U.S. ban sought on cell phone use while driving

[maninblack]

More nanny state horse$#@!.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8FQOK820120427

Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:08pm EDT
* Drivers of any vehicle would be covered
* 3,000 U.S. fatalities from distracted driving last year

* Approach to compliance akin to anti-drunk driving campaign

By Jim Forsyth

SAN ANTONIO, April 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called on Thursday for a federal law to ban talking on a cell phone or texting while driving any type of vehicle on any road in the country.

Tough federal legislation is the only way to deal with what he called a "national epidemic," he said at a distracted-driving summit in San Antonio, Texas, that drew doctors, advocates and government officials.

LaHood said it is important for the police to have "the opportunity to write tickets when people are foolishly thinking they can drive safely or use a cell phone and text and drive."

LaHood has previously criticized behind-the-wheel use of cell phones and other devices, but calling for a federal law prohibiting the practice takes his effort to a new level.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 3,000 fatal traffic accidents nationwide last year were the result of distracted driving. Using a cell phone while driving delays reaction time the same amount as having a blood alcohol concentration of .08, the legal limit, the highway agency said.

But Gary Biller, president of the National Motorists Association, said laws banning specific actions like talking on a phone or texting are not necessary because those actions are already covered by existing distracted-driving laws. It would be more productive, he said, to invest resources in campaigns that discourage inattentive driving in general.

"It shouldn't matter if the driver is distracted by a conversation with another vehicle passenger, tuning the radio, eating a snack, or talking on a cell phone," Biller said in a statement. "Existing laws cover all those distractions and more."

LaHood said, however, he was not as concerned about people who eat, apply makeup, or perform other distracting activities in cars because "not everyone does that."

"But everyone has a cell phone and too many of us think it is OK to talk on our phones while we are driving," he said at the summit, sponsored by insurance company USAA, the Texas Department of Transportation and Shriners Hospitals for Children.

LaHood was joined by people who have been hurt in accidents caused by motorists talking on cell phones, including children in wheelchairs who were paralyzed. Such accidents are "100 percent preventable," he said.

He compared the situation facing the United States today with the problem of drunk driving 20-30 years ago.

"It used to be that if an officer pulled you over for drunk driving, he would pat you on the back, maybe call you a cab or take you home, but he wouldn't arrest you," LaHood said. "Now that has changed, and the same enforcement can work for people who talk on cell phones while driving."

Thirty-eight states have laws restricting or outlawing the use of electronic devices while driving, LaHood said.

LaHood said his department was researching the effect that hands-free devices and new systems like Ford Motor Company's Sync have on distracting drivers. He said he has called the CEOs of major car companies and encouraged them to "think twice" before placing too many Internet-based systems into new cars. (Editing By Corrie MacLaggan and Philip Barbara)

[Gil Bang]

so preventing some dumb$#@! sorority $#@! from crashing into me or you and killing me or you because she's texting Biff about tonight's blowjob is "nanny state". Awesome.

I'm sure you're also against "nanny state" $#@! like laws against drunk driving, driving 100 mph, etc.

[Anastasis]

In car Bluetooth for the win.

[maninblack]

so preventing some dumb$#@! sorority $#@! from crashing into me or you and killing me or you because she's texting Biff about tonight's blowjob is "nanny state". Awesome.

I'm sure you're also against "nanny state" $#@! like laws against drunk driving, driving 100 mph, etc.

Yes this is nanny state. The difference between you and I is you think creating a law will make everything all better. It won't.

[softlynow]

Yes this is nanny state. The difference between you and I is you think creating a law will make everything all better. It won't.

I don't know about making things "all better," but making and properly enforcing laws can improve things. See shift from treating DWI like speeding/PI up to the early '80s to treating it like an actual problem, and the positive effect that shift had on decreasing alcohol-related deaths.

Now, it should be acknowledged that there are points of diminishing returns on such actions. See shift from treating DWI as an actual problem to treating it like the.worst.thing.EVAR in the late '90s on, and the near zero further decreases in alcohol-related deaths.

IMO, use of cell phones without a handsfree device should, and probably will soon be, banned. Also, I predict a similar path for that ban to that of treatment of DWI. Early returns on decreasing cell phone related crashes and fatalities, followed by government realizing another opportunity for a cash grab.

