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

Skip to comments.

Agency Aims to Regulate Map Aids in Vehicles
The New York Times ^ | Sunday, June 15, 2014 | Matthew L. Wald

Posted on 06/16/2014 12:41:11 PM PDT by Star Traveler

Getting directions on the road from Google Maps and other smartphone apps is a popular alternative to the expensive navigation aids included in some cars. The apps are also a gray area when it comes to laws banning the use of cellphones or texting while driving.

The Transportation Department wants to enter the argument.

The department is intensifying its battle against distracted driving by seeking explicit authority from Congress to regulate navigation aids of all types, including apps on smartphones.

The measure, included in the Obama administration’s proposed transportation bill, would specify that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to set restrictions on the apps and later order changes if they are deemed dangerous, much the way it currently regulates mechanical features of cars.

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: driving; mapapps
The Drudge Report says, "Obama's New War: Map Apps"!
1 posted on 06/16/2014 12:41:12 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I am sick to death of interventionist government.


2 posted on 06/16/2014 12:42:03 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Caliph Baraq:

Taking care of our every need.


3 posted on 06/16/2014 12:42:25 PM PDT by nascarnation (Toxic Baraq Syndrome: hopefully infecting a Dem candidate near you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

4 posted on 06/16/2014 12:44:12 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
What part of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal government authority to legislate or regulate any of this?

Or is NY going to do it statewide?

/johnny

5 posted on 06/16/2014 12:45:39 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

Preach it. Seems like nothing, NOTHING can come about with government meddling. Freaking tired of it in a big way.


6 posted on 06/16/2014 12:46:01 PM PDT by Ghost of SVR4 (So many are so hopelessly dependent on the government that they will fight to protect it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

I am sick to death of dodging distracted idiots yapping on their mobiles.


7 posted on 06/16/2014 12:48:05 PM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Ronnie could say simply what we all see. Where is our Ronald Reagan of today? We need him or her now more than ever!

But Reagan spent decades honing his arguments and views. Who is in wings? Do we have somebody in the wings?


8 posted on 06/16/2014 12:49:29 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

All of these bureaucrats should be fired, their offices demolished, and their departments eliminated. They have nothing useful to do.

If Johnny Boehner and the boys had anything resembling a spine, this would already have happened.


9 posted on 06/16/2014 12:50:14 PM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Commerce clause bundled with “Necessary and Proper” makes all things possible.


10 posted on 06/16/2014 12:50:23 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
That certainly wasn't the founder's intent.

/johnny

11 posted on 06/16/2014 12:51:16 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

They’ve got to know where to send the drones.


12 posted on 06/16/2014 12:51:59 PM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

Oh dear.

Your attitude, and your ( I assume) support for regulation is how it happens. Then you look up, and instead of just doing what you do, people are asking “is this legal” before passing gas and taking a step.

Creativity and innovation are stymied, independent thought is destroyed, and the government bigger and more expensive.


13 posted on 06/16/2014 12:52:32 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

Agreed and I’ll go a few steps more.

I am sick and tired of people who think they can drive but can’t drive a stick shift or understand the dynamics of motion.

Want to drive an automatic? Fine, learn on stick first. Earn the privilege to drive an automatic. Same with self driving cars.


14 posted on 06/16/2014 12:54:40 PM PDT by prisoner6 (Stop the Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

I don’t know what you are trying to say but it sounds like you don’t like having traffic laws. Maybe you would prefer anarchy?


15 posted on 06/16/2014 12:54:53 PM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

From Wiki, on the arguments for the ratification of Necessary and Proper:

The draft Necessary and Proper Clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to the Constitution’s ratification. While Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton spoke vigorously for this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers. At this time James Madison concurred with Hamilton, arguing in Federalist No. 44 that without this clause, the constitution would be a “dead letter”. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace individual liberty.[3]

I am with Patrick Henry on this.


16 posted on 06/16/2014 12:55:36 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
I am sick to death of dodging distracted idiots yapping on their mobiles.

Me too, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

17 posted on 06/16/2014 12:56:26 PM PDT by FreedomOfExpression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

I think traffic laws are a necessary evil. A minimalist approach is to be encouraged.

A government big enough to solve every problem is a government big enough to cause tyranny.

But do what you want.


18 posted on 06/16/2014 12:57:37 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6

So you want to make some new laws right? Because we don’t have enough?


19 posted on 06/16/2014 1:02:06 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
This is clearly a case where the federal government is overstepping its bounds, and infringing on the police powers of the States.

Your simplistic either/or nonsense ignores the constitutional role of the federal government.

/johnny

20 posted on 06/16/2014 1:03:46 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
First to be declared dangerous will be “Waze” and similar apps because they allow people to share where the revenuers are
21 posted on 06/16/2014 1:05:27 PM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane; RitchieAprile
I think traffic laws are a necessary evil. A minimalist approach is to be encouraged.

I agree. Reckless or distracted driving laws already on the books cover texting or talking on the cell phone while driving, and other dangerous behaviors. We don't need a new law or regulation to cover every conceivable situation.

22 posted on 06/16/2014 1:06:26 PM PDT by FreedomOfExpression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

More nanny state intrusion in the name of “safety.”


