Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stop Sign Ahead for Texting While Driving? (Obama Will Stop It)
AP ^ | 10/01/09 | KEN THOMAS

Posted on 10/01/2009 9:56:35 AM PDT by nickcarraway

Determined to stop people from texting while driving, the Obama administration plans a campaign similar to past government efforts to discourage drunken driving and encourage the use of seat belts.

The administration planned to offer recommendations Thursday to address the growing safety risk of distracted drivers, especially the use of mobile devices to send messages from behind the wheel.

"We can really eliminate texting while driving. That should be our goal," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, declining to provide specifics of the recommendations.

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cellphones; dwi; textdriving; texting

1 posted on 10/01/2009 9:56:36 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I have no problem with this.


2 posted on 10/01/2009 9:57:22 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
When they pry my PDA from my cold dead hands!

Actually, I think cellphone OK, texting bad while driving.

3 posted on 10/01/2009 10:00:09 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
"I have no problem with this."

I don't like people who text and drive either, but I do have a problem with the federal government holding states hostage to federal funds in order to make states do something the fed has no authority to control.

"Their legislation would require states to ban texting or e-mailing while operating a moving vehicle or lose 25 percent of their annual federal highway funding."

4 posted on 10/01/2009 10:00:22 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

They could use Tweeter, to send everyone text messages about the dangers of texting and driving. The messages could include a callback number, for more information.


5 posted on 10/01/2009 10:00:28 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Hey BO

After you bring about world peace, social justice, universal healthcare, an end to racism, personally design a better car for GM, and stop people from texting while driving-

I have this nail fungus I’d like you to look at


6 posted on 10/01/2009 10:00:37 AM PDT by silverleaf (If we are astroturf, why are the democrats trying to mow us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The answer is really pretty simple. Do away with cell phone texting altogether. If cell phones are not capable of texting, then, no more distracted drivers due to texting. Never mind that pesky little issue of personal responsibility.


7 posted on 10/01/2009 10:01:45 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier whose wife is expecting twins SONS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Why don’t you pick me up and burp me and tuck me into bed and read me a story while you’re at it, Ray?


8 posted on 10/01/2009 10:03:14 AM PDT by denydenydeny ("I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist"-Dr House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Another war on something or other.

The only thing this will do is provide more job security for trial lawyers.

9 posted on 10/01/2009 10:03:45 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Ask not what the Kennedys can do for you, but what you can do for the Kennedys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

All they have to do us utilize the GPS function (built into the phone) in the text program. If you are moving at a rate greater than 10 miles per hour, then the texting function would be disabled.

The trouble would then be that you could not send texts if you were on a bus, train or riding in the car with someone else driving.

What I can see, and what I woudl approve of, is a charge of INTENTIONAL CONTRIBUTION TO AN ACCIDENT - with a very substancial fiscal and legal liability. Text and drive, get in an accident while texting; you just gave up a huge fine, and are liable for a percentage of your income for the next ‘x’ years.

Text and kill someone through involuntary manslaughter - bump the involuntary manslaughter charge to voluntary manslaughter.

Make it hurt enough, and people will comply. If little missy and junior wanna text on their way to high school; then mommy and daddy lose their home. If mommy and daddy can’t or won’t teach their kids the basics; then Mommy and Daddy can pay the costs of their offsprings indescretions.


10 posted on 10/01/2009 10:06:31 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Ah, maybe we need to keep the cell phones with texting but get rid of all the automobiles! That would make everything green, too! We all know how many people automobiles kill.
(Sarcasm)


11 posted on 10/01/2009 10:07:42 AM PDT by HopeSprings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
It is so very easy to electronically block driver only cell phone usage while in a moving vehicle. There are many existing technologies out there already to do exactly this.

Of course the government's intent will not be to actually stop it, but to make money off of it via fines and to use it as an excuse to search and seize property.

12 posted on 10/01/2009 10:12:29 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Good luck enforcing it.


13 posted on 10/01/2009 10:17:54 AM PDT by Feasor13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I just sent this missive to my Congressman. Of course this more than solves the problem and creates jobs and wealth so.....

:Auto Auto!