The good will come with the bad, yet again.

[Surly Bevo]

I'm ok with this as long as we also start locking bitches up for putting on makeup while they drive.

[JMHammer]

Great. Let's make it a federal offense to talk on your cell phone while driving. Why are we wasting money on state government anyway since the feds have all the answers? I'm sure this is related to interstate commerce somehow.

[Fondren & Main]

so preventing some dumb$#@! sorority $#@! from crashing into me or you and killing me or you because she's texting Biff about tonight's blowjob is "nanny state". Awesome.

I'm sure you're also against "nanny state" $#@! like laws against drunk driving, driving 100 mph, etc.

Yeah, but you're a lefty. You just turn your brain off and refuse to think. How about questioning something for once.

[SushiHorn]

The One Size Fits All idiocy of the federal government is the problem here.

Why would South Dakota want any such law? Under this arrangement, they don't get a choice. Maybe it will save some livestock from getting sideswiped. But the cost is millions of unproductive hours of driving long distances through empty space. The same thing goes for West Texas.

If people who want to live in packed in like sardines want to impose those rules on themselves, let them do so. But unless you're in Rhode Island or somewhere similar, even the very populous states have huge empty spaces in them. It's not ideal allowing dominant cities to impose their rules on the rural parts of the state. But that is a hell of a lot better than allowing ONE political city to impose its rules on the whole country, when it doesn't make any sense over huge stretches.

[slorch]

so preventing some dumb$#@! sorority $#@! from crashing into me or you and killing me or you because she's texting Biff about tonight's blowjob is "nanny state". Awesome.

I'm sure you're also against "nanny state" $#@! like laws against drunk driving, driving 100 mph, etc.

the law isn't preventing anything...and Johnny Law seeing me on my phone isn't a $#@!ing crime either.

There are already laws on the book for being wreckless or endangering others. Enforce those and then let's talk.

I'm all for ending speeding citations as well, for the same damned reason.

[Swanson]

I'm all for it for the simple reason that I HATE talking on my phone. Gives me another excuse to ignore a call. "Sorry boss man, I was on the road."

[TJ]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 3,000 fatal traffic accidents nationwide last year were the result of distracted driving.

Notwithstanding the fact 3,000 fatalities/year is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to some of this country's larger social issues, I hate this type of propaganda. The article highlights texting-while-driving, then dishonestly uses statistic for distraction-related deaths. It's as good as a lie as far as I'm concerned, but since $#@!y LaHood is so worried about those 3,000 fatalities, I hope he and the administration also push for legislation to outlaw changing the radio station, changing the volume of your radio, adjusting your seatbelt, adjusting your mirrors, sneezing, etc.

Using a cell phone while driving delays reaction time the same amount as having a blood alcohol concentration of .08, the legal limit, the highway agency said.

...and cue the propaganda moneyshot: text driving is like drunk driving!

[TJ]

the law isn't preventing anything...and Johnny Law seeing me on my phone isn't a $#@!ing crime either.

There are already laws on the book for being wreckless or endangering others. Enforce those and then let's talk.

I'm all for ending speeding citations as well, for the same damned reason.

I'm with you, Slorch; this^ x 1,000.

Bottom line: this is just another excuse for law enforcement to pull over drivers for "reasonable suspicion of distraction." This isn't about saving a few lives each year -- if it were, I imagine there are better ways to incentivize the hands-free use of mobile devices -- it's just another executive power grab.

I'm all for it for the simple reason that I HATE talking on my phone. Gives me another excuse to ignore a call. "Sorry boss man, I was on the road."

Unless you're a raging pussy, you don't need to a la to hide behind in order to ignore your boss, your wife, or anyone else calling you while you're driving.

[NotActuallyALonghorn]

Nowhere near the fed's jurisdiction. Or at least shouldn't be.

[linux]

And another question for the libertarians, do you think DWI laws are a violation of your freedoms? why should I not be able to drive drunk if I wanted?

When will you make the connection that the right to live trumps almost all other rights?

This actually makes more sense since you can invest a pittance on hands free technology.

[maninblack]

And another question for the libertarians, do you think DWI laws are a violation of your freedoms? why should I not be able to drive drunk if I wanted?

When will you make the connection that the right to live trumps almost all other rights?

This actually makes more sense since you can invest a pittance on hands free technology.

Glad to see you're pro-life.

[softlynow]

Glad to see you're pro-life.

Lazy reply. I'm interested in a serious libertarian response and was hopeful for one.

[slorch]

And another question for the libertarians, do you think DWI laws are a violation of your freedoms? why should I not be able to drive drunk if I wanted?

When will you make the connection that the right to live trumps almost all other rights?

This actually makes more sense since you can invest a pittance on hands free technology.

simply driving drunk doesn't violate anybody's right to live.

Disclaimer: i am absolutely anti-driving while intoxicated. Just making the point.

[FCHorn]

Create a new nanny law = creating more cops to enforce said law....

For the kids you know...

All about creating more law enforcement...doesn't have a thing to do with texting while driving...

Big Brother is big for a reason

[maninblack]

Lazy reply. I'm interested in a serious libertarian response and was hopeful for one.

Why would I give a serious response to that? You, linux and Gil think the government solves all problems. People get into accidents that kill people every day without it being due to cell phones. Why don't we take the next logical step and outlaw cars? I mean the right to live is trumps almost all other rights correct?

[JMHammer]

Well, the TSA is going to need something to do when they aren't busy strip-searching 4 year olds and grandmothers. They might as well drive around and enforce the new federal traffic laws.

[H34TX]

texting while driving and it's companion cellphone use while driving - scare me MUCH more than drunk driving because its much more prevalent and can happen at anytime whereas DWI is more likely late at night. This is a good law because it affects the safety of others (unlike the seatbelt law which is the true nanny state bull$#@! , albeit another topic).

[tantric superman]

No new laws until we get the federal financial house in order.

I've got no problems with local ordinances regarding cell phone usage. I curse at least one phone using woman every day on my short drive to work. The law would be good for my heart.

[tantric superman]

Why would I give a serious response to that? You, linux and Gil think the government solves all problems.

No they don't. That's lazy. This should be an easy debate. No need to mischaracterize other's viewpoints, even if it fits into your narrative.

[texassax]

there have been many studies that have shown that it's the act of talking to someone on the phone that distracts a person, not the use of his hand. holding your cell phone is no more risky while driving than talking to someone using a hands-free device.

[rjl]

there have been many studies that have shown that it's the act of talking to someone on the phone that distracts a person, not the use of his hand. holding your cell phone is no more risky while driving than talking to someone using a hands-free device.

What do the studies say about talking to a passenger?

[texassax]

they are entirely different. it has to do with what part of the brain talking on the phone uses or some psychological smart person $#@! like that.

[FCHorn]

[H34TX]

they are entirely different. it has to do with what part of the brain talking on the phone uses or some psychological smart person $#@! like that.

talking to a passenger is very distracting, so I have mine shut the $#@! up.

[maninblack]

No they don't. That's lazy. This should be an easy debate. No need to mischaracterize other's viewpoints, even if it fits into your narrative.

Find me a free market solution they've proposed or a government program they've opposed.

First, it's not the federal government's job to enact such a law. Second, I don't disagree that the power does reside at the state level and if a state wanted to implement such a law then that would be their prerogative. Third, I don't think it actually solves any problems but instead will become another revenue generator for cops.

Also, who is the burden of proof on if they stop you for cell phone use? It's a bad solution to a small statistical problem. It makes the do gooders feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[CutTheCrackJack]

First they came for the cell phone talking drivers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't chick and could drive okay while talking.

Then they came for those who drive while texting,
and I didn't speak out because I had a QWERTY phone and texted at eye level.

Then they came for those who played Words With Friends while driving,
and I didn't speak out because I'm a wordsmith.

Then they came for those who draw their 'draw something' pictures while driving
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

- CutTheCrackNiemöller, 2012

[tantric superman]

Find me a free market solution they've proposed or a government program they've opposed.

That's not the $#@!ing question. You said they insisted that it would solve something.

I can be for tons of laws that don't totally solve things. I can't think of a civil or criminal law that solves anything or that is 100% effective.

