Senators to introduce ban on texting while driving

[bobbyw24]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senators-to-introduce-ban-on-texting-while-driving-2009-07-29.html

Senators to introduce ban on texting while driving
By Eric Zimmermann
Posted: 07/29/09 11:14 AM [ET]

Democratic senators will introduce legislation Wednesday to impose a nationwide ban on sending cell phone text messages while driving.

Fourteen states already have such laws on the books, but the new legislation would force every state to adopt a similar ban or risk losing all federal highway funds. That would be a devastating blow to already cash-strapped states.

The four senators co-sponsoring the legislation – Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) — announced the legislation at a press conference Wednesday morning.

"This legislation addresses a growing problem on our nation's highways: distracted drivers," Landrieu said. "Studies show that texting while driving increases the chances of a high-speed collision and has been found to be even more dangerous than driving drunk."

A recent study by Virginia Tech found that texting makes drivers 23 times more likely to crash.

The authors of the study have called for a law to address the problem.

"Texting is in its own universe of risk," Rich Hanowski told The New York Times.

"You should never do this," added fellow researcher Tom Dingus. "It should be illegal."

This story was updated at 12:25 p.m.

[RoyalShock]

I'm in favor of texting-while-driving bans . . . AT THE STATE LEVEL!

[gls]

I'm in favor of texting-while-driving bans . . . AT THE STATE LEVEL!

Reckless driving is already illegal in every state.

[mediahasyou]

I'm in favor of texting-while-driving bans . . . AT THE STATE LEVEL!

Is there really a difference between federal tyranny and state tyranny?

[Brian4Liberty]

Lets make it like a DUI! Huge fines, lawyer costs, rehab, jail, etc. :rolleyes:

[werdd]

Im for getting rid of DUI's :). If a 16 year old texting is more likely to crash than me 20 beers in, then why not?

[Brian4Liberty]

Reckless driving is already illegal in every state.

Of course. But that's too easy. We love to pick out people to persecute. The neo-prohibitionists went after alcohol, and now the older folks are going after younger women (and anyone, but there's a stereotype there)...

[Brian4Liberty]

Im for getting rid of DUI's :). If a 16 year old texting is more likely to crash than me 20 beers in, then why not?

20? You may (should) be worse by that point!

[RoyalShock]

Is there really a difference between federal tyranny and state tyranny?

As someone who chooses to drive on government built, maintained and managed roads, I accept and try to follow the rules that come along with it. And I expect those rules to provide a reasonable amount of protection. As such I don't have a problem with banning behaviors that significantly increase the likelihood that reckless driving will result.

Now, if "inattentive driving" laws are sufficient to include texting activity, fine.

Others may disagree and I'm cool with that. It isn't black and white.

[Mini-Me]

Is there really a difference between federal tyranny and state tyranny?

Morally? No, not really.
Practically? Yes: At least when just one state becomes increasingly authoritarian, you can move to another state. I wouldn't condone it in either case, but I know which I'd prefer given the choice.

Actually, I'd say there's a moral difference too: If initiating aggression against one person is unethical, what about initiating aggression against thousands...millions...even billions of people (in the case of one world government)? The scale of violence and coercion amplifies its repugnance.

I understand your point of course...but I'm just saying.


20? You may (should) be worse by that point!

Lightweight! (j/k :))

[Brian Defferding]

Ick. This is impossible to enforce. Like, totally futile to enforce. Isn't there already distracted driving laws in some states anyway?

[BillyDkid]

Yeah, that's what we need our Senators worrying about - that and steroids in baseball. What a total crock of shit. In general, I dispise politicians. What I want to know is whatever happened to the idea that you can do what you want, but if you harm somebody doing it you have to pay the consequences? That's enough to keep any normal person from taking stupid risks and those who would take such stupid risks are going to do so, law or no law. I think they need a law against ass wiping when you are driving. I know when I am in a hurry, I can't wait to get off the jon and into car. IF I could just wipe on my way to work it would save me so much time.

