CAR PHONE BAN GOES TOO FAR

boblonsberry.com | 01/14/09 | Bob Lonsberry

[shortstop]

Do you sing in the car?

Or shout at the bonehead on your radio?

If so, you could get pulled over.

That's one of the potentical consequences of a stupid suggestion this week -- by the self-proclaimed National Safety Council -- that cell phones be banned in cars.

They want them done away with. They say that the piecemeal banning of cell phones -- mostly in our most liberal states -- doesn't go far enough. They won't be happy until every cell phone in every car is turned off or broken.

Specifically, they say that talking on a cell phone while driving is a dangerous as being drunk -- that cell phones in cares are the same thing as a DWI.

Which is, of course, preposterous. Their claim is not based in reality, but in the exageration of the activist, in the made-up nonsense they pump out in an effort to get people to surrender their freedom. Talking on a cell phone while driving is potentially, for some, distracting. It is, however, in no way like being drunk. It is, in fact, an activity that is, for most drivers, very easily manageable.

People talk on the cell phone all the time while driving. Even in states that outlaw it, talking on the cell while driving is common and safe.

That is proven by the fact that cars aren't piled into one another or into bridge abutments all over the place. Tens of millions of Americans talk and drive safely every day.

In fact, over the last decade plus, as this technology has become part of the mainstream of American life, the rate of highway accidents and fatalities has gone down. Over the period we've had more phones -- countless more phones -- and yet we've had fewer accidents. That is part of an uninterrupted trend toward safer highways resulting from evolving road and car design. Phones have not had an impact on traffic accidents or deaths, and yet these busybodies want to take them out of the hands of drivers.

And not just out of the hands.The National Safety Council says that hands-free phones must also be outlawed. That means the OnStar microphone in the rearview mirror, and the Blue Tooth in the ear. You simply can't talk while driving. Any form of telecommunications device used in any way while you are driving the car is going to be banned.

You break their rule, and they're going to have a cop pull you over and write you up.

Which is where the singing comes in.

How possibly do these morons propose to impose their new rules on your life? How is an officer alongside the road going to be able to tell if you are singing to the radio or talking on a hands-free phone?

Of what if you have a child in the car with you, someone small who doesn't reach up above the windows, and you're talking to him? Or to your dog. Or are hashing out an argument you had with your spouse. Or maybe you just like to talk to yourself.

Will running your mouth behind the wheel now be Fourth Amendment probable cause to pull you over? What about mouth breathers, will Big Brother hold them forever suspect?

This is all just nonsense. It shows what mischief can arise from these freedom-grabbing jerks who want to cram their rules down our throats.

And that's all that's happening here. This is about the piecemeal stripping of freedom from the American people. There remain few corners of life where people can actually choose what they want to do. Freedom of choice ends when you walk out the abortionist's front door.

So let me tell you how it should be.

If you want to talk on your cell phone while driving in your car, it's your business.

And the heck with anybody who says different. These freaking busybodies and their domineering arrogance. They feel completely entitled to play with your life like you are a rat in a cage.

But we should tell them to bug off. It's not their job to protect us, or to define what protection is. We have laws that define safe driving. They tell us how fast to go, and how to pass, and not to leave our lane, and how close to follow, when to yield and where to stop. If we violate any of those laws, ticket us. If we are not violating any of those laws then we, no matter what we are doing, are driving safely.

It is up to us to decide if we can do a certain activity and operate a vehicle safely. If the vehicle actually operates unsafely, pull us over. Until then, it's none of anybody's business.

If you want to eat while you drive, or listen to the radio, or talk on the phone, it's none of anybody's business.

Especially these unelected do-gooders.

We've got to keep the government off our backs. And we've got to recognize that by "protecting" us the government is doing nothing but enslaving us. Because the government can't give you safety without taking away freedom.

And this is America -- the land of the free.

At least it used to be.

[elkfersupper]

Wrong on all counts.

I have rarely seen such a collection of strawmen.

[Balding_Eagle]

Thanks for digging that up, I knew that was somewhere.

[Balding_Eagle]

I see you’re from the 2 plus 2 equals 17 school of thought.

[elkfersupper]

Thanks for digging that up, I knew that was somewhere.

You're most welcome.

I keep several versions bookmarked in order to deal with the never-ending supply of statist posters on Free Republic.

The facts that they don't read it and don't want to hear about it is a huge problem, but not mine.

[elkfersupper]

I’m all about drivers being even more careless because they are distracted even futher.

We have had reckless driving laws since people started driving.

Why do we need DWI, cell phone usage, talking to passengers, chewing gum, reading newspapers, or just spacing-out laws in addition?

[elkfersupper]

Agreed. Very few wrecks are the result of unforseeable or unavoidable circumstance. Most are the direct result of operator error or negligence.

You have both missed the politically-correct term and the term used to further the necessity of more and more driving laws.

The term of art is now "crashes".

[Smokin' Joe]

I thought the terminology rewriters had tossed “crash” a decade ago. I remember reading motorcycle safety studies in the ‘80s and they were discussing “the crash phase”, as if it happened on every ride, like putting the kickstand down at the end...

[Sudetenland]

Wow, what cogent, logical, well thought out comment. I am impressed with your comprehensive knowledge of the Constitution and you devastating logic...NOT.

I can see that you are from the non-responsive, ad hominem attack school of thought.

[gracesdad]

“Everything after the “but”.”

You’ve got some serious problems. There are courses to help adults improve reading comprehension.

[Sudetenland]

I suggest you get a dictionary and learn what a "strawman" argument is, then learn what a legitimately drawn analogy is. It is obvious that you don't know the difference...but of course if you did, then you would also know the difference between a privelege and a right.

Driving is a privelege. The state mandates that you take lessons, prove that you have taken those lessons, pass a written test, pass a driving test, pass a vision test and then that you purchase not just a license to drive, but that you also purchase a license for your automobile, which must pass a vehicle inspection before it can be driven on the "publicly funded" roads.

Voting is a right. The state cannot place any restrictions on that right, no test, no license, no fees, no restrictions of any kind, beyond being a law abiding citizen of legal age.

Now run to your dictionary, little one, and learn your definitions.

[TChris]

Driving is a privelege. ... Voting is a right.

Hmm... Not quite.

Actually, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote. And the law more or less treats driving and voting about the same way.

Both are only available to those above a certain age. Both can be lost by due process of law.

Voting used to be reserved for white adult male land owners. Legally.

Personally, I'd say both a driver's license and the power to vote are both priveleges. The country would benefit greatly from both being more restricted too.

[Badeye]

‘Why do we need DWI,’

Because some of us had a friend killed by a drunk driver while said friend was sitting ON HIS COUCH in his LIVING ROOM?

Sheesh, thats gotta be the dumbest question I’ve seen in this forum in the past couple of years.....

[Sudetenland]

I suggest you first learn what the Bill of Rights is and is not. Then we can discuss the difference between good SCOTUS decisions and bad SCOTUS decisions.

The Bill of Rights is not a comprehensive listing of our rights. It was never intended to be such. It is a set of limitations placed on our federal government to specifically protect certain rights our founding fathers believed to be of paramount importance. E.g. the Second Amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, it precludes the federal government from removing or in any significant way abridging that inherent right.

Their words transcend even the decisions of the SCOTUS. Thus we have, on occasion, previous SCOTUS decisions being reversed, Dred Scott being one such decision and hopefully one day, Roe v. Wade and Kelo.

If you had read any of their writings, which apparently you have not, you would know these things. I commend to you the Federalist Papers (as you claim to be a "Federalist"), and specifically Hamilton's Federalist No. 84, in which he argues against the inclusion of a bill of rights.

Both Madison and Hamilton opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights because they feared that it would be used in the manner you are using it...as a listing of specified rights...and because they feared that any such list would be interpreted as proof that the federal government possesed the power to limit our rights, since it lists some rights. They only gave in when it became apparent that many of the "Anti-Federalists" would not sign the new Constitution without the inclusion of a bill of rights.

There is a purpose behind the inclusion of Amendments 9 and 10, they are not simply an after thought. They preclude (or were intended to preclude) the Federal government from usurping powers to itself that it did not possess.

If you had read their writings, you would also know that they considered the inherent right to own property to be the most fundamental and sacrosanct of our rights...the right from which all other rights spring.

[Sudetenland]

Hmmm...I’m not certain that I don’t agree with you to some extent. I believe that the founding fathers believed that voting was a “right” that belonged to all white male land owners. On the otherhand, you may be right about it being a “privelege.” The more I have investigated this the more ambiguous some of the definitions become.

[Sudetenland]

Forgive my condescension. It was undeserved and a "knee-jerk" reaction. I am growingly aware of the ambiguity in the definition. What I believed to be clear is now much less so.

I still commend the Hamilton No. 84, if you have not read it, but I do apologize for the tone of my last comment.

[Sudetenland]

AS I have done with Texas Federalist, I also would like to apologize for my arrogant, condescending tone. It is apparent, as TChris has pointed out, that the line between a right and privelege is far more ambiguous that I originally believed

I wish that I was more level-headed on occasion. This discussion has been educational and thought provoking for me.

Again, I apologize for the tone of my reply.

[Sudetenland]

At first I didn't find his arguments compelling, but in after thought, the terming "usual conveyance of the time" is a legitimate and compelling argument...unfortunately an argument I have used in defending the unrestricted ownership by law-abiding citizens of "contemporary" military type firearms. I say unfortunately because I hate to be caught in inconsistency, just as I hate to apologize and admit my errors.

That being said, how does one reconcile the concept of driving being a "right" when that right is so tightly constrained by the state? Yes there are limits to our rights as illustrated by the trite but true limitation on freedom of speech and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but the constraints placed on driving far exceed those placed on any other right I can think of.

[Texas Federalist]

No problem. I agree with almost everything in post 173 and, as a lawyer, I have read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. My point was because the Supreme Court no longer protects property or adheres to the original intent of the founders with regard to the Constitution, we must more vigilant in protecting our own liberties. The labeling of any act as a “privilege” granted by government allows the government to classify any number of other things as “privileges” and regulate them as well.

[Sudetenland]

According to dictionary.com (admittedly hardly an authoritative source)

"Privilege usually suggests a right not enjoyed by everyone."

Given that definition, virtually all of our rights could be considered privileges.

I do not have time right now to read it fully, but I just came across this examination in the Harvard Law Review on the question...for any who remain interested.The Demise of the Right-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law

[Sudetenland]

Yeah, I was going to make a smarta$$ed comment on it...in fun, mind you...but I figure I’ve made an a$$ out of myself enough on this thread.