First, it's not the federal government's job to enact such a law.

Bull$#@!. Even in an eviscerated commerce clause scenario you are going to be hard pressed to show that cell phones aren't an instrument of interstate commerce. WE'd all be better off if the only things they regulated were phones, cars, trains, airplanes, computers, etc.

Third, I don't think it actually solves any problems but instead will become another revenue generator for cops.

I'm not an expert on tort law but if a state regulation allows civil litigants to more easily win their cases based on regulations which reflect due care, then even a law that is rarely enforced can have beneficial and efficient effect on the market and safety.

Also, who is the burden of proof on if they stop you for cell phone use?

The police.

It's a bad solution to a small statistical problem. It makes the do gooders feel warm and fuzzy inside.

No, it's actually a pretty mundane approach and one that makes some sense. As I have stated before, all of us have had first hand experience with $#@!s on the phone who almost get us killed or just $#@! up traffic.

As stated, the main reason to hate this law is that it's not something the feds should be focusing on.

[tantric superman]

maninblack, I realize this kind of law is symbolic of the problems you and the Paulinistas see in government but we have not been able to sell this philosophical approach as a means to solving government problems. Our way to attack bad government is part of what you did -- point to the non-effectiveness of this law in relation to the alleged problem.

We need to go head to head at the stupidity of various laws and the need to make certain laws much lower priority.

"Stupid laws are stupid" is always a great argument.

"Stupid law are the product of improper constitutional interpretation" is just a harder sell. An impossible sell, I think.

[Dwight Schrute]

I'm ok with this as long as we also start locking bitches up for putting on makeup while they drive.

and adjusting the radio and singing and talking and looking in the backseat at their kids constantly, and eating, and drinking, and smoking, and combing their hair and adjusting their clothing etc.

Seriously this is just another way for the nanny state to not only troll for more funds via fines, but to make a stupid emotional appeal to the bleeding hearts while raping our civil liberties.

[Dwight Schrute]

Yeah, but you're a lefty. You just turn your brain off and refuse to think. How about questioning something for once.

Do you really want liberals to think? When they think we get ideas like Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, and thousands of pages of regulations for businesses. Liberals are just feeble minded sheeple. I'd rather we just keep them ignorant but herd them over to a group of people who know what they are doing (Libertarians/Constitutionalists) then let them voice their thoughts.

[Dwight Schrute]

Notwithstanding the fact 3,000 fatalities/year is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to some of this country's larger social issues, I hate this type of propaganda. The article highlights texting-while-driving, then dishonestly uses statistic for distraction-related deaths. It's as good as a lie as far as I'm concerned, but since $#@!y LaHood is so worried about those 3,000 fatalities, I hope he and the administration also push for legislation to outlaw changing the radio station, changing the volume of your radio, adjusting your seatbelt, adjusting your mirrors, sneezing, etc.



...and cue the propaganda moneyshot: text driving is like drunk driving!

I love (not really) that analogy that people use. I can put down my cellphone at any point if necessary. I can't put down my drunkenness at will.

[H34TX]

and adjusting the radio and singing and talking and looking in the backseat at their kids constantly, and eating, and drinking, and smoking, and combing their hair and adjusting their clothing etc.

Seriously this is just another way for the nanny state to not only troll for more funds via fines, but to make a stupid emotional appeal to the bleeding hearts while raping our civil liberties.

those are good examples, but I don't think they are as pervasive or long lasting as a cell phone conversation or texting. BTW, I have rarely seen people comb hair (male or female) while driving; at stoplights it's much more common but not while driving. Another BTW, how do you feel about the seat belt law? Lots of (fake) libertarians are anti-govt but don't give a $#@! about this law when its another blatant miscarriage and a fine machine/bull$#@! reason for cops to pull you over.

[TJ]

those are good examples, but I don't think they are as pervasive or long lasting as a cell phone conversation or texting.

You know what happens when you assume?

[Tanqueray Cowboy]

And another question for the libertarians, do you think DWI laws are a violation of your freedoms? why should I not be able to drive drunk if I wanted?