23 posted on 06/16/2014 1:06:39 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomOfExpression

Com on Freedom. What are all those attorneys working for the Fed, the States, the Counties and the Cities going to do all day if we don’t let them play at The Law? >S


24 posted on 06/16/2014 1:09:55 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

Oh, yeah. Cuz those are our only two choices: tyrannical over-regulation or anarchy.

He’s right. You and people like you are part of the problem.


25 posted on 06/16/2014 1:10:02 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

How is wanting people to hang up and drive part of the problem? I never said I wanted the Fedgov to deal with it.

I just said that I am fed up with the problem. It seems that
people here are jumping to unwarranted conclusions and putting words into peoples mouths. But then that’s a FR tradition...


26 posted on 06/16/2014 1:15:03 PM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

Nope. I want people to be able to pass a DRIVING test. Not how far you stop from a hydrant but the difference in positive and negative curves, understeer and oversteer, the dynamics of driving, how to handle a skid, NOT the stupid things that are taught and mandated today.


27 posted on 06/16/2014 1:20:51 PM PDT by prisoner6 (Stop the Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

The legislation we see on the street is a reflection of peoples attitudes towards government, and citizens demands for regulation.

You see an article about a Federal initiative to regulate hand-held devices, and you talk about how it makes you sick and tired of seeing people yap on phones.

Our regulations are focus grouped. That is the reality we live in. You are giving tactic approval for more regulation with your statement. How is this a stretch?

I see this initiative and I instantly want to push back. But your attitude prevails in minds and in the collective consciousness that drives focus groups and opinion studies.

We need people saying “NO”, saying “NO” unequivocally and with vigor. Otherwise we certainly will not be giving clear messages to the leaders of the idiotocracy.

But then again I don’t just want to stop the ever encroaching tide of regulation, I want to roll it back. How about you?


28 posted on 06/16/2014 1:23:05 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6

I will agree with you that nobody passes a “driving test” in this country.


29 posted on 06/16/2014 1:24:10 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

Especially when they are bleating in public thereby forcing all of us to listen. (When that happens I stop what I am doing and stare intently at the loud-mouth until they leave or stop. The ugly faces from these people is astounding. . .they are yelling into their phones and we are supposed to act like we don’t hear. . .but when we do show we can hear, they get all huffy about it. . .but I digress. . . )

In the car. . .what is the difference between a chronic radio dialer-twister, CD-changer or some guy that is arguing with someone in the car or conducting a one-sided debate with some talk radio show. All are distracted.


30 posted on 06/16/2014 1:30:59 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
Great another political scandal
Watergate
Iran-gate
now
Navigate
31 posted on 06/16/2014 1:31:42 PM PDT by tophat9000 (An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varyouga

We’ll just write a secret app for that as well....


32 posted on 06/16/2014 1:32:52 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I presume this will be a step towards removing computers from police cars.


33 posted on 06/16/2014 1:34:44 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

If I am forced to choose between anarchy and tyranny then I choose anarchy.


34 posted on 06/16/2014 1:39:48 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

The laws against phones are no gray area in California. Recently a driver was convicted of using the phone when he referred to the GPS function and a CHP bagman for Jerry Brown nailed him.


35 posted on 06/16/2014 2:11:59 PM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

The laws against phones are no gray area in California. Recently a driver was convicted of using the phone when he referred to the GPS function and a CHP bagman for Jerry Brown nailed him. The citation was upheld in court, and, presumably, all concerned got a nice share of the huge fine.

It’s all about the money.


36 posted on 06/16/2014 2:12:47 PM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

They are here to help. It’s for the children.


37 posted on 06/16/2014 2:15:05 PM PDT by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

A mounted or installed GPS receiver is the opposite of a distraction. I use mine so that I can concentrate on driving, rather than trying to read tiny, poorly lit, and poorly located street signs; or trying to read barely-visible house numbers. The audio alerts, and an occasional quick glance are all I need.

OTOH, attempting to adjust a GPS (whether mounted or hand-held; and whether a dedicated device or a phone app) while driving is very distracting. Don’t do that.


38 posted on 06/16/2014 2:37:55 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

I use Apple Maps with their verbal driving cues, on my iPad ... and it’s great! I don’t have to look at anything.


39 posted on 06/16/2014 2:42:31 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler; USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Google maps has verbal cues too.

What USFRIENDINVICTORIA was referring to is fiddling with a device while you are driving, like opening the app and entering the address.
40 posted on 06/16/2014 3:47:11 PM PDT by FreedomOfExpression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DPMD

a CHP bagman for Jerry Brown

xlnt


41 posted on 06/16/2014 3:49:21 PM PDT by morphing libertarian ( On to impeachment and removal (IRS, Taliban, Fast and furious, VA, Benghazi)!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

I still didn’t say anything about the Fedgov dealing with the problem.

And its not the seeing people yap that is the problem, its the very real swerving into my lane that is the problem.

I want laws and courts to deal with the matter, not lynch mobs as some here would seem to prefer.


42 posted on 06/16/2014 4:10:09 PM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

Who wants lynch mobs?


43 posted on 06/16/2014 5:27:03 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | 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