** It figures ... right after I get a CF-P2 Toughphone .... :( **

LaHood Weighs Urging Ban on All Driver Phone Use in Cars

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he believes motorists are distracted by any use of mobile phones while driving, including hands-free calls, as his department begins research that may lead him to push for a ban.
...
Does anyone here (besides me, that is ) remember who the "bad guys" were in The President's Analyst and what their ultimate goal was?

 

I'm just gonna have to stop reading TC's ot posts.... you're gonna give me an aneurysm....

maybe if I pretend it's not a problem, it will go away on it's own.


there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home
there's no place like home

EDIT: i made sure i read that article while driving.

 

The bottom line is, they're right. Even if the hardware wasn't a constant distraction, which it is... blinking, beeping, text messages, pictures and more. Even if you don't have that, just a regular phone is a distraction when it rings; you have to fish it out of your pocket, look at it & see who it is, then manipulate whatever mechanism lets you answer it. This is ALL time spent doing something other than paying attention to the road. Sure hands-free devices reduce that time looking away from the road in some ways; but they add their own stages of distraction too. Ask anyone whose bluetooth fell off their ear while they were trying to push the button. :wink:

But it STILL isn't the main distraction.

No, the much greater distraction is the conversation happening on the phone; when you are driving, you need to be 100% ON THE ROAD. When you're talking with someone, you aren't. A considerable part of your mind is on the other end of the line, paying attention to what that person is saying and reacting to that, when you SHOULD be paying attention to other drivers on increasingly crowded and poorly planned highways and reacting to THEM.

Now... on top of that basic distraction... let's add the very real and likely potential for an argument over the phone. Now how much attention do you think you're paying to driving? Or worse, starting out angry already, how much closer to road rage do you suppose you'll be when dumb@ss in his/her SUV with his/her cellphone glued to his/her ear cuts you off?

I know all the arguments against regulating cellphone use in cars... I make the same justifications myself. I run my business from my phone, and if I didn't have the capacity to make calls from the road, I'd surely be unable to complete a day's work in a day. That doesn't make using my phone in my car any less dangerous, and I know it; and if you step back from it and look at it with an honest eye towards safety, you'll see that it's dangerous too.

mnem
Cellul-oid.

 

We need to just tell the stupid SOB, "no."

We have a Congress and there is no place in the US Constitution that grants such unilateral power to a mere appointed employee that was never elected. It should not matter what quack idea that he comes up with.

 

Beware if you all come to Europe !
phone call in cars is forbidden here (€100 = $120)

But there is no law that say we can't use a Toughbook while driving

 

It falls under inattentive driving for us. You can also thank those people who watch full movies on road trips and end up killing a few people for tvs in front seat. Before you know it cars will no longer have radios and navi just buzzers if you aren't constantly turning the wheel slightly.

My thought is enforce the laws you have now cause people will only try to bend, break or manipulate the new ones too. No phone use means the passenger is holding the phone and the driver is trying to make covo with the caller and passenger. If that passenger is a child in the back seat cause of the airbag then that's even worse. Banning txt means people stop holding their phone eye level and now stare into their croch area trying to be discrete. That's unless you were my ex who has the keys remembered and could txt from inside the purse. In Va I seen far worse like painting toe nails or fools reading the sports section. There you could tell the driving style of a cell phone abuser. They tend to slowly ping bong the dashed lines in the fast lane cause they cover the entire left side of their face. When you get near an exit they will also cut 4 lanes off to exit almost hitting the exit sign and other cars.

 

@ Azrial, LaHood is weighing the wisdom of "pushing for" regulations to ban cell phones and or certain uses of them in cars. No one said he was going to issue a decree to that effect. I know the part where he becomes a dictator and trashes the constitution make better press but could we please try to be accurate at least here and leave the spin to other more fair and balanced outlets?
As for the ban, I'm with mnem. Our legislature in Massachusetts has just passed a complete texting ban for vehicle operators. Its about time, and I would support at least a hands free law for all devices. Anyone who suggests that a driver can safely text is an idiot! We ban drunk driving, credible studies have shown that "distracted driving" is significantly more dangerous, and that includes looking at your GPS while deciding you're about to miss your exit and you start to cross 3 lanes to get to the right one. I'm guessing we are all guilty of these behaviors, at least my GPS has a 10" screen so I can get useful information with a quick glance, those 3 1/2" units are too hard for me to see.
Government exists, among other things, to protect the general populace from behavior which threatens injury by the individual. Our LEO brothers here work for the government, in large part to protect us from each other. Government isn't bad, poorly run government is bad. In this country at least, we have the government we deserve, we get to pick it!
CAP

 

Here's the bottom line:
This country is going to shizzle for 2 reasons; people's lack of personal accountability and responsibility, and the gov't's (punctuation?) abuse of that fact to exert more control over it's sheople.

IF they would levy heavier fines and penalties for "infractions" of code (not laws, btw*. A law is only broken if you have infringed on someone else's rights) there would be fewer issues. Look at Germany. It's my understanding that it takes close to the equivalent of $5k to get your license to drive and then there is no tolerance for stupid sht. This is how they have the Audubon and other similar roads which have (IMO) fewer problems and fatalities for that sort of road, than Americans on a similar road.

STOP COVERING UP SYMPTOMS AND START FIXING THE PROBLEM.

I have no friends in my age group. Not becuase I'm lame, but becuase generally they are a bunch of self absorbed undeserving indigents that are happy as long as they have their bling, rims, weed, and big screen tv's. Don't even get me started on work ethic..... (I do, however, realize that I am a arrogant narcissist)
They are the direct result of a society who has lost it's foundation(s).

When you don't stand for something, then you stand for "nothing"

 

To piggyback on what was said about Germany, it goes even further (if things haven't changed since '88 when I left). Yes, it cost a lot to get your license (as you must attend a legitimate driving school), but you have it for life. However, if you screw up badly (DUI), they take it away and it could take years (if ever) to get it back (on the FIRST offense!). Don't want to take a breath test? No problem! One officer will hold you while the other takes the blood sample and then you still lose the license. Plus, with a national police force the laws are the same no matter where in the country you may travel so there is no "I didn't know they did that here" excuse. And if the stats have not changed, only 8-10% of the highway fatalities happen on the autobahn because of both the driver training (which includes the discipline) and strict enforcement of the "more logical" laws. Now, don't even get me started on how having a lower drinking age still results in less alcoholism, public drunkenness and alcohol related issues. Attitude people, it is the attitude!

 

So the PDRC I installed in my 18 wheeler is a bad thing? I think the biggest distraction is all of the road signs you have to read while your tryin to watch Big Bang theory on the Monitor

 

I have the same problem! I had thought of using an old lcd monitor to make a heads up display on my windshield but didn't have the time to try it!!!

 

This is what I have been considering using in my vehicle, along with the CF-VKBL0x keyboard and my CF-29 Mk3 mounted remotely.

"Honest, officer; it's just my GPS display."

 

What "spin?"

It is not a matter of what he is "trying" to do, good or bad. He does not have the power under the US Constitution to made such a "decree." BTW, when did we become a country ruled by the "decree" of a mere appointee employee, or even a President?

Also, the US Constitution very much limits the powers of the Federal Government, and Vehicle Operation law is State Law. While the Feds have telescoped the clause in the Constitution that empowers them to regulate Intrastate Trade, and by their torturous extension applying that to every citizen in the US who is a party to any form of Intrastate Trade, to intervene in State Law, this is obviously far from the original intent. But don't take my word for it, read it yourself.

We are either a country under the rule of law, as the Founding Fathers intended, or we are a country under the rule of men. This has nothing to do with politics, we are talking about the law.

To reiterate, the problem, whether you are pro or con these laws, he does not have the power do it. No more then you or I.

 

I don't have to reread the constitution to know that there is absolutely no mention of motor vehicles in that document. I'm fairly certain that cell phones aren't listed either. The "spin" is the part where you implied, in your original post, that Mr. LaHood was contemplating enacting regulations concerning cell phone use. In fact he is considering what sort of regulations he might suggest to congress, who do have the right, for better or worse (usually worse), to enact laws.
CAP

 

Where to start....