In a libertarian society the roads would be privately-owned rights of way. Private owners are free to make whatever rules they want for their property: outlaw DWI, enforce speed limits, ban texting, jack up tolls, etc. None of that is a violation of my freedom--rather, it is the property owner exercising his rights.

When a government authority owns a road they have the same rights as if the road were private property. And that's unfortunate when you consider that, today, governments own pretty much all of the roads.

[H34TX]

You know what happens when you assume?

yes, you become an insurance company

[Prepuce of Doom]

What do the studies say about talking to a passenger?

Some may argue that talking on a cell phone while driving is no different than conversing with a passenger in your car. However, research (Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer, 2008) suggests otherwise. Passengers share the same context. Conversation flows more or less with the demands placed on the driver. Passengers can make the driver aware of any road conditions or can suspend conversation when driving conditions intensify. We are also more likely to tell passengers to wait or hold on if we need to divert our mental energy to driving. The person on the other end of a cell phone conversation or text lacks this context and is less likely to be told to wait.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-while-driving

[slorch]

I drive roughly 3k miles a month at work. From what I see day-in and day-out on the road, I could be on the cell-phone, looking for a song on my IPOD, eating a cheeseburger, and opening my Whataburger ketchup while driving a stick- and still be way the $#@! better than most drivers out there.

We suck at driving in general- I mean absolutely suck at it.

This proposal does jack $#@! to improve that.

[DigglerontheHoof]

Let's give pigs one more "reason" to pull people over and collect taxes...no wonder an asswhipe like Gil is all for this.

[linux]

Why would I give a serious response to that? You, linux and Gil think the government solves all problems. People get into accidents that kill people every day without it being due to cell phones. Why don't we take the next logical step and outlaw cars? I mean the right to live is trumps almost all other rights correct?

Now this is a smarter counter argument, allowing commuting pushes the economy, which in turn pushes medical technology and therefore saves lives as well.

Its all about the moral calculus taking every-single-variable into account AND the consequences of removing it, drunk driving never benefits anything and it is a surefire killer, banning cellphones will not change anything as long as people invest in hands free technology.

[Mizzou415]

Yes this is nanny state. The difference between you and I is you think creating a law will make everything all better. It won't.

I have no idea if such a law would "make everything all better" or even improve the problem at all, but that calculus has zero to do with whether it's "nanny state" bull$#@!. The purpose is not to protect cell phone using drivers from themselves but rather to protect others from cell phone using drivers, hence, it isn't "nanny state" bull$#@!.

[linux]

In a libertarian society the roads would be privately-owned rights of way. Private owners are free to make whatever rules they want for their property: outlaw DWI, enforce speed limits, ban texting, jack up tolls, etc. None of that is a violation of my freedom--rather, it is the property owner exercising his rights.

When a government authority owns a road they have the same rights as if the road were private property. And that's unfortunate when you consider that, today, governments own pretty much all of the roads.

Paul Ryan said the Civil Rights Act destroyed property rights. That a business owner has the right to be a white only establishment.

There are two problems with libertarians, putting property rights on the same perch (or even higher) than the right to live, AND their inability to do comprehensive moral calculus, they just think in absolutes:

"Government is evil, therefore everything it does is wrong"

[linux]

BTW when automated driving becomes as good as envisioned by Google, then human driving will be banned. There will still be racetracks for those still nostalgic, but it will be places where they do not put the lives of others at risk.

[OnBoard]

More nanny state horse$#@!.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8FQOK820120427

Not a fan of the nanny state either, but there are people who have drivers licenses that can barely function bipedally let alone operate heavy machinery moving at speeds above 25 and then multi task.

Not sure what the solution is to that one. The hands free option in new cars addresses it somewhat, but the fed. Govt telling a state that people can't drive on state roads and talk on the phone, that rashes my balls.

[Buster Hymen]

So basically cops will have a 100% out of every traffic stop, because like he said everyone has a cell phone. Just think of the fees, court costs and DPS surcharges. At least someone is answering our economic problems.

[linux]

So basically cops will have a 100% out of every traffic stop, because like he said everyone has a cell phone. Just think of the fees, court costs and DPS surcharges. At least someone is answering our economic problems.

Wouldn't this be easy to disprove with phone company records? for texting/calls etc?