[BudhaStalin]

There is already a state-imposed ban on texting/talking while driving here in california...

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, that's what we need our Senators worrying about - that and steroids in baseball. What a total crock of shit. In general, I dispise politicians. What I want to know is whatever happened to the idea that you can do what you want, but if you harm somebody doing it you have to pay the consequences? That's enough to keep any normal person from taking stupid risks and those who would take such stupid risks are going to do so, law or no law. I think they need a law against ass wiping when you are driving. I know when I am in a hurry, I can't wait to get off the jon and into car. IF I could just wipe on my way to work it would save me so much time.

I agree it's a matter of personal responsibility. If someone is driving erratically, the police will see it, and act accordingly (the good old days).

I don't think that anything will stop people from taking risks though. Heck, text messaging while driving can result in your own death, but that doesn't stop them.

[Pete]

I think that the feds could make a case that texting while driving is antisocial enough to make it a hate crime. :)

Seriously, I think that plain old 'reckless driving' takes care of it.

[Reason]

I'm in favor of texting-while-driving bans . . . AT THE STATE LEVEL!

agreed.

If I see one more dumbass highschool aged girl drive past me on the freeway at 80+ mph with her cellphone held on the steering wheel while she texts there will need to be a new definition of road rage added to the dictionary. :mad:

that said,

it should be done @ the local level if the cops really feel reckless/unsafe driving laws aren't working for some reason

not sure what that reason would be though

would be interested in getting some thoughts on this from a few street cops

[Matt Collins]

Where in Article I Section 8 does it authorize Congress to legislate driving habits?

[Mini-Me]

Where in Article I Section 8 does it authorize Congress to legislate driving habits?

Aren't you forgetting something?


...the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, [Mr. Collins]!

[Vessol]

Considering my brother was killed when a teenage girl in an SUV plowed into his car while she texted, I see little wrong with this.

[andrewh817]

You know what all these new bans are adding to?? The police's "probable cause" to pull you over in ANY situation.

[Mini-Me]

You know what all these new bans are adding to?? The police's "probable cause" to pull you over in ANY situation.

I'd be inclined to agree, but since "reckless driving" by itself is so subjective by itself and a dishonest cop can claim recklessness on a whim without any witnesses, it doesn't seem like bully cops are getting any new excuses here...just a bit of extra variety to write into their false reports.

[almantimes2]

Ultimately I want my roads to be privatized.

But if my state(Arizona)must run the roads then fine. I would be in support of this law at the state level. As If roads were privatized. My business would be going to roads with that rule anyway.

[catdd]

Nobody in their right mind would text while driving anyway and how are the cops suppose to enforce it? They wouldn't know if you were texting.
Stupid law.

[emazur]

I guess I'm going to go against the grain here and say I support laws that ban texting and drunk driving and I don't care if it happens at the state or federal level. People do stupid shit, and if an action has the likelihood of harming another (as is the case with texting or drunk driving) it needs to be dealt with preemptively. Creating laws against harming others creates an atmosphere of awareness - virtually everyone knows drinking and driving is a bad idea now, while on the other hand I'll bet most people don't even think about whether or not texting while driving is bad. You can't eliminate these dangers by creating laws but you can create awareness to help reduce the risk. I guess you could say "we don't need the laws, we can deal with it privately" but that won't mean shit if you died and couldn't take the person to court (and even if you were fine but a friend or family member died, going to court won't make up for something that could have been prevented if there was awareness of the law).

Seatbelts on the other hand should not be a law as the risk is your own (of course if you support things like govt. run health care (which I don't) you shouldn't be surprised if government mandates things that relate to your health that could keep you out of the hospital)

[Brian Defferding]

Where in Article I Section 8 does it authorize Congress to legislate driving habits?

Don't you know? The general welfare clause means they can pass any law they want! Articles and Bill of Rights be damned!

[phill4paul]

Governors fear for your highway funds. Bow down and be good servants to the federal government while serving your citizens!

[Brian4Liberty]

I guess I'm going to go against the grain here and say I support laws that ban texting and drunk driving and I don't care if it happens at the state or federal level. People do stupid shit, and if an action has the likelihood of harming another (as is the case with texting or drunk driving) it needs to be dealt with preemptively. Creating laws against harming others creates an atmosphere of awareness - virtually everyone knows drinking and driving is a bad idea now, while on the other hand I'll bet most people don't even think about whether or not texting while driving is bad. You can't eliminate these dangers by creating laws but you can create awareness to help reduce the risk. I guess you could say "we don't need the laws, we can deal with it privately" but that won't mean shit if you died and couldn't take the person to court (and even if you were fine but a friend or family member died, going to court won't make up for something that could have been prevented if there was awareness of the law).

Seatbelts on the other hand should not be a law as the risk is your own (of course if you support things like govt. run health care (which I don't) you shouldn't be surprised if government mandates things that relate to your health that could keep you out of the hospital)

It depends on how far you go with the "law". Laws against reckless or erratic driving allow any bad/distracted driving activity to be stopped and fined. That is a reasonable, obvious cause for a stop. But when you take that further, and you have "checkpoints" where everyone is stopped and questioned/searched, then it's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

As for awareness, it never hurts to educate people.

[Brian4Liberty]

You know what all these new bans are adding to?? The police's "probable cause" to pull you over in ANY situation.

They already do that, unfortunately.

[Vessol]

Nobody in their right mind would text while driving anyway and how are the cops suppose to enforce it? They wouldn't know if you were texting.
Stupid law.

As for awareness, it never hurts to educate people.

I've deducted a basic rule of thumb.

People are fucking dumb.

If they can do it, they'll do it. They'll find away.

I'm all for allowing idiots to kill themselves. We should remove all warning labels and everything else and let the stupid die. However when that person is behind a ton of steel that can plow into an innocent person(s) whom is -not- doing something stupid, that to me is invalidating their Basic Human Rights.

Read some Locke. Life, Liberty, and Property.

[catdd]

Sure, I agree, but how would the cops even know someone was texting unless they were sitting next to you at a light or something?
It's unenforceable.

[andrewh817]

People do stupid shit, and if an action has the likelihood of harming another (as is the case with texting or drunk driving) it needs to be dealt with preemptively.

Ummm what??? The only way to preemptively stop someone from driving drunk is with an ignition interlock.


Creating laws against harming others creates an atmosphere of awareness - virtually everyone knows drinking and driving is a bad idea now, while on the other hand I'll bet most people don't even think about whether or not texting while driving is bad.

I don't know that creating laws against the POSSIBILITY of harming others helps in any way. And by your logic, since there's no law against resting your eyes while driving, I'LL BET most people don't think it is bad. Christ, you think everyone is that stupid?? Virtually everyone knows drinking and driving is a bad idea because they hear all the time about drunk driving accidents and deaths. In fact, you're so much more likely to get a DUI in this country than you are to kill someone while driving drunk, it's probably a bigger deterrent at this point.


I guess you could say "we don't need the laws, we can deal with it privately" but that won't mean shit if you died and couldn't take the person to court (and even if you were fine but a friend or family member died, going to court won't make up for something that could have been prevented if there was awareness of the law).

You're assuming that just because one is aware of the law, they will choose to follow it. NOT THE CASE as can be seen overwhelmingly with the drug war. It's called willful disobedience and you might have practiced it a couple times yourself.

[blocks]

Reckless driving is already illegal in every state.

Exactly....I have a habit of biting my toe-nails while driving and it's STILL legal, sucks for you cell phone talkers! MUHAHAHAHAHA

[BenIsForRon]

Since most roads are run by State gov, it makes more sense at the state level.

But you guys do realize, our system of roads are a socialist institution. If you think the libertarian thing to do is oppose behavioral laws that they impose on public roads, then you've got your priorities backwards.