Skip to comments.Agency Aims to Regulate Map Aids in Vehicles
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 administrations 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 ...
I am sick to death of interventionist government.
Taking care of our every need.
Or is NY going to do it statewide?
Preach it. Seems like nothing, NOTHING can come about with government meddling. Freaking tired of it in a big way.
I am sick to death of dodging distracted idiots yapping on their mobiles.
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?
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.
Commerce clause bundled with “Necessary and Proper” makes all things possible.
They’ve got to know where to send the drones.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I am with Patrick Henry on this.
Me too, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand?
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.
So you want to make some new laws right? Because we don’t have enough?
Your simplistic either/or nonsense ignores the constitutional role of the federal government.