I have never, in the 7 states I have received a citation, been cited for violating a law. Look carefully, you are accused of violating "code 42.6-xxx" (va section of "law" on driving). That is a code from administrative code, designed to govern over the entities the government (at whatever level) creates (such as a business) who use the public roads for private gain.
Also, be aware that you do not typically receive a criminal summons to appear in court, but a 'civil notice' (which is not criminal, but civil, as in a dispute, not a crime)

Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th eddition states that an infraction is a psuedo crime, similar to, but not actually a crime. Almost every state's "laws" I have looked at state quite clearly that "violations" of "this section of code" (referring to the driving "laws") are "infractions but shall be considered crimes for the purposes of this section of code..." (or similar).
WOW.
Every time you get pulled over some BS seatbelt, tail light, blinker, rolling stop, etc, you're 4th amendment right is being violated:
Unreasonable search and seizure. Your movement may not be seized unless there is a reasonable belief that you have committed a crime, are about to commit a crime, or have participated in the commission of a crime. where does "infraction" or "pseudo" appear in there???


I have 6 quotes of supreme justices that state something to the effect of "the right to travel freely and unencumbered was so intrinsic to the establishment of this country, that it didn't need to be written down" or "(you have) the rigt to travel freely across the breadth and width of the country, uninhibited by statutes that otherwise unreasonably burden that travel"

Miller vs The US also states that the exorcise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime

Or how about Murdock vs PA that says the state may not convert any right into a regulated privilege and/or issue a license or a fee for it

Or Maurbury vs Maddison that states if one of those rights is converted nto a regulated privilege and/or issued a license or a fee for it, you have the right to ignore it with impunity?

Just becuase you are told it is law, does not mean that it is such (or lawful, for that matter). I could write pages of text citing (not) all the codes of Virginia alone, that were not lawfully passed, or lawful in nature (and not as a matter of debate, but just clear cut fact)

yeah, I'm one of those guys. To defend myself, I do appreciate all the servicemen and women who are the legs this country stands on; it is not their politics being enforced, but it is their thankless job. I like to take out my anger on judges... they love being told to recuse themselves for a violation of their oaths of office

 

So interestingfellow if I get a ticket for watching BBT on my PDRC you will defend me?

 

Me thinks that is gonna give a whole new meaning to BIG BANG theory.

 

Well.... hmmm....

I'd be glad too!

But there are barrister laws that say if I don't have a Bar membership, then I can't work as a lawyer.... even though I have the right to work (pursuit of happiness, see above) and contract my time as I see fit.

I could also, theoretically, go to jail for "unauthorized practice of law" (yes, that's actually a law) for what I've said here. Since I'm not barred, or a professor, I'm not supposed to talk about the law like this. Although, all people of good moral and legal conscience are supposed to know all the "laws" governing them; you are only allowed to learn or discuss "law" from or with those individuals whom the state has deemed appropriate. Those people can also loose their "privilege" to do so, if they say or do things the state doesn't like (like conversion of rights to privileges).

Think about it. marriage, hunting, driving (traveling), contractor (working), & fishing to name a few. They all require licenses, but they are God given rights. Somehow the state believes they are empowered greater than they are . Don't get me wrong, we need rules and order, but let's call "laws" by what they are, and treat them appropriately, rather than lying about it and passing legislation that is in direct conflict with the Constitution.

I forgot to mention that every time the witness (citing officer) has described what happened, it usually starts off with "I witnessed Interestingfellow traveling up Rout X at a speed of blah".


Sorry to get all worked up and spout off all over here. I'm stepping off my soap box and will now try to digress....

 

Traffic law is State Law. He and the Fed need to stay out of State business. The more that the Fed stays out of local government, the more chance we all have of a government that is reflective of our views, be they Liberal or Conservative.

 

States just love them Fed Highway funds and so they will write whatever laws to please the feds or risk loosing the loot.

 

Exactly, the Federal Government won't pass a law, they'll bribe the states into doing it, kinda like the credit card industry bribing South Dakota to let them screw everybody!
CAP

 

More correctly, "BLACKMAIL" them into it; just like they did when they forced the states to adopt a 55 MPH Speed Limit under threat of withholding Federal Highway Funds if they didn't.