Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CAR PHONE BAN GOES TOO FAR
boblonsberry.com | 01/14/09 | Bob Lonsberry

Posted on 01/14/2009 5:17:04 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: accidents; baddrivers; bigbrother; cellphonedriving; cellphones; distraction; drivingwhileimpaired; dwi; lonsberry; prodeath; recklessdriving
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-208 next last
To: Sudetenland

“it precludes the federal government from removing or in any significant way abridging that inherent right.”

I agree, which is precisely why I do not consider it within the state’s authority to grant rights.


181 posted on 01/16/2009 9:34:12 AM PST by CSM (IÂ’m jubilant! Now that the Dems are completely in charge, we can FINALLY blame THEM for everything!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: CSM

Yet they do. They require you to have a license etc. etc. If they can do all of the things that I have previously listed, how is banning the use of cell phones any different? In every case, they are placing constraints on the “right” to drive.


182 posted on 01/16/2009 10:36:49 AM PST by Sudetenland (Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

yes they do. That is why it is prudent to KYPD. I honestly believe that we are reaching a tipping point.


183 posted on 01/16/2009 10:48:59 AM PST by CSM (IÂ’m jubilant! Now that the Dems are completely in charge, we can FINALLY blame THEM for everything!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

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

Given all of that, it is somewhat important that nobody - including you - do or say anything to perpetuate that notion.

Otherwise, there will have to be another revolutionary war.

184 posted on 01/16/2009 6:56:41 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
how does one reconcile the concept of driving being a "right" when that right is so tightly constrained by the state?

We have been lazy in defending our rights.

185 posted on 01/16/2009 6:59:03 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

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

Define "drunk".

186 posted on 01/16/2009 7:00:32 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

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

An excellent idea, by the way, and one that desperately needs to be revisited.

187 posted on 01/16/2009 7:02:32 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
Driving is clearly a right and individuals have no right to vote for the person seeking the office of President of the U.S.

Visit your dictionary, history and law books, little one.

188 posted on 01/16/2009 7:04:47 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: CAluvdubya

Yup and I agree 100%

I dont need more nanny laws. If my wife calls me while I am driving I can assure everyone that its a 20 second call and I hang up, I cant STAND talking on the phone while driving myself.

I will not be in favor of people like myself getting a ticket because of those that ABUSE cell phones.

Also as a ham radio and ARES (Amateur radio emergency services) operator, i wonder too how long it will be before they ban ham radios in vehicles.


189 posted on 01/16/2009 7:06:04 PM PST by eXe (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

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

You have some serious problems. There are courses to help adults improve their grammar.

190 posted on 01/16/2009 7:06:36 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
A "crash" has a cause that must be legislated against.

An "accident" is just that.

191 posted on 01/16/2009 7:07:59 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Driving is not "clearly a right." It is less clearly a right than is the right to vote, to speak, to own a gun, or to own property.

I suggest that you might try reading a few history, law, and constitutional law books and treatises...you might begin with the reference to which I linked earlier.

If driving is a right, then it is one of the most restricted and constrained "rights" we have. You must pass a test to drive, you don't have to pass a test to vote. You have to have a license to drive, you don't have to have a license to vote, merely a registration and in some cases not even that. I think maybe you need to bone up on the two definitions (right and privilege) and then get back to me...that is if you can read.

The reference to which you referred me offers some compelling arguments, but I know of no other "right" held inherently by the people which must be paid for, licensed, tested-both knowledge and skills, inspected and can only be exercised if you can financial responsibility. You drive at the sufference of the state and they can revoke that privilege if they deem you unfit, physically, mentally, or fiscally.

Show me another "right" that is so tightly constrained and I will show you a privilege.
192 posted on 01/16/2009 7:31:06 PM PST by Sudetenland (Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFerret

Helps to keep my son awake while driving long distances. He’s called me while on the road.


193 posted on 01/16/2009 7:36:05 PM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
If driving is a right, then it is one of the most restricted and constrained "rights" we have.

That is a huge problem.

You must pass a test to drive, you don't have to pass a test to vote.

A tragedy and a travesty on both counts.

....then get back to me...that is if you can read.

We both can read, but only one of us can understand.

194 posted on 01/16/2009 7:42:29 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
"individuals have no right to vote for the person seeking the office of President of the U.S."

You might want to begin your education with the 19th Amendment. It is short enough that even someone like you might be able to read it.
195 posted on 01/16/2009 7:44:08 PM PST by Sudetenland (Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
You want to be a subject, rather than a citizen.

Move to a monarchy. They are mostly located in Europe.

196 posted on 01/16/2009 7:48:57 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
You might want to begin your education with the 19th Amendment. It is short enough that even someone like you might be able to read it.

The Electoral College elects the President, dumbass.

197 posted on 01/16/2009 7:54:15 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Huh...no answer eh? I thought not. Talk about a strawman..."You want to be a subject, rather than a citizen." Never said it; never implied it.

Bluster and BS won't take you very far.
198 posted on 01/16/2009 8:01:35 PM PST by Sudetenland (Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
I'm sorry, I made the gross mistake of assuming you were an adult interested in an exchange of views, but I see that you are just a little child playing gotcha and calling names.

Yes we elect the electors not the actual president, but in common parlance and discussion the one is assumed to be the same as the other...and in history it has proven to be so.

Since you seem incapable of holding a rational discussion and have been reduced to insults and childish games, I dismiss you now...
199 posted on 01/16/2009 8:02:02 PM PST by Sudetenland (Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
I dismiss you now...

I cannot be dismissed, for I am a proud, patriotic and knowledgeable citizen interested in not only my liberty, but yours as well.

Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean that I am not interested in preserving it for you.

200 posted on 01/16/2009 8:08:31 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-208 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson