Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Trucker Cell Phone, Texting Ban Premature?
Bob McCarty Writes ^ | 1-29-10 | Bob McCarty

Posted on 01/29/2010 11:45:24 AM PST by BobMcCartyWrites

Only three days after Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced the new rules that prohibit drivers of trucks and buses from using cell phones and texting while behind the wheel, officials at the Highway Loss Data Institute released study findings that show no reductions in crashes after hand-held phone bans take effect.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet; Government
KEYWORDS: cellphone; textmessage; transportation; truck
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: discostu
Did you actually read the post you replied to? Way back in post #2 I said that.

And yet you are still in favor of a law that won't actually do anything?

41 posted on 01/29/2010 1:37:25 PM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane

And here you go again making up things that weren’t said. There’s a large gap between not doing anything and solving the problem. Stiffer drunk driving laws did solve the problem, but they did greatly reduce it. Eventually these laws will probably reduce the problem too. It IS a problem, the vast majority of people just plain can’t handle their can and cell phone at the same time, and these people are killing others, and it’s time to at least slow it down. We can’t stop it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not doing anything.


42 posted on 01/29/2010 1:42:12 PM PST by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Just a minute. I’m much more alert when I make calls on my cell. We have a law against holding the phone and I have increased my looking out for the highway patrol.


43 posted on 01/29/2010 1:44:58 PM PST by votemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
Texting is the stupidest thing i’ve ever heard of anyway!

Yeah, and those motorized cars, TV's and computers will never amount to nothing either.

44 posted on 01/29/2010 1:47:09 PM PST by Eaker (Where I'm from, "Gang Colors" is Realtree and Mossy Oak. You know what I'm saying hoss. Rule.308.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: discostu
ventually these laws will probably reduce the problem too. It IS a problem, the vast majority of people just plain can’t handle their can and cell phone at the same time, and these people are killing others, and it’s time to at least slow it down. We can’t stop it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not doing anything.

So you're in favor of a law that will do something but not entirely solve the problem and if the law is intrusive and statist, that's ok.

And apparently you think that special training makes it okay for certain people to be immune from the law but not for mandating that training for everyone instead of having an overly intrusive and statist law that punishes everyone.

Don't want to get accused of putting words in your mouth again, so let me know what part is not accurate.

45 posted on 01/29/2010 2:05:16 PM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane

Let’s play the game your way, since you enjoy putting words in people’s mouth so much (which you did, again, with this post).

So you think that if a law can’t 100% completely solve a problem, thoroughly irradiating the behavior in question, we shouldn’t make it? You’re in favor of eliminating all laws that ever failed to entirely solve a problem?

Let me know if you actually want to discuss what’s actually being said. So far for the last half dozen post all you’ve done is make stupid crap up (much like I did above) and pretend that’s what I’m saying.


46 posted on 01/29/2010 2:11:15 PM PST by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: discostu
So you think that if a law can’t 100% completely solve a problem, thoroughly irradiating the behavior in question, we shouldn’t make it? You’re in favor of eliminating all laws that ever failed to entirely solve a problem?

Mostly. Rather than pass a law that doesn't work, how about we find something that does work and then do that instead? Especially when the law that doesn't work takes rights away from people who are not harming anyone.

The reality is that most of these laws that "don't 100% completely solve the problem" were never intended to solve the problem at all. Rather they were written by someone who saw either a way for government to further intrude into the lives of people or they saw a way for the government to gain more revenue.

And then they sold those laws to people by saying, "It's a first step. Yes, some people will have to give up a few rights but that's the cost when you are wrapping people up in a legal blanky so they will feel safe."

The only just duty that a government has is to protect the rights of it's citizens. If you have to take some rights away to ensure safety, you've failed.

You can can have safety. Or you can can have freedom. Don't count on having both.

Me, I would rather have freedom. How about you?

47 posted on 01/29/2010 2:19:54 PM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane

It can’t work that way. If you get rid of laws that don’t eliminate the problem you might as well burn the law book. The second somebody robs a bank they just proved that the bank robbery laws don’t work (bank robbery not eliminated) so out they go. Oops a woman got raped, so much for those laws. Identify theft, fraud, bribery, you name it.

Again it goes back to what I said in post number 2, people don’t stop doing something because it’s illegal. How you want laws to work isn’t how people work. Laws don’t prevent, they PUNISH.


48 posted on 01/29/2010 2:24:45 PM PST by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: discostu
How you want laws to work isn’t how people work. Laws don’t prevent, they PUNISH.

So the guy zipping down the road, texting his wife, obeying all other traffic laws and harming no one, gets punished because a cop sees him and pulls him over.

And this is okay with you? A person who has harmed no one gets punished?

49 posted on 01/31/2010 8:01:10 PM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane

If he’s obeying all the other traffic laws and harming no one he won’t get caught. We already went over this.


