Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80

Thread: Schumer would force all states to ban texting while driving

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Senate Introduces Bill to Ban Texting While Driving

    A bill introduced today in the Senate would ban motorists from texting or sending e-mail messages while driving.

    "Nobody was texting five years ago," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the bill's sponsors. "All of a sudden everybody is. It's both widespread and dangerous."

    The bill would force states to write laws to prohibit messaging in vehicles or risk losing 25 percent of their annual federal highway money. Federal lawmakers have used similar strategies to force states to curb speeding and pass seat-belt laws. The new legislation would also set deadlines for regulators at the U.S. Transportation Department to devise minimum penalties for states to implement. States would have two years to enact their own laws.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , Georgia, USA
    Posts
    91

    Post imported post

    But but but. He said that firearms permit reciprocity should be up to the States to decide. Why should this be any different!?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Reminds me of when Ohio voted against raising the drinking age to 21 (you could drink beer at 19 back in the day), only to have the feds blackmail us into raising it by threatening to withhold highway funds. A tried and true method.

    -ljp

  4. #4
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Peacemaker wrote:
    But but but. He said that firearms permit reciprocity should be up to the States to decide. Why should this be any different!?
    Oh sure, isn't this a States Rights issue? :?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    Reminds me of when Ohio voted against raising the drinking age to 21 (you could drink beer at 19 back in the day), only to have the feds blackmail us into raising it by threatening to withhold highway funds. A tried and true method.

    -ljp
    Yes, and I think that was Mike's alternate approach to the Thune amendment.

    Say Mike, what are your thoughts of an amendment to Schumer's bill?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    He really should be trying to stop eating and driving..

    http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100220294.html

    That'd go over like a lead balloon.

    Carry on

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466

    Post imported post

    good idea - bad law

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Already have a law. Careless driving. Reckless driving. Whatever.

    We do NOT need more laws.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    Reminds me of when Ohio voted against raising the drinking age to 21 (you could drink beer at 19 back in the day), only to have the feds blackmail us into raising it by threatening to withhold highway funds. A tried and true method.

    -ljp
    And that is how it will get shoved down the states' throats. I must agree with Schumer on the need to prohibit texting while driving, as much as it pains me to agree with that bastard on anything, though I disagree on how to implement such a law. It should be done by state statutes, willingly, and not federal mandate.

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    I wonder if there is a jamming mechanism, able to fit in the trunk of my car, that might be available to eliminate all automobile-sourced texting in a protective bubble around me of, oh, about 1/4 mile?

    Anybody know of one?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    I wonder if there is a jamming mechanism, able to fit in the trunk of my car, that might be available to eliminate all automobile-sourced texting in a protective bubble around me of, oh, about 1/4 mile?

    Anybody know of one?
    Yes. The FCC will not allow private ownership of cell jammers.....yet.

    Jails/Prisons are trying to get exemptions.

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    TheMrMitch wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    I wonder if there is a jamming mechanism, able to fit in the trunk of my car, that might be available to eliminate all automobile-sourced texting in a protective bubble around me of, oh, about 1/4 mile?

    Anybody know of one?
    Yes. The FCC will not allow private ownership of cell jammers.....yet.
    Drat. I knew there'd be some non-technology hang-up.

    Actually, I'd only need half a bubble. I'm not too concerned about texting in cars in front of me. But I'm totally freaked by it in cars behind me.

    Hmmm, just thought of this. What if the government (say, the states) put up texting jammers???? Sayatintersections, or tricky stretches of roads???

    Bingo! That would work.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    I agree with you. However......jammer can't be selective and would jam emergency calls/texts too. That's why FCC won't clear the issuance of them yet.

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    TheMrMitch wrote:
    I agree with you. However......jammer can't be selective and would jam emergency calls/texts too. That's why FCC won't clear the issuance of them yet.
    Good points.

    Hmmm. OK, another brainstorm. Here it is. This would be a totally passive "control." In fact, it wouldn't be a control at all on people who were texting (or on a voice call, too).

    A device, a telephonic gateway of some type would be installed in the automobile--by law, no exceptions.

    Any cellular communication device used by the driver would have to go through the gateway--again, by law. But no constraints on when, where or what comms the driver does (talk, browsing, texting, etc.)

    But, anytime the driver is online, a big amber light on top of the vehicle would flash on and off. This flashing amber light would have to be visible from all directions from a distance of at least 350 feet.

