Fed takeover of the roadways? US ban on cellphone use while driving sought.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Amazing there would be a federal cell phone law but no federal seatbelt law.

Not that there should be either but it really illustrates the fickle stupidity of public opinion and how much clout that stupidity has over government action.


Maybe because by using the cell a driver is endangering those around him, but when that same driver isn't wearing a seatbelt, they'll only Darwin themselves from the car straight to the guy who may or may not be upstairs?




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
This isn't a Federal takeover of the roadways. The roadways have always belonged to the Federal Government.

This is just a common sense law, just like "don't drink and drive".

Really? There's no Federal seatbelt law in the United States? That's insane !
edit on 27-4-2012 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior
 

I'm afraid 'common sense' can carry us right into a nanny state

.....again


Common sense is what would keep us out of that.... Common sense and logic. For example, it is common sense that talking on your phone while driving is stupid.

It is common sense that you should pull over to talk rather than drive and talk.

Advocating against common sense....Well...It just lacks common sense! ( Also, yes, I know I cut out part of your statement, it just was irrelevant to the common sense statement I was making
)

Do we need a federal law banning cell phone use while driving? Personally, I say leave it up to the individual state. Should talking/texting while driving be allowed? Not in my humble opinion.

But then again, I am just using common sense...So what do I know?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


With budget cuts happening in most communities at municipal and state levels, you will see fewer cops with partners.


Tell that to the over bloated budget of the next town over with their fleet of armored vehicles to serve a population of 6,000. No less than two dozen of these things are parked behind the station.

Budgets are tight and the economy is poor but not in law enforcement. They may cry poor like every other overfed government leech department but their new hovercrafts say otherwise.
edit on 27-4-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
This isn't a Federal takeover of the roadways. The roadways have always belonged to the Federal Government.

This is just a common sense law, just like "don't drink and drive".

Really? There's no Federal seatbelt law in the United States? That's insane !
edit on 27-4-2012 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



The interstate highways were originally built by the feds but, they remain the property of the states that they run through. That is why Pa, where I live has toll booths on our highways. The feds still maintain some control through highway funding for roads maintenance. They can influence the states by threatening to take away funding if laws like this aren't passed (which is the proper way to go IMO).

Traffic laws come from and are enforced by the individual states. For the most part, they are uniform across the country (speed limit and stop signs and such) but may vary slightly from state to state. There is no Federal agency that has the authority to pull over and enforce traffic regulations. The feds usually (or at least are supposed to) focus on bigger things.

If this were to become a federal law, it would have to be enforced by federal law officers. This would put them in the position of enforcing these laws, not just on interstate highways but, also on local streets as well. There would need to be federal police everywhere and it wouldn't take long before they took over the jobs of local police departments which are accountable to the local government and, by extension, the local people.

There is no need for a federal law in this instance. My state of Pa recently passed a similar law and I'm sure such laws are winding their ways through other state legislatures as well. Nobody is saying there shouldn't be laws against texting and driving. We are just saying that such laws should be passed locally, by the states to be enforced by local law enforcement officers.

Federal laws mean federal law enforcers and that is the danger I see in this instance.



This isn't a case of the states being negligent in not having these laws; its simply a case of the laws needing to catch up with technology. There is no need for the feds to pass laws which the states are already in the process of implimenting.

edit on 4/27/12 by FortAnthem because:
_________ extra DIV



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I think it makes it a federal crime....the state helps when charging you. It's either a state crime...state prison or fed crime... Fed prison...and u don't get time off for good behavior.

Personally...( and I knw ur post isn't about cell phone use) I think people should be ticketed while either texting or talking. I've been behind soooo many dumb-ass's not paying attention. I even despise those same idiots while in a place of business on their phone.

You people aren't that important that you have pressing issues to take care of on the phone while driving or doing other buss. Such as your local food store.

Get off your high horses and use the phone in appropriate places!



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Attack on state rights do we really need a law for everything under the sun?

Cell phones yeah suppose a cell phone law that can send a stupid teenager to jail for twenty years for texting LOL!

Seriously only idiots think they can legislate behavior apparently there are alot of idiots in Washington.

Playing god over all us peasants.

There are hundreds of thousands of laws on the books have they ever stopped a damned thing?
edit on 27-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
All the states should have had this law long ago.
Considering that people have little or no sense concerning safe driving habits.....
Maybe we need a nanny government to look out for us after all.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I'm all for banning cell phones while driving, people drive like garbage without them. Can't even count how many times I've either been in a car accident or run over because some ahole was talking on their phone and not paying attention. People that think otherwise just want to complain for the sake of complaining.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I think this is a good law. I don't think the feds should use it as a premise to extend their budgets to enforce it. There is a trend to use any old reason to expand the federal government. That means more spending everywhere instead of where it may be needed.

