Obama Administration Seeks National Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving

[rockerrockstar]

As long as I can use my ipod function of my phone in my car via my phone I would not really care that much. I just think that they could bust me thinking I was using hands free when I am actually using it as an ipod interfacing with my stereo.

Automakers are working on making it so you can answer text messages hands free. I would guess it would give you the message in audio by transcribing the text then you answer like a normal hands free phone call and it transcribes it back into text. Just guessing.

[The Free Hornet]

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

Would it be a big deal if Australia passed the law and New Zealand had to follow it despite having zero voice in the process?

[rockerrockstar]

We should make a new law that makes it so that there is constitutional advisers setting in at the house and senate to tell them if they are breaking the constitution when laws are proposed. We need a more proactive approach to protecting our rights. Probably have one advice the Presidents. Then report any violations of laws passed that are in breach to the Supreme Court for review.

[keh10]

The irony is that I see more cops talking on their cell phones than I see normal drivers. I bet at least 30-40% of cops I pass are talking on their cell phones. Who knows whether it's a personal call or not.

Of course, what they would really like to do is get rid of personal vehicles altogether, ship us all to the cities, and force us to ride to and from a government sponsored job inside a rail car filled with other sheep.

[The Free Hornet]

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;

If you want to do it from this perspective, it would require a constitutional amendement. You might consider the "establish post offices and post roads" part (which still ought not accomplish the feat).

[Zippyjuan]

I like the scary headline that Obama wants to ban Cell phone use- makes it sound like it will be illegal to use a cell phone at any time, any place nation wide. In California where I live it has been illegal to use a cell phone (unless it is hands free) while driving for years now. I have a friend who was badly injured by somebody taking on the phone while driving and ran into him. He was on a bicycle in a bike lane.

[QuickZ06]

The irony is that I see more cops talking on their cell phones than I see normal drivers. I bet at least 30-40% of cops I pass are talking on their cell phones. Who knows whether it's a personal call or not.

Of course, what they would really like to do is get rid of personal vehicles altogether, ship us all to the cities, and force us to ride to and from a government sponsored job inside a rail car filled with other sheep.

Krispy Kreme ain't gonna order itself.....

[QuickZ06]

Just so everybody is aware of where this is heading:



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.

O you're good.....

[Anti Federalist]

I like the scary headline that Obama wants to ban Cell phone use- makes it sound like it will be illegal to use a cell phone at any time, any place nation wide. In California where I live it has been illegal to use a cell phone (unless it is hands free) while driving for years now. I have a friend who was badly injured by somebody taking on the phone while driving and ran into him. He was on a bicycle in a bike lane.

I hope your friend has recovered.

Are roadblocks and prison sentences a suitable and proper course of action for preventing these sort of accidents in the future?

[QueenB4Liberty]

As long as I can use my ipod function of my phone in my car via my phone I would not really care that much. I just think that they could bust me thinking I was using hands free when I am actually using it as an ipod interfacing with my stereo.

Automakers are working on making it so you can answer text messages hands free. I would guess it would give you the message in audio by transcribing the text then you answer like a normal hands free phone call and it transcribes it back into text. Just guessing.

That's what I use my phone for, listening to music in the car. They had better not take that away. And I can talk through the speakers in my car.

[Lucille]

It sounds like the NTSB would like to ban you from speaking to anyone--in your car or out--while you're driving:

A complete ban on phone use by drivers would have enormous impact on many car makers that are offering integrated hands-free, voice-activated systems that allow drivers to talk and do other tasks, like calling up their phone directory.

The Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group for the industry, said in a statement that it was reviewing the N.T.S.B. recommendations. But it also defended the integrated systems, saying they allow drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road while they remain connected.

“What we do know is that digital technology has created a connected culture in the United States and it’s forever changed our society: consumers always expect to have access to technology; so managing technology is the solution,” the alliance said in a statement.

Ms. Hersman, the chairwoman of the N.T.S.B., said the safety concerns were not just about keeping hands on the wheel and eyes on the road, but also about making sure people focus on the act of driving.

“It’s about cognitive distraction. It’s about not being engaged at the task at hand,” she said, adding: “Lives are being lost in the blink of an eye. You can’t take it back, you can’t have a do over, and you can’t rewind.”

[Anti Federalist]

That's what I use my phone for, listening to music in the car. They had better not take that away. And I can talk through the speakers in my car.

Count on exactly that happening.

NTSB's ultimate goal is a "sterile cabin" just like the laws in place for planes and ships.

No music, no eating, no phones, no texts, no conversation, no unneccesary adjustments of controls, no nothing.

And compliance will be total, since all the new cars, phones, and electronic devices record, time stamp and track your every move, there will be no denying what you were doing in the event of a wreck.

And if you happen to try to lie to an NTSB investigator or a cop, with this electronic trail behind you, you will have opened yourself up to USC 1001 felony prosecution.

'Merica!

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The whole traffic law system is perverted. I've almost crashed my vehicle trying to stop it in time for a red light. The amber light literally only lasts 2 seconds. That's not enough time to slow down my vehicle. If you don't stop in time though, and cross the line, American Traffic Services will mail you a complimentary $140 red light ticket. Even though in many states it has been shown an increase of 1 or 2 seconds to the amber light reduces accidents 90+ percent, cities rather risk people's lives in order to collect more money. $#@! the system. My friend's fiance got killed by a driver who lost control slamming their breaks for a red light.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

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

The police.

Good one

I like the scary headline that Obama wants to ban Cell phone use- makes it sound like it will be illegal to use a cell phone at any time, any place nation wide. In California where I live it has been illegal to use a cell phone (unless it is hands free) while driving for years now. I have a friend who was badly injured by somebody taking on the phone while driving and ran into him. He was on a bicycle in a bike lane.

What next?
I had a friend who got killed by a gun so ban guns
I had a friend who got stabbed with a pen so ban pens
I had a friend who got fat by overeating so regulate what people eat
And so on

Sure, accidents happen, people make mistakes but that's no reason to abridge freedoms of all those who have NOT violated anyone liberties!

Government's appetite for power is limitless, the more power people are willing to concede, the more powerful & tyrannical government they'll have to bear!

[Zippyjuan]

Would you then be in the camp which says it should be OK to drive drunk? Both a drunk driver and somebody on the phone are impaired in their ability to respond to any changes in activity on the road and are thus more likely to be involved in accidents.

It is a responsiblity- not a right- to be able to drive. Roads and highways are shared. You are responsible not only for your own safety but also the safety of all others on the road. If the only person who could get hurt if you are in an accident, feel free to do what you want but if you are in an accident you also involve others and make choices for them about their own safety. If you choose behavior which is dangerous you also choose danger for others who may not want to be endangered. You are making a decision for them as well which is infringing on their right to travel safely.

Let us get rid of all government involvement in the use of automobiles. Get rid of speed limits, take down all of the signs and traffic lights and even those darn lines on the road. Let people drive just as they see fit.

I you have your own private road you can do what you want. If you are on a public road you need to follow rules so that it works for everybody.

[slamhead]

Is there anything Obama thinks may be unconstitutional?

[pauljmccain]

My biggest concern with this is enforcement. How exactly are they going to know whether you were singing along with a song in your car, or talking on a handsfree device? There's no way I am handing my phone over to a cop.

[JebSanderson]

Is there anything Obama thinks may be unconstitutional?

States enforcing the law?

[presence]

Would you then be in the camp which says it should be OK to drive drunk?

I AM.

"...government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property."

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Liberty,

presence

[Anti Federalist]

Thus is the justification for regulation of every single aspect of your life, because, everything you do has some impact on somebody else.

Would you then be in the camp which says it should be OK to drive drunk? Both a drunk driver and somebody on the phone are impaired in their ability to respond to any changes in activity on the road and are thus more likely to be involved in accidents.

It is a responsiblity- not a right- to be able to drive. Roads and highways are shared. You are responsible not only for your own safety but also the safety of all others on the road. If the only person who could get hurt if you are in an accident, feel free to do what you want but if you are in an accident you also involve others and make choices for them about their own safety. If you choose behavior which is dangerous you also choose danger for others who may not want to be endangered. You are making a decision for them as well which is infringing on their right to travel safely.

Let us get rid of all government involvement in the use of automobiles. Get rid of speed limits, take down all of the signs and traffic lights and even those darn lines on the road. Let people drive just as they see fit.