    The flashing light will alert the rest of us to keep an eye on the texter (or caller, or browzer). We can take avoidance action if advisable or preferable...

    Simple.

    I'm pretty sure thisone would work.



  15. #15
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    The technically challenged, being completely unaware of such technology, would be confused by the apparent malfunction of their device, and divert even more attention to the phone, and away from their driving.

    This would cause more accidents than it would prevent.

    TFred

  16. #16
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Less laws, not more please

  17. #17
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    Senate Introduces Bill to Ban Texting While Driving

    A bill introduced today in the Senate would ban motorists from texting or sending e-mail messages while driving.

    "Nobody was texting five years ago," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the bill's sponsors. "All of a sudden everybody is. It's both widespread and dangerous."

    The bill would force states to write laws to prohibit messaging in vehicles or risk losing 25 percent of their annual federal highway money. Federal lawmakers have used similar strategies to force states to curb speeding and pass seat-belt laws. The new legislation would also set deadlines for regulators at the U.S. Transportation Department to devise minimum penalties for states to implement. States would have two years to enact their own laws.
    Having been personally run off the road by an idiot with a cell phone. I'm in favor of any law banning use of the Godd***d things while operating a vehicle.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I will add my two cents...

    First off.. in Virginia it is a secondary violation. So you have to do something else AND be texting before I can stop you.

    Let me just say that seat belts are the same way and it is hard to get them too.

    But at least with a seat belt you are doing a visible violation for a long time. This gives me a chance to see it and look for some other violation.

    How long does it take to text someone... a few seconds here and there. And then I have to be side by side with you to watch you.

    If I am side by side you will see me and maybe not do it or keep it in your lap out of sight.

    But even if you do... being obvious as hell... and in my face.. as long as your tags are current, you do not speed, you signal on lane changes, and do not follow to closely... there is nothing I can do to you.

    They say texting is worse that being DWI... but they made it a secondary violation. oh man!!! :shock:

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    I wonder if there is a jamming mechanism, able to fit in the trunk of my car, that might be available to eliminate all automobile-sourced texting in a protective bubble around me of, oh, about 1/4 mile?

    Anybody know of one?
    I don't know how much range these products have, but if you're willing to break the law, (and have the money), you could buy something from these people.

    http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I will add my two cents...

    First off.. in Virginia it is a secondary violation. So you have to do something else AND be texting before I can stop you.

    Let me just say that seat belts are the same way and it is hard to get them too.

    But at least with a seat belt you are doing a visible violation for a long time. This gives me a chance to see it and look for some other violation.

    How long does it take to text someone... a few seconds here and there. And then I have to be side by side with you to watch you.

    If I am side by side you will see me and maybe not do it or keep it in your lap out of sight.

    But even if you do... being obvious as hell... and in my face.. as long as your tags are current, you do not speed, you signal on lane changes, and do not follow to closely... there is nothing I can do to you.

    They say texting is worse that being DWI... but they made it a secondary violation. oh man!!! :shock:
    South Carolina made failure to wear a safety belt a primary violation last year.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I will add my two cents...

    First off.. in Virginia it is a secondary violation. So you have to do something else AND be texting before I can stop you.

    Let me just say that seat belts are the same way and it is hard to get them too.

    But at least with a seat belt you are doing a visible violation for a long time. This gives me a chance to see it and look for some other violation.

    How long does it take to text someone... a few seconds here and there. And then I have to be side by side with you to watch you.

    If I am side by side you will see me and maybe not do it or keep it in your lap out of sight.

    But even if you do... being obvious as hell... and in my face.. as long as your tags are current, you do not speed, you signal on lane changes, and do not follow to closely... there is nothing I can do to you.

    They say texting is worse that being DWI... but they made it a secondary violation. oh man!!! :shock:
    I personally would separate these issues. In fact, I'd not even make a law requiring seat belts. And same goes for motorcycle helmet requirment.The difference is that by not wearing a seatbelt (or a helmet on a motorcycle) you only endagering yourself. If you are stupid enough to do so - go ahead. I view that as a part of personal freedom.

    Texting while driving much like a DWI is an entirely different issue as you endager others by doing so. This has nothing to do with personal freedom and should be rigorously enforced.

    I alsoagree with you that in many cases texting is worse than DWI. I know of a lot of otherwise responsiblepeople who do occasionalDWI-light (meaning they are not totally wasted, they are just over the legal limit) who are well aware of the implications of their condition (both legal and physical)and even though their reaction is impaired, they are driving very conservatively under the speed limit staying inthe rightlane religiously obeying all rules of the road. Ironically, they are probably driving safer than when they are sober.

    Texting on the other hand is not viewed as a big deal and legal implications are negligible compared to DWI, so people do it in a much more unsafe manner.

    I'd be interested to see if you'd agree with the above observation from your professional experience as a LEO

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    The technically challenged, being completely unaware of such technology, would be confused by the apparent malfunction of their device, and divert even more attention to the phone, and away from their driving.

    This would cause more accidents than it would prevent.

    TFred
    I was thinkng the same. Plus, you don't needreception to type, just to send a message, so a jammer would't prevent anyone fromtyping...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Chaingun81 wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    I will add my two cents...

    First off.. in Virginia it is a secondary violation. So you have to do something else AND be texting before I can stop you.

    Let me just say that seat belts are the same way and it is hard to get them too.

    But at least with a seat belt you are doing a visible violation for a long time. This gives me a chance to see it and look for some other violation.

    How long does it take to text someone... a few seconds here and there. And then I have to be side by side with you to watch you.

    If I am side by side you will see me and maybe not do it or keep it in your lap out of sight.

    But even if you do... being obvious as hell... and in my face.. as long as your tags are current, you do not speed, you signal on lane changes, and do not follow to closely... there is nothing I can do to you.

    They say texting is worse that being DWI... but they made it a secondary violation. oh man!!! :shock:
    I personally would separate these issues. In fact, I'd not even make a law requiring seat belts. And same goes for motorcycle helmet requirment.The difference is that by not wearing a seatbelt (or a helmet on a motorcycle) you only endagering yourself. If you are stupid enough to do so - go ahead. I view that as a part of personal freedom.

    Texting while driving much like a DWI is an entirely different issue as you endager others by doing so. This has nothing to do with personal freedom and should be rigorously enforced.

    I alsoagree with you that in many cases texting is worse than DWI. I know of a lot of otherwise responsiblepeople who do occasionalDWI-light (meaning they are not totally wasted, they are just over the legal limit) who are well aware of the implications of their condition (both legal and physical)and even though their reaction is impaired, they are driving very conservatively under the speed limit staying inthe rightlane religiously obeying all rules of the road. Ironically, they are probably driving safer than when they are sober.

    Texting on the other hand is not viewed as a big deal and legal implications are negligible compared to DWI, so people do it in a much more unsafe manner.

    I'd be interested to see if you'd agree with the above observation from your professional experience as a LEO
    I do.

  24. #24
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Chaingun81 wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    The technically challenged, being completely unaware of such technology, would be confused by the apparent malfunction of their device, and divert even more attention to the phone, and away from their driving.

    This would cause more accidents than it would prevent.
    I was thinkng the same. Plus, you don't needreception to type, just to send a message, so a jammer would't prevent anyone fromtyping...

    Yah, OK........we'd certainly hate to "cause more accidents than it would prevent."

    Here's a story in today's news:






    Driver texts, talks, hits car, crashes into pool


    Jul 30 02:57 PM

    LOCKPORT, N.Y. (AP) - Police said a Buffalo-area tow truck driver was texting on one cell phone while talking on another when he slammed into a car and crashed into a swimming pool. Niagara County sheriff's deputies said 25-year-old Nicholas Sparks of Burt admitted he was texting and talking when his flatbed truck hit the car Wednesday morning in Lockport.


    The truck then crashed through a fence and sideswiped a house before rolling front-end first into an in-ground pool.

    The 68-year-old woman driving the car suffered head injuries and was in good condition. Her 8-year-old niece suffered minor injuries.

    Sparks was charged with reckless driving, talking on a cell phone and following too closely. It couldn't be determined Thursday morning if he has a lawyer.


    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1







  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    The bill would force states to write laws to prohibit messaging in vehicles or risk losing 25 percent of their annual federal highway money. Federal lawmakers have used similar strategies to force states to curb speeding and pass seat-belt laws. The new legislation would also set deadlines for regulators at the U.S. Transportation Department to devise minimum penalties for states to implement. States would have two years to enact their own laws.
    Here come the cops to pull you over for "texting" while dialing a number on your cell phone. A cop can pull you over at any moment, and he only needs to claim that he saw you looking down, suggesting "in his professional experience" that you were texting.

    The pendulum has been moving away from freedom for about a century. This country is about done.



Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •