[Codee]

Section 453 in its entirety provides as follows:
"(a) The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways shall apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State or any political subdivison thereof or any municipal corporation or district therein including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.
Yarrow v. State of California (1960), 53 Cal.2d 427, 440, 2 Cal.Rptr. 137, 348 P.2d 687
8.c.

Where does it say that the code is applicable to me? I do not see the words "also applicable" which is what the legislature would have said if they wanted the code to "also" be applicable to state empoyess in addition to some other class which was generally understood.

"Pursuant to established principles, our first task in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. In determining such intent, a court must look first to the words of the statutes themselves, giving to the language its usual, ordinary import and according significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose. A construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided. The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.]"
We are also directed "to produce a reasonable result," while "avoiding those constructions which lead to mischief or absurdity." (People v. Jeffers (1987) 43 Cal.3d 984, 997-998.)


75 Ops.Cal.A.G. 75, 77-78, 91-804 (1992).

The absence of the word also is mighty suspect to their intent. Should we look through the past to discover what was the original intent? Also if you constue the entire vehicle code to be applicable to "all drivers" then it makes all of the red part of the following quote surplusage.

"(a) The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways shall apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State or any political subdivison thereof or any municipal corporation or district therein including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.

That's more then half of the only code section which specifically states who the code is applicable to.



I just hope you are seeing Shoonra that I am not using abunch of "I have a right" arguments. These are the way the statutes read! It has nothing to do with CAN the legislature do it, BUT RATHER,,, Did the legislature do it???

NO!!!

I mean why do you think I win all my tickets due to a missing formal complaint? Because no one is going to swear under penalty of perjury that the statute is applicable to me. Some of these cases I win are worth $1300. a formal complaint takes like 1.5hrs. to generate. You do the math. They would be very profitable so why are they not prosecuting me with formal complaint?

Shoonra, my arguments do not rest on what you may have thought. Sometimes I even pretty much agree with you. Please read alittle on my attitude and my beliefs HERE On this thread I am virtualy agreeing with you. However you need to not treat my arguments like they rest on a right to "travel" at all. If you read the thread I posted you will see my attitude on the construction of those citations lots of people are using.

As amatter of fact I think I am even defending your comments at the bottom against Cowboytroll. Oh well. If you want a real discussion I'll have one. But you can not expect me to argue the opinions I do not agree with.