The 2004 Toyota Prius was offered with an automatic parallel parking option that costs $1980. I asked myself, If the vehicle has a built in servo system to control the accelerator and wheels to perform a parallel park maneuver what else would be needed to produce an auto which could drive cross town, state or country? The US Navy has developed a GPS based automated landing system for its carrier based aircraft. Boeing has tested a commercial grade GPS based landing system on a B-737 which has proven accurate to with 6 feet of the planned touch down point on a runway.

Suppose we enlist the support of the high tech industries and schools in the DFW area. We ask them to deliver a system for $1980, which would address the whole commute issue. I’m not a traffic engineer but isn’t routing packets on the Internet and automobiles on North Central the same thing? Could the likes of Texas Instruments, Cisco Systems, Alcatel, Northern Telecom and other Telecom corridor enterprises build the necessary control system for the automobiles and design the network architecture for the DFW highway network? Would the same GPS that provides precision guidance for bombs deliver our cars to our work destination? Would the MapQuest driving instructions be the basis for automatic automobile control systems? Would our Engineering schools at SMU, TCU, UTD and all those other characters, (no not the engineers!), lead the way?

The cell phone system already tracks our cell phones. GPS location finding capabilities are existent. A fully automated traffic light system with school zones and other situations properly addressed would speed up our commutes. If the DFW area decided to produce such a system and test and debug it in the local area would we create jobs? When successful, would we own a system that could be sold to other cities around the world? Would we create additional jobs and wealth for the Metroplex? I repeat, the Metroplex has the engineering, communications and aerospace companies which can produce a real 21st Century transportation system. It would be efficient and effective! Heck, we might also build a Metroplex commute vehicle which carries two people, the minimum of cargo and gets extraordinary gas mileage. It might look like a 1960 MG Midget and we would export that vehicle along with the transportation control system. I have been accused of being a dreamer! But I can dream can’t I?

14 posted on 10/01/2009 10:19:42 AM PDT by Young Werther ("Quae Cum Ita Sunt - Julius Caesar "Since these things are so!">)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

but Officer....I was just sending a contribution to MyBarackObama.com.....


15 posted on 10/01/2009 10:19:45 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Had a very close call on I40 while trying to text and drive.

Never going to do that again.

Cell phone use is by comparison no problem at all.


16 posted on 10/01/2009 10:19:56 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

See my post! Solves boeth problems


17 posted on 10/01/2009 10:21:42 AM PDT by Young Werther ("Quae Cum Ita Sunt - Julius Caesar "Since these things are so!">)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: avacado

See my post! Solves both problems


18 posted on 10/01/2009 10:22:06 AM PDT by Young Werther ("Quae Cum Ita Sunt - Julius Caesar "Since these things are so!">)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

See my post! Solves both problems


19 posted on 10/01/2009 10:22:29 AM PDT by Young Werther ("Quae Cum Ita Sunt - Julius Caesar "Since these things are so!">)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

See my post! Solves both problems


20 posted on 10/01/2009 10:22:52 AM PDT by Young Werther ("Quae Cum Ita Sunt - Julius Caesar "Since these things are so!">)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

More nanny state BS. Ban changing the radio channel while driving. Ban adjusting your mirror while driving. Ban eating while driving and drinking any liquid while driving. Where and when is this BS from the feds going to stop?


21 posted on 10/01/2009 10:25:23 AM PDT by ChuckHam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HopeSprings

Well, then we’d also need to get rid of bicycles; and bathtubs; and swimming pools; and . . . you get the idea.


22 posted on 10/01/2009 10:25:26 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier whose wife is expecting twins SONS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

impaired driving is impaired driving.


23 posted on 10/01/2009 10:31:20 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HopeSprings

Every study done on ANY type of cellphone usage while driving has shown that it impairsthe drivers response times. Even handsfree devices have been shown to impair the driver.
I do not even answer my phone when I am driving and my vehicle has built in bluetooth.
Maybe some people see this as an infringement on their rights, but the last thing I want is to be injured or kill by some idiot gossiping about some garbage.


24 posted on 10/01/2009 10:35:17 AM PDT by Wooly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
I have no problem with this.

Well, you should.

At least as Rush explained it, Obama is making it illegal for Federal Government employees to text while driving. I'm not sure how he can do this, but let's assume that he does it.

Who is going to enforce this? Are we now going to have the FBI (I for investigation, BTW) or some new Federal Gestapo patrolling our roads and highways? Does it matter to you that traffic laws are State laws? Does it matter to you that we're supposed to all be subject to the same laws, you know equal protection, and this clown wants to have laws that only apply to one segment of the population. Unless, of course, he sees us all as eventual employees of the Federal Government.

Sure, texting while driving is dangerous and stupid. But let's not tolerate "laws" by decree from even our Dear Leader.

ML/NJ

25 posted on 10/01/2009 10:40:14 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Texting while driving (or putting on makeup, or reading, or working on a laptop, or any other act other than keeping full attention upon driving) is not “IMPAIRED” driving. It is “DISTRACTED” driving. These are behaviors of choice that some people engage in. Impaired driving is not a behavior of choice after the person enters the vehicle and begins to drive - rather, it is a behavior the person no longer has control over once the choice to drive impaired has been made. If I’m driving and texting, I can choose to either stop that behavior or pull off the road and continue my texting. However, if I am impaired, I do not have the immediate ability to change that behavior (whether due to alcohol, drugs, or medications). I will be impaired while driving until such time as the cause of the impairment wears off. Forgive my lengthy rant, but there is a clear difference.


26 posted on 10/01/2009 10:41:18 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier whose wife is expecting twins SONS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

With cell phones having GPS this shouldnt be a problem to program in. If you are moving more than a certain speed, texting doesnt work. Sort of like my *#$ GPS navigation unit. I can’t program it until stopped.

Would suck if you were a passenger tho.


27 posted on 10/01/2009 10:43:09 AM PDT by freedomlover (Make sure you're in love - before you move in the heavy stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Imairment doesn’t have to be drunk or pills. You can be tired. You can be sick.

They are impairments.

when your hands are off the wheel and you are pre-occupied with hunting for text characters on a keypad, you are way more than just “distracted”. You are not paying attention to the road and cars around you.

Put down the electronic pacifier and drive.


28 posted on 10/01/2009 10:44:21 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Censure Roman Polanski and move on... < /sarc >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I don’t want to see Federal enforcement over local municipalities when it comes to private individuals driving.

But federal employees fall under the control of the federal government.

And ultimately the taxpayer is responsible for bailing out the damages they cause.


29 posted on 10/01/2009 10:46:41 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Censure Roman Polanski and move on... < /sarc >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Pure unadulterated liberal idiocy to assume that a specific law is needed to enforce what a general law already covers.

Is anyone here ignorant enough to think that if a LEO sees you texting while driving that they will not pull you over and ticket you for unsafe operation of a motor vehicle?

30 posted on 10/01/2009 10:49:05 AM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I think it would make much more sense to have a war on bad drivers.


31 posted on 10/01/2009 10:49:12 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
I have this nail fungus I’d like you to look at..

Have you tried vinegar soak and Vapo-rub?

32 posted on 10/01/2009 10:49:52 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
And ultimately the taxpayer is responsible for bailing out the damages they cause.

What? Are you nuts?

Some guy is driving home from work some place in Maryland and you get into an accident with him; and now you're going to ask him who he works for? And then sue his employer? Get real!

ML/NJ

33 posted on 10/01/2009 10:52:10 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther

Everyone would have to be in the automated vehicles and not be able to control the vehicle. Too many times during my commute do I see people whip across lanes where there isn’t room, causing people behind to slam their brakes to avoid the collision.

This then becomes very similar to public transportation, which really sucks.


34 posted on 10/01/2009 10:57:20 AM PDT by ican'tbelieveit (Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team# 36120), KW:Folding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: avacado

well, it’s not like the states have a right to federal $. If you want federal $, you have to meet federal conditions. Otherwise raise the money yourself.


35 posted on 10/01/2009 11:01:13 AM PDT by ari-freedom (Fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

There are already public servants who are having accidents on the job.

Look at the homosexual who was texting while driving a rail line.

You have to look to private industry to find restrictions (like no smoking) on off-hours activity.


36 posted on 10/01/2009 11:05:02 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Federal highway funds come from gasoline sales in those states. Already there is an unequal distribution (southern states give more into the system and New England takes more out).

Given how much land there is in “flyover country”, it is as Barack would say “economic injustice”.


37 posted on 10/01/2009 11:06:49 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
"well, it’s not like the states have a right to federal $. If you want federal $, you have to meet federal conditions. Otherwise raise the money yourself."

Aaahhh!!! But there's the catch! The federal government doesn't make any money. Where does federal money come from?

