Obama Administration Seeks National Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving

[stu2002]

Obama Administration Seeks National Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving

http://bit.ly/IllUqN


direct link:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/lahood-ban...4/26/id/437254

[Drex]

I will gladly hold out my cellphone when I see a cop if this passes

[RickyJ]

Truckers have been using CB's for decades and I haven't heard about them talking while driving causing more accidents. People who are distracted while driving are a problem on the roads for sure, but there are many ways to be distracted while driving and talking on a cell phone is probably one of the least distracting things while driving. Now texting while driving is very dangerous and should not be done, but even that should not be banned.

[sevin]

What's if it's on speaker phone?

[Drex]

Talk on this and get pulled over

[musicmax]

You know who communicates using electronic devices the most in stressful driving situations?

The police.

[idiom]

We have that in New Zealand. Everybody got a hands free kit. No big deal.

[Anti Federalist]

Just so everybody is aware of where this is heading:

"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."

So, MADD, ya proud of yourself?

Us "nuts" were right, thirty years ago, when we told you where all this would end, with roadblocks, prison, checkpoints and heavy handed enforcement of many other things besides just "drunk driving".

We were called "paranoid" and "conspiracy theorists" and "fear mongers".

I know, I was there.

I normally don't wish harm on people, but you would not find me feeling remorseful if they were some of the first people thrown in prison for this.

[RickyJ]

We have that in New Zealand. Everybody got a hands free kit. No big deal.

No big deal!

It is a BIG DEAL here buddy!

Freedoms that everybody takes for granted will all be gone if we let them dictate every little thing we can and can't do.

[rockerrockstar]

I think the States can handle this issue. Why do we need a national law on it? Sounds like the Fed may ban hands free too. Some states are all ready banning the handsfree but not many. Most are banning using phone or texting if it is not hands free.

[DamianTV]

We have that in New Zealand. Everybody got a hands free kit. No big deal.

That isnt the point. The point is everyone had to BUY something. Hmmm, I wonder if those that were selling the Hands Free Kits had something to do with that bill going thru? Oh yeah, and hands free doesnt help much for replying to TEXT MESSAGES.

Funny story. I have a Remote Control for my Car Stereo. Old Kenwood. They came with remotes as a way to allow passengers in the back seat to adjust the volume. Anywho, I usually use the Remote for skipping songs or changing the volume. I got pulled over about a month ago for "answering my Remote Control" and nearly got a ticket, except for the fact I didnt have a cell phone on me. Officer wasnt sure what to say and let me off with a "warning" that he didnt want to see me "answering my remote again".

Shift of Focus.

New Zealand passing a National Law is one thing, but each State of the United States is supposed to be treated, from within the States, as its own country. We are not supposed to have "National Laws". We have Federal Laws, which are supposed to only apply when crossing State Lines. For example, what is Legal in one State may be Illegal in another State. Think Pot Laws. The Federal Govt is well within its limitations when it expresses that what happens inside a State's Border is up to the State, but when going between States, it falls into Federal Jurisdiction. So when the Federal Govt comes along and tells California, inside the State of California, that their legalization of Marijuana, for whatever purpose, can go right out the window, they are exceeding the powers granted to them by the US Constitution.

The same thing applies to a Nationwide Cell Phone ban. It is Unconstitutional because it exceeds the powers granted to the Federal Govt (again, between States) in the Constitution. Each State would need to pass its own Law prohibiting talking on a Cell Phone while Driving. It wouldnt be a big deal if each State said we are gonna ban Cell Driving, but for the President to flat out come out and say "Im gonna pass a National Law" is a problem. #1, it exceeds the Presidents Role as the Executive Branch. His job is to Execute Laws, not Legislate them into existence. #2, I already talked about it, the difference between the States and the Federal Govt. Now if that isnt Statist, Authoritarian, and a Usurptation of Power, I dont know what is.

[stu2002]

New Zealand passing a National Law is one thing, but each State of the United States is supposed to be treated, from within the States, as its own country. We are not supposed to have "National Laws". We have Federal Laws, which are supposed to only apply when crossing State Lines.