I you have your own private road you can do what you want. If you are on a public road you need to follow rules so that it works for everybody.

[papitosabe]

My biggest concern with this is enforcement. How exactly are they going to know whether you were singing along with a song in your car, or talking on a handsfree device? There's no way I am handing my phone over to a cop.

i was thinking the same thing...I would just hide my phone or turn it off...they're gonna search our cars for phones now for the suspicion of talking on a phone?

[idiom]

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.

I just visited America last week on unavoidable business. It was like visiting a police state. Your freedoms disappeared a long time ago. The beauty of it is you think operating a cell phone while driving is a precious freedom.

[Anti Federalist]

I just visited America last week on unavoidable business. It was like visiting a police state. Your freedoms disappeared a long time ago. The beauty of it is you think operating a cell phone while driving is a precious freedom.

Like?

No, it's not the action of talking on a cel phone, it's the principle of the thing, the fact that government now thinks it has the right to regulate such a trivial and mundane thing that it is noteworthy.

You don't need to tell me we're toast, I'm well aware of that fact.

[idiom]

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.

I imagine that technically the FCC could issue a regulation regarding cell phone use. No law needed. Its part of the agreement when you take the cell phone out of its case. Completely voluntary agreement. "You agree not to use this radio transmitter while driving or face prosecution and seizure of your vehicle" etc etc. Makes the constitutionalist happy and even the an-caps on technical grounds. No force involved. No federal law being written.

The police state is already in operation. They don't need to send you to 'FEMA camps'. Rofl. You are living in the camp already. You cell block just has a nice lawn that you have to mow for your yard time.

[Zippyjuan]

Thus is the justification for regulation of every single aspect of your life, because, everything you do has some impact on somebody else.

We live in a society of people close together. We need to have some rules to allow things to work and people to get along. Do some rules go to far? Certainly.

Just a curious question for you and Presence. If you or a member of your family was to be injured and your car totaled by a drunk driver (or one on their cell phone and not paying attention) would you shrug it off and say "Oh well, at least somebody was out there exercising their freeedom to drive under the influence (or use their phone)!", pay your thousands in bills for it and move on?

[teacherone]

The police state is already in operation. They don't need to send you to 'FEMA camps'. Rofl. You are living in the camp already. You cell block just has a nice lawn that you have to mow for your yard time.

Well that's just frightening.

[Anti Federalist]

We live in a society of people close together. We need to have some rules to allow things to work and people to get along. Do some rules go to far? Certainly.

Just a curious question for you and Presence. If you or a member of your family was to be injured and your car totaled by a drunk driver (or one on their cell phone and not paying attention) would you shrug it off and say "Oh well, at least somebody was out there exercising their freeedom to drive under the influence (or use their phone)!", pay your thousands in bills for it and move on?

I would sue for damages, and if clearly negligent, punitive damages.

Relatively close family of mine has been affected by murders committed by firearms.

Yet, you will find a no more pro gun person than myself.

The answer is yes.

If we are going to have freedom then we must be able to accept that sometimes that will be dangerous, and that it will sometimes end up in results that we do not want to see.

That person who hypothetically wrecked my car could just as easily been distracted by fiddling with the radio, or eating, or tired, or any one of a million other distractions and detriments.

I do not want to live in a society that has a goal of mitigating risk, through increasingly heavy handed and draconian punishments, to the unachievable goal of zero.

Businesses that try this will go bankrupt, governments that try it will become authoritarian.

[Brian4Liberty]

We live in a society of people close together. We need to have some rules to allow things to work and people to get along. Do some rules go to far? Certainly.

Local rules, not Federal laws.

Just a curious question for you and Presence. If you or a member of your family was to be injured and your car totaled by a drunk driver (or one on their cell phone and not paying attention) would you shrug it off and say "Oh well, at least somebody was out there exercising their freeedom to drive under the influence (or use their phone)!", pay your thousands in bills for it and move on?

Lol. Your appeal to emotion is denied.

[oyarde]

Finally , something we can agree on , I , too seek a National Ban on the Obama Administration. Can we come to the middle and work something out ??

[jmdrake]

Hmmmm....so things that might distract drivers and hence cause a wreck should be illegal.