed for those conditions. I would argue that the safe speed to read a book and drive a car is zero, and judges have agreed," he said.

Seat belt enforcement

Paulson also made some stops for seat belt use, handing Alan Steen a ticket for failing to belt himself in before driving his Volkswagen Beetle across the Third Street bridge.

The amount of the seat belt fine wasn't printed on the ticket. Paulson said the CHP, which is funded by the state Department of Motor Vehicles, receives no revenue from any tickets it issues and has no quota for ticketing motorists.

Seat belt enforcement is a priority, he said, because the belts save lives.

"Most of our fatalities from last year were seat belt-related," he said.

The most common cause of death is ejection from the vehicle, but unbelted passengers can also become a serious hazard to others in a car during a collision.

"You are jeopardizing the safety of everybody else," he said.

In another seat belt stop, on Soscol Avenue, Paulson found everyone properly belted by the time he walked up to the car, but smelled alcohol inside the vehicle. After a passenger said he'd been drinking beer, Paulson asked the driver to step out for a roadside sobriety check. A few minutes later, he sent them on their way.

Driving behaviors that put you most at risk of being stopped by CHP

  • Swerving, weaving and other signs of DUI
  • Erratic speeds, failing to proceed at green lights
  • Seat belt neglect or abuse, including illegally modifying seat belts
  • Speeding ("That's been the cat and mouse game forever," Paulson said.)
  • Cell phone use

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sonoma Valley Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ralph Hutchinson May 18, 2013 at 08:51 pm
I still say the People will be wise to these bush league tactics and the residents of Sonoma willRead More vote against the destruction of the Plaza and our small town feel. We won''t sell out like Napa or Healdsburg and certainly we're not like the 101 corridor.
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 09:38 am
Another Cuban party perhaps in the works at the Kenwood Ranch, chompin on contraband cigars, etc?Read More Grand prize trips to Cuba with Californians Building Bridges and rub elbows with fatcat Politicians? Or maybe Kings tickets?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:37 am
What kind of conflicts of interest are present with Nancy Simpson? She is on the County Landmarks,Read More formerly affiliated with Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau and Wendy Peterson? Are all these agencies and bureaus interlocked some receiving TOT tax revenues, and all standing to benefit from anything Darius Anderson can build?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:32 am
Is Darius really after a casino in Sonoma either at General Vallejo State Park next to his RamekinsRead More location or up valley at Sonoma Development Center?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:31 am
Ms. G doesn't even live in Sonoma does she? Isn't it Cloverdale? Wasn't she a big proponent of theRead More bypass in her town?
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 08:11 pm
The Sonoma Sun's website (but not SunFMTV) has been down for hours. What's happening ?
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:25 pm
Did Darius Anderso agree to buyout The Patch and have the archives and comments removed as part ofRead More this new software update? Afterall "Cows Not Casinos", Measure A Rosewood Hillside hotel, and Measure C Hospital Eminent Domain would be better if the People of Sonoma forgot all about it and let his hotel venture fly easier.
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 03:20 pm
When Bolling "lost" his comments on Sonoma Valley Bank and then the whole archive heRead More blamed a glitch yet they have never been restored. That has benefitted the Hotel Index-Tribune and allowed a cover up of key historical dates and facts. Please hurry and restore the Patch's missing blogs and comments ASAP so that the confidence the Sonoma Patch has attained is not damaged. Thanks
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:09 pm
The comments to various articles and blogs are also completely missing. Please restore asap.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 09:37 am
I write about the issue of the BRACA test, because I am someone who developed breast cancer, and whoRead More needed the test. Even though I already had breast cancer, the decision of whether to have a bilateral mastectomy (rather than just a removal of the cancer with a "lumpectomy" or the removal of only one, effected, breast) was dependent upon the results of that test. If I had a genetic marker that indicated I was likely to develop more breast cancers, there would be no reason to avoid having both breasts removed at once. Even though my doctors recognized the importance of getting this test done before surgical decisions were made, the insurance company was resistant to providing coverage for the test. There were many heated phone conversations with the insurance company, and many letters of documentation before I was finally allowed to have the test. The basic test for BRAC I and BRAC II (the 2 main genes identified) cost $3,000. However, there are even more specialized tests for the smaller BRAC genes (rare genes that are less common) that cost thousands of dollars extra, and would have been helpful because of my family history. I was not able to fight with the insurance company for permission to obtain those extra tests, since I was already weak and ill from the chemotherapy, at that time. It is not reasonable or acceptable for women to have to fight to get necessary tests performed, because of excessive charging for those tests, and resistance of the medical insurance companies to provide coverage to obtain them. This situation needs to be changed. I hope that Angelina Jolie's story will bring attention to this issue, and will help our Supreme Court to recognize the unfairness in allowing a company to lay claim on a "patent" of our genes. The main research to provide the exact mapping of our genes was provided by the "Human Genome Project", which was primarily paid for by the US taxpayers, via that extensive NIH study. The Myriad company did some further research to refine knowledge on the BRACA genes; but they should not be allowed a total patent which blocks all other US labs from performing tests on that same part of our DNA. That is unreasonable in terms of the amount of profit they are claiming, and unfair to US humans who should be able to claim ownership of their own DNA.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 08:50 am
I am not used to Hollywood-types having the type of integrity and honesty, that Ms. Jolie displayedRead More with her NY Times revelation. I commend her for having the courage to act proactively with surgical removal of her breasts, in addition to the planned removal of her ovaries. She lost her beloved mother to the disease, and she clearly understands the devastation that would befall her own children (if she were to develop the types of cancers that her genetic makeup render her vulnerable to). I agree with her decision, and hope that I would have the same strength, if confronted with the genetic evidence that she was able to have documented with the BRACA testing. Unfortunately, many women who would benefit in the same way, from advance knowledge about their genetic vulnerability to those cancers, are denied the ability to get the tests. The company that "owns" the test, by virtue of their assertion that they "own the patent" on that identified portion of our DNA, charge $3,000.00 for the test. That cost is too high for most women in the US to easily afford, and our health insurance typically refuses to cover the test for most women. There is currently a case before the US Supreme Court challenging the idea of a medical company owning our genes. Many of us are hopeful that the court will halt this company from claiming this patent, so that laboratories all over the country can provide the test to us inexpensively, and therefore it will be available to all who should have it. The costs for the type of very sophisticated plastic surgery/ breast reconstruction that Ms. Jolie underwent, are also extremely high. It is doubtful that insurance or Obamacare will provide coverage for that type of costly prophylactic surgery. Those are battles that women will need to fight in the future, when more women become informed about their personal risks and choices.