Posted on 10/14/2009 1:13:02 PM PDT by SoonerStorm09
OKLAHOMA CITY — As more and more cities and states pass laws banning the use of cell phones – including texting – while driving, this “nanny statism” has finally struck lawmakers in Oklahoma.
And that’s unfortunate. Oklahomans tend to pride themselves on the fact that more government intervention is not a good idea. Good old-fashioned common sense is usually acceptable and reasonable laws are followed.
Banning cell phones and texting while driving is unreasonable, in the eyes of the Oklahoma Watchdog.
Rep. Sue Tibbs, a Tulsa Republican who serves on the House Public Safety Committee, is planning to introduce a measure to ban texting, and another that would ban talking on cell phones while driving unless a hands-free device is used, reports the Tulsa World this week.
The World, of course, thinks we are all children and says that while the texting ban makes perfect sense, banning the use of cell phones while driving is a “dicier” issue.
“It little matters the cuase of distraction for drivers – talking on the cell phone, texting on a cell phone, spending too long at the bar before getting behind the wheel, applying make-up or fiddling with the radio.”
And then the World editorial board shakes its finger in our face in the final sentence: “Distracted driving, all of it, is dangerous driving.”
So, we know where one of the state’s largest newspapers stands on the issue. Yet one more law. Another source of revenue for local municipalities in tough economic times. Makes sense, eh?
Fortunately, there are some state legislators, like Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-Owasso), who does not support a ban on texting while driving or on cell phones because the government is already “overreaching.”
(Excerpt) Read more at oklahoma.watchdog.org ...
Ah, prohibiting texting while driving is a nanny state overreach?
Cut me a friggin break. This is liberatarianism taken to the level of idiocy.
I still don't have either of these gadgets. I'd only get one if I was going to do some traveling....Emergency or contact only.
Practically impossible to enforce. Good reason to pull someone over though.
It’s already a no-no here in the great nanny state of Ohio.
The purpose of this is revenue generation. Nothing else.
Texting while driving? 1 month license suspension and minimum 10 days in jail on first offense, 6 months license suspension and minimum 90 days in jail on second offense, permanent license suspension and 1 year in jail seems fair to me.
Yep I agree. Texting while driving endangers other drivers, not just yourself. Calling it an overreach to make it illegal is imo the same as calling banning drunk driving a nanny state overreach.
In some cases I’d rather have a “drunk” driver than a texting driver. At least the .09 BAC driver is probably going to be trying to pay attention (unless they are texting too!)
I hope they outlaw phoning while driving. I’ve had too many close calls with some idiot yakking while driving. If you need to make a frigging phone call so bad, pull over and park. Otherwise, hang up and drive!
I’ve been guilty of texting and driving. Its very dangerous IMHO. Of course, I don’t wear a seatbelt either.
Of course, would it be an issue if cops actually patrolled the streets and pulled over people when they were simply driving like idiots for whatever reason? I NEVER see anyone get pulled over for fading from lane to lane etc while texting or talking on a cell phone. And I am nearly run over almost every time I go out on the streets here by some idiot on a cell phone. Of course, I think S. FL must have the worst drivers of anywhere on the planet.
OK...I’m done ranting for now! hehehe
Are seatbelt laws nanny state intrusions?
In my opinion, yes.
This is ridiculous. Just more government regulation, where will it end?
Go ahead rant. I’m not completely innocent of all charges but Bump anyway. :)
After nearly getting smoked twice by idiots talking on their cell phones this is a nanny I can live with.
When people use common sense which means “no texting while driving”.
Why do I need a separate license tag and inspection tag? Since eventually the money collected goes to the state? Why must I maintain 2 tags on my windshield? Roll them together.
There was a test published, with video, that showed a texting or phone number keying driver was much less capable than a drunk driver.
I can always tell when someone is texting while driving. They drive erratically, make illogical moves. Even the ones who are good at it drive like someone who’s distracted. Texting while driving should be a misdemeanor, punishable by no less than a $5,000 fine.
Those complaining about “nanny statism” are generally affected by the laws in question. They’re probably that jackass crossing into your lane that causes you to swerve into the lane next to you, curse and pull up beside only to realize that they’re on a cell haplessly chattering away.
I have had to live under the “tyranny” of said laws since January so spare me the “first they came for the cell phones” crap. Generally, even before the law was passed, I would pull over if I had to talk for more than 30 seconds. If my cell rings now, I have no problem telling the caller to give me a second while I pull over. I have never seen anyone else do the same.
Banning cell phones and texting while driving is unreasonable, in the eyes of the Oklahoma Watchdog.
I’m sure the author also considers laws against drunken driving to be nanny-state instrusion also.
"....Ah, prohibiting texting while driving is a nanny state overreach?
Cut me a friggin break. This is liberatarianism taken to the level of idiocy..."
Dirtboy, you're precisely correct about libertarianism taken to the level of idiocy.
Approximately three weeks ago, I observed a young woman, maybe 20-22 years of age, driving in the center lane of a major interstate highway, yet drifting from shoulder-to-shoulder until hitting the rumble strips on each side. After contacting the noisy strips, she would erratically yank her vehicle back to the center lane. This particular interstate has three lanes in each direction (for a total of six) separated by a grass median.
I figured she was either texting or drunk. Either way, I wanted to get her vehicle as FAR behind me as possible before an accident occurred. When I got my chance to pass, sure enough, she had her wrists balanced atop the steering wheel with both thumbs activating the keyboard on her phone. Focus was purely on writing and the only input towards driving was when she heard the rumble strips. Speeds during this episode ranged between 45 mph to 65 mph because she was inattentive about speed, too.