Well-there are some laws that are meat to be national in scope:

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

[Lucille]

What's if it's on speaker phone?

We have that in New Zealand. Everybody got a hands free kit. No big deal.

The ban includes hands-free devices.

As part of its recommendation, the National Transportation Safety Board is urging states to ban drivers from using hands-free devices, including wireless headsets.
[...]
The ban is also noteworthy because it is the first call by a federal agency to end the practice completely, rather than the partial ban that some legislators have put in place by allowing hands-free talking.

[Danke]

I have nothing to hide talk about.

[JebSanderson]

They should just ban talking in cars.

[PaulStandsTall]

BAN PHONES

BAN CARS

BAN FUN

BAN EVERYTHING

-The gov't

[Danke]

[Root]

I can see it now. Cops setting up d.u.c.p checkpoints where they connect a scanner to your phone to see if you've used it in the past XX number of minutes. Of course, they also download all your emails, pics, and contacts. Feds use cispa to 'share' that data...

[Brian4Liberty]

They have been doing enforcement of this in California for years. One of the methods they use is riding motorcycles down the center line in heavy traffic and looking into every vehicle they pass.

Edit: They are also checking seat-belts or any other violations they can see.

[Henry Rogue]

There is already a law that covers texting, it's called Inattentive Driving.

[matt0611]

We have that in New Zealand. Everybody got a hands free kit. No big deal.

You don't understand, that's not the point. The federal government does not have the authority to do this. The people of the states never gave them this power.

[JebSanderson]

I'm curious, is receiving oral sex while driving illegal? That seems to me to be quite a bit more dangerous than having a conversation on a cell phone, especially when a steering wheel only takes one hand to operate and most cars are automatic...

[Anti Federalist]

I can see it now. Cops setting up d.u.c.p checkpoints where they connect a scanner to your phone to see if you've used it in the past XX number of minutes. Of course, they also download all your emails, pics, and contacts. Feds use cispa to 'share' that data...

Most "smart phones" have motion sensors installed already, for proper screen orientation as you rotate the phone.

I can see them using that, or the internal GPS tracking, to shut a phone off while in motion.

[Danke]

I'm curious, is receiving oral sex while driving illegal? That seems to me to be quite a bit more dangerous than having a conversation on a cell phone, especially when a steering wheel only takes one hand to operate and most cars are automatic...

This is why blondes prefer Tilt Wheel Steering.

[Root]

Sure, but check-points let them spend more money we don't have.

[Brian Coulter]

If you ever doubted the power of the insurance lobby...

[40oz]

[mczerone]

They have been doing enforcement of this in California for years. One of the methods they use is riding motorcycles down the center line in heavy traffic and looking into every vehicle they pass.

Edit: They are also checking seat-belts or any other violations they can see.

Yup, "let's add danger to a dangerous situation and give people penalties even if they haven't themselves proved to be dangerous."

But they have a costume and a badge, so I guess its okay that they do it.

(and I doubt they have seatbelts on their motorcycles, right? so why do I need one in the relative safety of the padded cabin of my car?)

[Brian4Liberty]

Yup, "let's add danger to a dangerous situation and give people penalties even if they haven't themselves proved to be dangerous."

But they have a costume and a badge, so I guess its okay that they do it.

(and I doubt they have seatbelts on their motorcycles, right? so why do I need one in the relative safety of the padded cabin of my car?)

Just for the record, that was a statement about the facts, not advocacy. I oppose all of these laws and the subsequent enforcement techniques.

As someone else implied, the law should be for demonstrated dangerous driving to be the violation (of course there would be sub-categories there). Exhibiting or engaging in dangerous driving should be the only probable cause for being pulled over. That was pretty much how it worked until the Mommy-Staters got involved, with MADD being the most obvious example.

[Brian4Liberty]

You don't understand, that's not the point. The federal government does not have the authority to do this. The people of the states never gave them this power.

Exactly, it's not even legal for the Federal Government to impose these laws without following the Constitution and Constitutional processes.