38 posted on 10/01/2009 11:07:23 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Why not just INACTIVATE texting on all US phones? That would take 10 minutes for the Telco’s to accomplish.


39 posted on 10/01/2009 11:12:09 AM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

If directed at me - I do not text while driving. Nor do I use a handset cell phone while driving. I do use a bluetooth, but only rarely do I answer calls while driving and then for an extremely short time, and with eyes focused on the road (in front, on sides, to the rear) at all times. You are correct to say impairment includes being tired or even sick. But, I disagree that using a cell phone to text, or reading, or any other “activity” while driving is an impairment - it’s distracted driving - it’s dangerous - it should never be done - period. Anyone responsible for an accident while attempting to text, read, put on makeup, use a computer, etc, etc, should not only be held fully responsible to the highest degree by law and civily, but should have their drivers license revoked permenently.


40 posted on 10/01/2009 11:22:13 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier whose wife is expecting twins SONS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther

Here’s your falacy.

An aircraft runway has constant communciations going on, telling of arrivals, departures and taxi status. This is communicated and controlled, through levels of software and overseen by human beings. The airport also has a fence around it. We don’t have deers, cattle, little old ladies or drunk drivers on our runways.

A road has no communications, so while your theory of navigating across the city sound great, what happens when you have a kid on a bicycle tip over? Or a deer wanders on the road? A car has a flat tire? Granny crosses the street at a random spot? Little kid chases the ball onto the street?

Splat. The great thing about humans, is that we can react quickly, and most of the time our reaction is timely and intelligent - thus more often than not, we avoid accidents.

This is why, despite the technology to land these aircraft safely exists - it exists as an emergency backup measure only. Every aircraft in the world, that carries humans, has a human as a pilot. The pilot alone assumes control of the aircraft upon both take-off and especially during landing.

So, while the theory sounds great - real life is a great deal more complex.


41 posted on 10/01/2009 11:38:42 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
I have no problem with this.

I do.

He has no constitutional power to mess with something that should be governed by the states.

42 posted on 10/01/2009 11:41:30 AM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: avacado
I agree 100%

I am not a fan of Assault rifles and cannot ever see myself owning one. BUT, I would never concede my right or anyone else owning one.

Stupid is what stupid does.

43 posted on 10/01/2009 11:45:09 AM PDT by BornToBeAmerican (We the people, ..... never)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wooly
Maybe some people see this as an infringement on their rights, but the last thing I want is to be injured or kill by some idiot gossiping about some garbage.

While you're at it, then, ban car radios, talking amongst passengers, eating and drinking, bickering kids, maps, GPS systems, anything and everything that could possibly distract a driver. How about roadblocks to check for evidence of french fries in the floorboard?

(The road to hell--and fascism--is paved with good intentions.)

44 posted on 10/01/2009 11:54:59 AM PDT by shezza (A government that gives you everything you want can take away everything you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
i hate it when people walk too slowly on the sidewalk. it's dangerous and people get hurt. i think we need a federal law against slow walkers.

close-talkers spread germs. we need a law against that too.

45 posted on 10/01/2009 11:57:35 AM PDT by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Already laws on the books against reckless driving. Not needed.


46 posted on 10/01/2009 11:59:59 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shezza
It is strange that when we talk of the use of cellphones in vehicle that people adopt a libertarian view that I have this right. As such would you be in favor of doing away with speed limits, driver's licenses, drunk driving laws, age limits on driving, probably not.
The one legitimate area that government has a responsibility is Public Safety and the use of cellphone usage while driving is proving to be a safety issue that is increasing rapidly.
Studies have shown that driving a vehicle down a road uses one heck of a lot of your brain's capacity to process the information you encounter. At the same time when you talk on a phone your brain also devotes it's attention to hearing, digesting the information, formulating a response, and delivering that response, at which time it repeats the process. This is why when you are behind someone talking on a phone you often see them slowing down and then speeding up, Making hand gestures and taking their hands off the steering wheel, or as I have witnessed running into the back of another car without even braking.
Phone usage, of any type, in vehicles that are in motion is more dangerous than a drunk behind the wheel.
Before there were cell phones, you did not need to stop at every pay phone you pasted to call someone about some garbage, so why do people need to drive around talking all the time.
47 posted on 10/01/2009 12:45:11 PM PDT by Wooly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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