I've often wondered who actually comprised the pro-texting-while-driving crowd because there truly isn't an upside to that activity. It's all negative and it's all dangerous. Any potential productivity gained due to constant availability is utterly diminished by accidents, lost lives, and increased costs. You are 100% on-the-money with your observations about this growing problem.
Of course, would it be an issue if cops actually patrolled the streets and pulled over people when they were simply driving like idiots for whatever reason? I NEVER see anyone get pulled over for fading from lane to lane etc while texting or talking on a cell phone.
I suspect the most common accidents caused by this are where people don’t realize what is in front of them (rear ending, running a red light or spot sight.) How many times have you heard someone say “I looked up and the car was just there”? You won’t catch those people by looking for eratic driving.
Hey, was that YOU who tried to kill me on Military Trail today?! ;)
Seriously, there’s something wrong if you even have to TELL someone they shouldn’t text while driving.
LOL if the law would let us handle this stuff, it would end.
As much as I hate the government delving into our lives, I tend to agree with outlawing texting and cell phones while driving.
Just last week, while driving to and from work, I could have been involved in 3 MVA’s in 1 day!
Young women totally distracted while driving. I had to take defensive action to avoid an accident because of their inattentiveness.
Unfortunately the laws would be almost unenforceable.
Instead of holding their Blackberry on the steering wheel while texting they will put them in their laps and have to look down.
Even worse.
be on the lookout for a late model Cadillac Escalade with California plates....KN8D BTCH
my bff girl told me to vote, what was I supposed to do? :)
SO I guess Big Brother has another way to sneak a peak into your vehicle now.. “I thought I saw you using your phone”
Nanny state garbage if you ask me.
The solution is simple.. if someone causes an accident while texting they need to be hit with the same kind of penalty a drunk driver will be hit with.
What next? No touching the radio, no drinking a soda, no talking? Give it a rest with the nanny state laws.. we already have laws on the books for distracted driving.. if someone breaks those laws, throw the book at them..
Why am I against these laws? Because my ham radios are next.. trust me.. they will come after ANY activity done while driving.. just as they, step by step, took away places people could smoke.
That said.. I have NEVER texted while driving (Cant stand to text anyway, I have probably sent 4 texts in my life) and hate talking on the phone while driving.. and will do whatever I can to cut a call short if someone calls me while I am on the road. I don’t make any calls while driving.
Worry about you?
Truly dirtboy it is a question of how much risk are you willing to assume, vs how much risk you wish to transfer to others. In my humble opinion, I would rather assume risk than bring government guns and butter down upon the heads of my neighbors. I drive as though, and assume that everybody around me is a dangerous incompetent idiot. I do that with my head on a swivel. I drive around 50k miles a year and have done so for years. (not a truck driver). I have never had an accident but have of course witnessed all kinds of weird driving behavior, from watching dudes swerve about while being “serviced”, to cell phone use, shaving, whatever. But I don’t want or need to lobby my government for more laws to keep me safe. To do so in my opinion is an act of cowardice. I would rather be responsible for my own safety, and yours because I drive to avoid accidents. I don’t expect or demand a safe environment to drive in. But, Americans go to school at five years old. The bell tells them when class starts, when to move to the next classroom, when to eat, when to have recess. The text books are nice and sequential. The questions at the end of each chapter follows the text, sequentially, predictably. The end of chapter questions form the outline for the test questions. So in other words Americans from the time they are 5 years old enter into a highly controlled, risk adverse, predictable environment. Is it any wonder then that when they are all grown up they would demand a risk adverse, predictable environment of their law makers. Because I am an incurable contrarian, I reject that life. I don’t like predictable. Not even sure that it is healthy. The very act of demanding a guarantee of safety from law makers, and transferring the risk of government guns and butter to others seems to be an act of vile cowardice. So, thank you very much, I would rather take my chances with the public than tangle with the government. So I vote no more laws designed to ensure my safety... Unless you are willing to dismantle a few first.
It wouldn’t catch them all, but I see people every day driving like they are drunk, weaving in and out, etc. When I pass them, they are on the cell, ALWAYS. I don’t know anyone who has ever had a ticket for that kind of driving. Of course, I feel the same if they are putting on makeup or eating (and not paying attention to the road).
During our vacation this summer we were driving behind a semi that very nearly hit the edge of an overpass. He corrected at the last minute (glad we were behind him and not beside him. When we passed him, guess what? On the cell phone!
Every State in the Union nees to pass an Anti-Texting While driving law and they should put some serious penalties on it because people can die very easily because of negligence like that.
Anything else they need to write a law for to legislate common sense?!
|
lol
How do you get that big Ham antennae on your car?
I will admit to taking a call when I'm on the road. In general, though, cell phone use while driving is bordering on an epidemic.
It's only common sense that your driving is impaired while talking on the phone, or God forbid, texting. It wasn't such a big deal 15 years ago, before cell phone usage exploded.
I'm surprised insurance companies haven't stepped in on this topic.
While I appreciate the sentiment, where do you draw the line on what laws should be on the books regarding driving and what laws step over the line?
Perhaps the police coule catch some, but given the limited resources of most law enforcement agencies, I would rather them spend their time on crime prevention than regulating traffic.
Most newer models allow the driver to change the radio from the steering wheel.
You're equating drinking a soda, an activity that requires no thought, with cell phone usage? Talk about false equivalency.
One can carry on a conversation while keeping both hands on the wheel, and paying full attention to the road.
Now, carrying on a conversation while drinking a soda...that's a horse of a different color. :^)
I'd rather not have some 20-something idiot kill me because he's busy texting while driving, thank you! It is not his perogative to shift that risk to others who have no say in the matter. If a couple of high-profile enforcement crackdowns gets these pinheads to stop, so be it.
Now compare that to texting, where the full attention of the driver goes to his cell for several seconds.
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.
