• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Schumer would force all states to ban texting while driving

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Peacemaker

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
91
Location
, Georgia, USA
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!?
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
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
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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? ;)
 

Hef

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
524
Location
Bluffton, South Carolina, USA
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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?
 

TheMrMitch

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
1,260
Location
Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.:dude:

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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
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.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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. :lol:

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

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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/
 

Hef

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
524
Location
Bluffton, South Carolina, USA
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. :lol:

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.
 
Top