If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Obama's NTSB wants to take your cell phone away   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 509
    More: Obvious, National Transportation Safety Board, cell phones, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Governors Highway Safety Association, Transportation Safety Board, 35th state, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  
•       •       •

12368 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Dec 2011 at 7:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



509 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-12-13 03:17:11 PM
School bus with bad brakes hits pickup it was tailgating. Another tailgating school bus with bad brakes hits the first bus. Pickup driver had a cell phone, therefore the federal government wants a national ban on using cell phones in vehicles
 
2011-12-13 03:27:39 PM
No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.
 
2011-12-13 03:47:22 PM

Bathia_Mapes: No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.


And just like the speed limit law, it's going to be ignored and do nothing to solve the problem. The real intent is to give cops new probable cause to pull someone over.

"What was your reason for pulling over this man who had 1 kilo of cocaine in the car?"
"He looked like he was on his cell phone"
 
2011-12-13 03:53:58 PM

Bathia_Mapes: No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.


+1. . . or a thousand.

Gig103: And just like the speed limit law, it's going to be ignored and do nothing to solve the problem. The real intent is to give cops new probable cause to pull someone over.


So don't do anything?
 
2011-12-13 03:55:54 PM
Ah, there's the right-wing talking point I was looking for regarding this.

Good job, subs.
 
2011-12-13 04:10:34 PM

Bathia_Mapes: No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.


One of the most conservative coworkers I know hates it when people use cell-phones, tablets, or other devices when driving. This is not partisan. This has nothing to do with Obama.

Simple decency wishes humans would not intentionally distract themselves while operating heavy machinery. Who has a problem with this? It is absurd.
 
2011-12-13 04:13:16 PM

casual disregard: Simple decency wishes humans would not intentionally distract themselves while operating heavy machinery. Who has a problem with this? It is absurd.


Some may argue that legislating common sense can be used as a tool to subjugate the unwashed masses.
 
2011-12-13 04:25:51 PM
The NTSB took my cellphone away-ay
They took it away, away from me-e
The NTSB took my cellphone away-ay
They took it away. They took it away from me.
 
2011-12-13 04:28:54 PM

R.A.Danny: casual disregard: Simple decency wishes humans would not intentionally distract themselves while operating heavy machinery. Who has a problem with this? It is absurd.

Some may argue that legislating common sense can be used as a tool to subjugate the unwashed masses.


Common sense is a misnomer. If it were truly so common, we wouldn't have any problems at all.
 
2011-12-13 04:40:36 PM

casual disregard: Common sense is a misnomer. If it were truly so common, we wouldn't have any problems at all.


That may be why many are so loath to give up the last vestiges of un-legislated silliness they may have.
 
2011-12-13 04:40:48 PM
Don't ban cell phones while driving. It's not effective.

Make using a cell phone an automatic at fault in an accident.

Which do you think would be more effective? A $250 fine? Or total liability for any and all damages?
 
2011-12-13 05:04:43 PM

R.A.Danny: casual disregard: Common sense is a misnomer. If it were truly so common, we wouldn't have any problems at all.

That may be why many are so loath to give up the last vestiges of un-legislated silliness they may have.


I don't get it.

A. Pass a new law which restricts the usage of cell phones while driving.
B. Roll back all restrictions against all contrary behaviors because Freedom.

A = fewer deaths from distracted driving.
B = increased deaths from legal drunk driving.

Instead of doing B, why don't we just randomly strafe congested roads during rush hour?
 
2011-12-13 05:06:29 PM
I's like to drive drunk too, but we all have to compromise now and again in order to have a functional society.
 
2011-12-13 05:08:50 PM

casual disregard: A = fewer deaths from distracted driving.


This isn't necessarily true. There've been a lot of studies taht show these sorts of bans don't really do much in the way of reducing accidental deaths.

Link (new window)
 
2011-12-13 05:15:31 PM

Aarontology: casual disregard: A = fewer deaths from distracted driving.

This isn't necessarily true. There've been a lot of studies taht show these sorts of bans don't really do much in the way of reducing accidental deaths.

Link (new window)


People commit crimes despite the fact that their actions are illegal ergo we should use the honor system for everything.

I bet we're also all keen on implementing the honor system for CBRNE (new window)and CNWDI (new window).
 
2011-12-13 05:19:42 PM
In Maryland it is illegal to text or talk or otherwise use a handheld phone / device while driving.

I don't know if it has cut down on accidents.
 
2011-12-13 05:20:02 PM

Bathia_Mapes: No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.


so how would you go about making sure nobody drives and talks on a cell phone? keep in mind that you cannot violate their 4th or 5th amendment rights nor can you simply jamm cell phone frequencies around highways.
 
2011-12-13 05:23:14 PM

casual disregard: R.A.Danny: casual disregard: Common sense is a misnomer. If it were truly so common, we wouldn't have any problems at all.

That may be why many are so loath to give up the last vestiges of un-legislated silliness they may have.

I don't get it.

A. Pass a new law which restricts the usage of cell phones while driving.
B. Roll back all restrictions against all contrary behaviors because Freedom.

A = fewer deaths from distracted driving.
B = increased deaths from legal drunk driving.

Instead of doing B, why don't we just randomly strafe congested roads during rush hour?


Easy answer. Freedom
 
2011-12-13 05:28:07 PM

R.A.Danny: Easy answer. Freedom


I choose freedom from being hit by a texting idiot.
 
2011-12-13 05:28:21 PM

R.A.Danny: Easy answer. Freedom


Fine. Let's all be free to die at the incompetence of the closest sub-human. So long as we're free to do anything else as well.

Perhaps once every man is infinitely powerful we will be ready for it. I still hold my breath and clench my teeth every time I drive down Route 1.
 
2011-12-13 05:30:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: R.A.Danny: Easy answer. Freedom

I choose freedom from being hit by a texting idiot.


are you willing to give up your 4th and 5th amendment protections for a CHANCE of reducing such an accident? remember - you can only reduce the odds, nothing you do can actually stop people from driving and texting.

Also - you have to be willing to force other citizens to give up their constituational protections against their will. are you willing to do that as well?
 
2011-12-13 05:33:09 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: R.A.Danny: Easy answer. Freedom

I choose freedom from being hit by a texting idiot.

are you willing to give up your 4th and 5th amendment protections for a CHANCE of reducing such an accident? remember - you can only reduce the odds, nothing you do can actually stop people from driving and texting.

Also - you have to be willing to force other citizens to give up their constituational protections against their will. are you willing to do that as well?


You're right, but where do we stop? Where does the fist end? Is child pornography magically a facet of freedom? Is crack really so bad? Is corporate malfeasance standard operating procedure?
 
2011-12-13 05:33:22 PM
keep in mind that you cannot violate their 4th or 5th amendment rights

When I am driving a car I am forced to stay sober. Also I am forced to wear a seatbelt and to put my child in a carseat. Also I can't drive over 65 miles per hour, and my car has to be in proper working order, and I need a driver's license.

The Federal government basically has unlimited power over federal highways and interstate travel.
 
2011-12-13 05:38:54 PM

casual disregard: You're right, but where do we stop? Where does the fist end? Is child pornography magically a facet of freedom? Is crack really so bad? Is corporate malfeasance standard operating procedure?


we've spent the past 50 odd years slowly narrowing our range of freedom. now we're to the point where 'free speech zones' are an accepted part of our political lexicon, and don't get me started on the cops assaulting the OWS protest crowd.

I have zero problem educating people about the dangers of texting while driving. it's dumb, you shouldn't do it, and if you kill someone through negligence then by all means throw the book at 'em. But I draw the line at passing laws about text messages and cell phones in the car. that's invasive and will lead to all sorts of unintended consequences. look at what the DUI laws did to our 4th and 5th amendment protections. Look at the war on drugs and the war on terror. bit by bit, we're losing our privacy and our freedom. they tell us its for 'safety' or 'the children' or 'capitalism'. in the end the excuses don't matter - it's a matter of control, and we need to stop letting groups scare us into surrendering more freedom to the government.
 
2011-12-13 05:43:48 PM
We can't trust 16 year olds to not text and drive.

And we can't trust 16 year olds to take plan B properly.

But we can trust them to have an unwanted child?
 
2011-12-13 05:44:35 PM
We've had a law like that for years here in California

/I think it's more about revenue than safety
 
2011-12-13 05:45:24 PM
This is simply outside the role of the Federal government. If the individual States want to ban such things fine.
 
2011-12-13 05:45:27 PM
Texting? Yeah. Handsfree sets? That may be pushing a little too far. If they ban handsfree sets then why not car radios?
 
2011-12-13 05:47:10 PM
There are already laws about driving while distracted. Use those to prosecute assholes on cell phones. The solution isn't more laws. We have enough of those already.
 
2011-12-13 05:49:06 PM

labman: There are already laws about driving while distracted. Use those to prosecute assholes on cell phones. The solution isn't more laws. We have enough of those already.


we're an authoritarian culture though. we *lurve* to see the cops stomp on someone. we thrive on punishment and we despise weakness. 'social order' is our rallying cry, and our society hates/fears anything that might tend to upset that (rather fragile) illusion of control.
 
2011-12-13 05:50:17 PM

Weaver95: casual disregard: You're right, but where do we stop? Where does the fist end? Is child pornography magically a facet of freedom? Is crack really so bad? Is corporate malfeasance standard operating procedure?

we've spent the past 50 odd years slowly narrowing our range of freedom. now we're to the point where 'free speech zones' are an accepted part of our political lexicon, and don't get me started on the cops assaulting the OWS protest crowd.

I have zero problem educating people about the dangers of texting while driving. it's dumb, you shouldn't do it, and if you kill someone through negligence then by all means throw the book at 'em. But I draw the line at passing laws about text messages and cell phones in the car. that's invasive and will lead to all sorts of unintended consequences. look at what the DUI laws did to our 4th and 5th amendment protections. Look at the war on drugs and the war on terror. bit by bit, we're losing our privacy and our freedom. they tell us its for 'safety' or 'the children' or 'capitalism'. in the end the excuses don't matter - it's a matter of control, and we need to stop letting groups scare us into surrendering more freedom to the government.


I love you, weav, and I agree with you on so many levels, but I will have to agree to disagree with you here. Freedom is obviously good; it's also easily raped.

If the world were bitonal, I would be with you: pure white or black pixels. Unfortunately for us, there are infinite shades of gray hidden underneath our cozy covers. War on drugs? Weed is less worse than alcohol, meth and crack are far worse than alcohol. Shall there be no restrictions on meth and crack? The idea of a War on Terror is beyond ludicrous; but if we declare that we are at peace, will genuine terrorists no longer attack?

I'd love to be free from the daily annoyances of our laws. Please inform me how we as relatives, we as a nation, we as a species can all be free without impinging on anyone elses' freedoms. I'm genuinely curious because I genuinely respect you.
 
2011-12-13 05:52:21 PM

TwistedIvory: Gig103: And just like the speed limit law, it's going to be ignored and do nothing to solve the problem. The real intent is to give cops new probable cause to pull someone over.


So don't do anything?


So vote Republican.
 
2011-12-13 06:07:01 PM
What really bothers me is that what is or isn't an infraction in the states would now be a federal offense.

"According to [the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration], more than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents,"


Statistic:
In 2009, there were 10,839 fatalities in crashes involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher - 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year.

Drunk driving is actually illegal and kills 3x as many people.

Distracted driving is a problem as much as voter fraud is a problem.
 
2011-12-13 06:31:58 PM

casual disregard: People commit crimes despite the fact that their actions are illegal ergo we should use the honor system for everything.


I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. Don't put words in my mouth because I didn't wholeheartedly agree with you.

I was pointing out that these laws may not be effective in combating the problem they are trying to solve.
 
2011-12-13 06:36:59 PM

Aarontology: casual disregard: People commit crimes despite the fact that their actions are illegal ergo we should use the honor system for everything.

I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. Don't put words in my mouth because I didn't wholeheartedly agree with you.

I was pointing out that these laws may not be effective in combating the problem they are trying to solve.


Fine. Which laws make us free and which ones make us slaves? This list begs to be published officially.
 
2011-12-13 06:40:07 PM

casual disregard: Fine. Which laws make us free and which ones make us slaves? This list begs to be published officially.


Oh. You're one of those types. I see there's no point in continuing this as you'll just completely ignore everything I say.

Good day.
 
2011-12-13 06:42:18 PM

casual disregard: I love you, weav, and I agree with you on so many levels, but I will have to agree to disagree with you here. Freedom is obviously good; it's also easily raped.


so because one person could potentially abuse 'freedom', you want to abolish it? if we take that view then because one person COULD abuse government authority then we need to abolish that as well.
 
2011-12-13 06:44:23 PM

Aarontology: casual disregard: Fine. Which laws make us free and which ones make us slaves? This list begs to be published officially.

Oh. You're one of those types. I see there's no point in continuing this as you'll just completely ignore everything I say.

Good day.


Weaver95: casual disregard: I love you, weav, and I agree with you on so many levels, but I will have to agree to disagree with you here. Freedom is obviously good; it's also easily raped.

so because one person could potentially abuse 'freedom', you want to abolish it? if we take that view then because one person COULD abuse government authority then we need to abolish that as well.


I officially concede defeat. We must immediately repeal all laws.
 
2011-12-13 06:46:18 PM

casual disregard: I officially concede defeat. We must immediately repeal all laws.


hey, that's YOUR argument, not mine. don't get cranky just because I drove a truck through the holes in your logic.
 
2011-12-13 06:47:42 PM
I thought the argument was that if it's illegal, don't do it and there won't be any trouble. Like weed. Or insider trading or stealing cable...
 
2011-12-13 06:48:17 PM

Weaver95: casual disregard: I officially concede defeat. We must immediately repeal all laws.

hey, that's YOUR argument, not mine. don't get cranky just because I drove a truck through the holes in your logic.


I'm not speaking from a position of being cranky, I'm speaking from the position of absolute ignorance. Which laws are worth retaining and which are wholly unreasonable?
 
2011-12-13 06:49:24 PM

Weaver95: hey, that's YOUR argument, not mine. don't get cranky just because I drove a truck through the holes in your logic.


Dude. There's no reasoning with ideological authoritarians.

To them there are only two scenarios: unquestioning submission to authority, or complete and total anarchy.
 
2011-12-13 06:49:52 PM

Aarontology: Don't ban cell phones while driving. It's not effective.

Make using a cell phone an automatic at fault in an accident.

Which do you think would be more effective? A $250 fine? Or total liability for any and all damages?


Which could be problematic once a drunk driver T-bones a guy with his cell phone out.
 
2011-12-13 06:50:29 PM

casual disregard: I'm not speaking from a position of being cranky, I'm speaking from the position of absolute ignorance.


you should go do something about that then. it's certainly not MY job to educate you.
 
2011-12-13 06:51:57 PM

RexTalionis: Which could be problematic once a drunk driver T-bones a guy with his cell phone out.


Well, I think drunk driving should take precedence when determining fault in that scenario.
 
2011-12-13 06:52:07 PM

Aarontology: Weaver95: hey, that's YOUR argument, not mine. don't get cranky just because I drove a truck through the holes in your logic.

Dude. There's no reasoning with ideological authoritarians.

To them there are only two scenarios: unquestioning submission to authority, or complete and total anarchy.


I consider authoritarians to be suffering from a mental illness. No, really - I think 'authortiarianism' should be in the DSM-IV. they need treatment for their disease, and a safe/controlled environment until they can be cured.
 
2011-12-13 06:54:00 PM

Aarontology: RexTalionis: Which could be problematic once a drunk driver T-bones a guy with his cell phone out.

Well, I think drunk driving should take precedence when determining fault in that scenario.


What if someone was just not careful and smacks a guy who just happens to have his cell phone out? For example, a month ago, a semi truck rearended me because the truck driver was tailgating me. If I was holding my phone at the time, would I be automatically at fault for something like that? Isn't that fundamentally unfair?
 
2011-12-13 06:54:11 PM
Severe intermittent random enforcement is an effective deterrent. Just as people buy lottery tickets, knowing the long odds, people will avoid cell use while driving if they know the government summarily executes 2500 people a year caught in the act. Pull 'em over and put a bullet between the eyes. Distracted cell driving will end, and the 15,000 people a year who die as a result will be saved. Kill 2,500 to save 15,000, and many who will be saved are innocents, while all who will be executed will be guilty. Problem solved.
 
2011-12-13 06:55:43 PM

Aarontology: Weaver95: hey, that's YOUR argument, not mine. don't get cranky just because I drove a truck through the holes in your logic.

Dude. There's no reasoning with ideological authoritarians.

To them there are only two scenarios: unquestioning submission to authority, or complete and total anarchy.


If I'm an authoritarian, then Sarah Palin is automatically President.

I don't just see all the shades of gray, I taste them also; it hurts. What do we do? Something, nothing?

Weaver95: you should go do something about that then. it's certainly not MY job to educate you.


You're right. It's not your job to show me anything. One of the most important virtues of our nation is isolationism. What's wrong with the world? Well, what's wrong with you?
 
2011-12-13 06:56:05 PM

Aarontology: I was pointing out that these laws may not be effective in combating the problem they are trying to solve.


This. Unlike, lets say laws against drugs, you have to make an attempt to possess and/or be in the possession of said banned substance.

Simply pocket/butt dialing while driving would be a federal offense. I'm cool if states want to impose fines on those who text/talk and drive. Fines are more effective. But we don't need to give the government another "reason" or "probable cause" to search us.

Not to mention, 3000 people killed per year is a drop in the bucket....especially for something that is not an infraction in most states.
 
Displayed 50 of 509 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report