I see this turning into a vast network of scanners, cameras, and security check points. If you think about it, it is a great way to put a strangle hold on the US roads. Without them we collapse. Eventually this will be a bad thing for the average citizen.

Watch next they will say it is being done for national security......

wave to big brother folks.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
As many point out here, the law isn't a bad idea...but the States are the only level for this, it really has to stay that way. If people think this is good, then get it passed as a state law. It's probably easier to get that process started than most people are left to imagine by the way media portrays things anyway.

Tell me something, those who support a national ban..... If I live in Montana or Western Texas or perhaps I just commute back and forth across very long, open stretches of the empty desert and long desolate strips of blacktop. Who is someone in New York City, or Chicago or Washington to tell ME that *I* can't handle driving and talking?

People have been talking on cell phones while driving since mobile phones had a cord and were attached to the car. (Watch Miami Vice reruns to see what the giant corded bricks they called mobiles looked like) All without incident for the vast majority of people and over 20 years.. That hasn't changed...all that has changed is a crop of nanny state minders who are looking to mind all OUR business while the business they are there to tend to falls apart.

They can tell me about Seat belts and cell phones when they can first tell me about balanced budgets and government priorities. Somehow I believe I'm safe in saying it won't be forthcoming anytime soon. Neither will my support for another decree from 'on-high' about how to live my life at the micro-level.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
A Beezzer Sermon on the Mount (actually my recliner)

The second this goes through, eating while driving, singing while driving, picking your g*d-damned nose while driving will become an issue.

That being said; why not get some entrepeneur to develope a wee little box that is mounted to the car. A simple key turn and it jams cell phone frequencies-this then becomes a individual responsibility instead of a government mandate.

Thus sayeth the sad little bunny.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 
It is different from here to there, but the county seat of the county where I was born has no police force anymore. They used to have two cops, then cut it to one.... Now the force doesn't exist anymore. They sold the police car, pistols, shotguns and an AR-15 by sealed bid.

The city that I live near now has cut its police force several times in recent years.

I know it is all anecdotal. You are right about expenditures on weapons and equipment. They don't seem to have cut back on that.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


They have been doing that for the past decade

all cars come equipped with bluetooth

hands free and all that.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by beezzer
 


They have been doing that for the past decade

all cars come equipped with bluetooth

hands free and all that.


I'm talking about a jammer though, not a hands-free. Apparently, the government thinks we're too stewpid to deal with this ourselves!



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

The second this goes through, eating while driving, singing while driving, picking your g*d-damned nose while driving will become an issue.


Already is. Has been for decades is all states.

Distracted/reckless driving laws are not new and they cover all those behaviors and more.

The root of the issue is that enforcement is impossible. Which is why dullards en masse think distraction specific laws would work. They assume bad things happen due to lack of a law and that creation of a law will stop bad things from happening when all around them all along the laws they want exist but just dont work because they cant work.

For all intents and purposes these laws are imaginary. Anyone who would be so reckless as to text and drive will continue to do so regardless of how many laws there are or how extreme the punishment is. If the very real threat of wrapping yourself around a tree and exploding out the vehicles openings like playdough in the fun factory isnt enough of a deterrent a ticket or even jail time certainly wont be.

All the laws in the world arent going to change anyones behavior. Especially the behavior of idiot teens who by their very nature lack the capacity to understand consequence.

Of all the statistics out there the insurance raters and safety associations all say these law do not work and show no safety gains. The only sources for any papers showing otherwise is from cops and governments and they dont even use hard stats. Their papers are based on the perception that the laws work because common sense says they do.

It's fantasy versus reality.
edit on 27-4-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Feds never trust us peasants and something relevant to the topic is vehicle tracking box that autos are now required to have.

Now they track you and what you are doing in the car a simple radio scan can easily detect cell phone usage

because really how could the feds enforce that "law".
edit on 27-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




Now they track you and what you are doing in the car a simple radio scan can easily detect cell phone usage

Then they have to prove that the driver was using the phone if there is more than one person in the car.

I kind of wish that the person getting behind the wheel of a car had to take on some of the risk associated with driving on a highway, instead of relying on the government to make it 'completely safe'. Tired of the nanny state crap.
edit on 27-4-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


It kills more teenagers than drunk driving. I am OK with asking folks to STFU and focus on the road. Most of the talk of banning cell phones is centered on texting and chatty folks without earpieces holding the phone in one hand.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 
Before cell phones, it was fiddling with car stereos that killed teenaged drivers.

Before that it was car radios.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join