50 posted on 01/31/2010 8:05:14 PM PST by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: discostu
If he’s obeying all the other traffic laws and harming no one he won’t get caught.

I do believe that we ("we" being the two different groups, the freedom lovers and the law-and-order types) back when the seat belt laws first went into affect.

"Oh, don't worry!" they said, "It's only going to be a secondary offense. No one will EVER get pulled over and ticketed for not wearing a seat belt."

And now it happens regularly. I have zero faith that just because you think it won't happen next week that we won't be living with this pointless and overly invasive law long after the trolls that defended it have vanished.

It always works that way. The DUI laws get stricter and stricter until they are no longer about getting drunks off the road. The seat belt laws, the helmet laws, the child seat laws, now it's texting and cell phones. Offer me one example of a law that restricts a driver's freedom that has never gotten worse and then I'll bite.

If it's a safety issue then it should apply to everyone on the road. If cops are exempt then it's not a safety law.

The reality is that this is just ANOTHER nanny-state, freedom-restricting statist intrusion.

51 posted on 01/31/2010 8:18:29 PM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane

I’ve never seen anybody get pulled over just for not wearing a seat belt. The fact of the matter is cops pass by hundreds, maybe thousands, of cars a day. They pull people over who draw attention to themselves. If you can keep it at the speed limit and between the lines you won’t draw attention to yourself, you can be drunk, texting and not wearing a seat belt but if you’re keeping it together they won’t even notice you.


52 posted on 02/01/2010 7:02:36 AM PST by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: discostu
I’ve never seen anybody get pulled over just for not wearing a seat belt.

I have.

If you can keep it at the speed limit and between the lines you won’t draw attention to yourself, you can be drunk, texting and not wearing a seat belt but if you’re keeping it together they won’t even notice you.

Maybe so. But I don't care. Passing a law that has unwritten rules about how it is enforced is just plain stupid. Sooner or later those unwritten rules disappear and we're stuck with it.

53 posted on 02/02/2010 11:08:34 AM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane

There’s not unwritten rule, it’s a simple matter of logistics, if you’re keeping control of your car cops can’t tell if you’re breaking one of the rules that exists to force you to keep control of your car. They can only tell if you’re NOT keeping control of your car, at which point they pull you over and figure out why and give you the appropriate ticket. That’s how all traffic laws worked and have worked and always will work.


54 posted on 02/02/2010 2:37:39 PM PST by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: discostu
There’s not unwritten rule, it’s a simple matter of logistics,

No, it's an unwritten rule. The written rule says, "No texting while driving."

The unwritten rule says, "We can't really monitor the inside of your car, so just don't drive badly and we won't pull you over for texting while driving."

Note that what that really means is: "We can't really monitor the inside of your car yet."

There have been idiot legislators that have suggested linking into the onboard computers in cars to see if people have been speeding. How long until one of them suggests that since web cams are so cheap and most cars have onboard computers, lets record people while they drive?

55 posted on 02/03/2010 2:26:52 PM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane

That’s not an unwritten rule. that’s just you whining for a week now defending an indefensibly stupid behavior that gets people killed. Get over yourself.


56 posted on 02/03/2010 6:51:57 PM PST by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: discostu
That’s not an unwritten rule.

Nice spin. Here's the fact. The law doesn't say, "Texting while driving is illegal but unless you weave we won't pull you over."

So since that part that you claim makes it okay isn't written into the law, that makes it unwritten.

Was that in small enough words for you?

Get over yourself.

Typical statist trash. When someone points out that your feel-good, nanny-state law is just that, you get all huffy and start going emo.

I'm sorry that you are too stupid or too uncoordinated to text and drive. You have a right to not text and drive.

When you think that no one else should either and support having people with guns enforce it, expect real conservatives to call you on it.

57 posted on 02/04/2010 12:07:01 PM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane

What can’t you understand about LOGISTICS. If you’re not weaving they don’t know you’re doing anything wrong, PERIOD. Therefore they don’t pull you over, PERIOD. That’s not an unwritten rule and saying it is is spin.

And now you’ve resorted to insults, thus proving you know you have no point and that l9ogic is against you. So we’re done.


58 posted on 02/04/2010 12:19:45 PM PST by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: discostu
What can’t you understand about LOGISTIC

As opposed to you not understanding ENGLISH. I fully understand that TODAY it isn't possible to monitor every driver in every car to see if they are texting. And that can change for the worse.

Therefore they don’t pull you over, PERIOD.

Which is entirely different than them not being able to pull you over because the law says so.

And now you’ve resorted to insults,

Which you started in post 56. So you can dish it out but not take it?

So we’re done.

Great. You can cede the point and go away.

59 posted on 02/04/2010 12:31:05 PM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson