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

Skip to comments.

Experts: States will continue to put brakes on cell phone bans
CNN ^ | Wed December 14, 2011 | Michael Martinez and Zohreen Adamjee

Posted on 12/14/2011 8:21:25 PM PST by MinorityRepublican

Texting on a cell phone and driving might be banned nationwide.

(CNN) -- The National Transportation Safety Board's big, bold stroke encouraging all states to prohibit drivers from using cell phones faces a long, tortuous process in the nation's statehouses, experts said Wednesday.

This political reality stands out: Since states began legislating distracted driving or cell phone use in 2000, none has gone so far as to impose a complete ban on mobile devices behind the wheel, and only one state -- Alaska -- has considered such a blanket prohibition, just this year, said Anne Teigen, senior policy specialist with National Conference of State Legislatures.

Barbara Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said opponents don't like big government intrusions and savor their personal freedoms.

"This is a controversial issue so you can assume it's not going to pass right away," Harsha said. "It's going to take a long time for legislatures to pass laws, and a long time for states to begin to enforce the laws, and then a long time for behavior to start to change.

"The first seat-belt law was passed in the mid-'80s, and we're now at 84 percent of drivers who are buckled up nationwide," even though all states now have laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts, Harsha said.

"People like to be connected. They like to respond to e-mails and voice mail," Harsha said.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-128 next last
To: perfect_rovian_storm

I hope you only kill yourself when you cause a multi-car pileup while stupidly and self-importantly blabbering on your phone.


81 posted on 12/15/2011 12:57:27 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus
I hope you only kill yourself when you cause a multi-car pileup while stupidly and self-importantly blabbering on your phone.

I hope the government that you empowered imprisons you without a trial, leaving you to live for years in the fetid squalor you deserve for selling your inherited God given freedom in a foolish quest for unattainable safety.

Hopefully, that will give you enough time to reflect on the error of your ways, before your time comes.

82 posted on 12/15/2011 1:06:59 PM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (Perry's idea of border control: Use both hands to welcome the illegals right in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

Just hang up and drive, jerk.


83 posted on 12/15/2011 1:10:07 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

To: Los Angeles Conservative; ozzymandus
So I guess you believe it’s “your inherited God given freedom” to needlessly endanger others’ lives so you can talk/text on a cell phone while driving?

As dimwitted as you appear to be, I'm not surprised you'd ask that question, but I've said no such thing.

Cell phones are not the problem anymore than guns are at fault when someone is shot. The problem is irresponsible and thoughtless drivers. If you go after cell phones, soon you'll be going after radios, food, and any number of other distractions in the name of 'safety'.

We've gone pretty damn far down that road already, because of idiots like the moron I was replying to above.

Try thinking for a change.

85 posted on 12/15/2011 2:43:28 PM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (Perry's idea of border control: Use both hands to welcome the illegals right in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

To: Los Angeles Conservative
Yes your anecdotal evidence trumps all else....is your tinfoil hat comfy - be sure to adorn it with some Christmas decorations...’tis the season!

Use your brain not the Guburmunts. There would on;ly be less fatalities due too such issues as the building and near completion of the interstate system and the updates of the highway system such as four lanes with medians etc. The wreck I was involved in at age 5 was on a highway that I-75 replaced.

I can say with absolute 100% confidence the cars built today are not built near as safe and solid in construction as the ones when I began driving and drove as a teenager. Today's cars are basic coffins on wheels designed only to achieve emissions standards and gas mileage mandates safety be damned. I would not buy nor let my family ride in anything of today less than a full size pick up truck, van, or SUV, and Guburmunt wants them gone as well.

87 posted on 12/15/2011 3:31:21 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Los Angeles Conservative
The data is there.

No, my dim friend. The data is here and here and here.

Not to mention the fact that if you look at laws in just about every state, there's a law that applies to distracted or careless driving. But you and your liberal friends want a new law so you can make yourself feel better. It's for the children, right?

You've been in LALA land too long and your brain is getting rusty. You might feel a slight headache as you try to use it again, but doing so would make arguing with you much more interesting.

88 posted on 12/15/2011 3:47:36 PM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (Perry's idea of border control: Use both hands to welcome the illegals right in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

Comment #89 Removed by Moderator

To: perfect_rovian_storm
I checked the first link and I doubt others will catch on. Now it seems Goobermunt has too play peek-a-boo inside of peoples cars looking for offenses {REVENUE}. Just another TOOL given the new police state.

Don't worry folks they'll come after you next with such items as snitch boxes installed in newer vehicles. Technology will monitor your speed, stops, everything likely including what you say eventually, and a {Civil Fine} citation will arrive in the mail for you in a few days. After an officer reviews the data of course.

90 posted on 12/15/2011 4:27:54 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Los Angeles Conservative
none of the cites you linked serve to disprove the premise that cell phone use while driving is unsafe.

I'm just going to quote that and leave it there for others to see and laugh at.

Second, if you read the back half of the ABC cite, you’ll see that the conclusions of these “studies” can legitimately be called into question

Man, you really have been in LALA land too long. You might be a complete idiot if you believe the following:

1) Anything Roy LaHood says.

2) That anyone in Syracuse NY could actually back up the assertion that texting while driving had been reduced by 42%.

Am I supposed to answer your pathetic straw man about drunk driving? No, we'll just let you twist in the wind on that one. If you think you're doing anything but making yourself look like the north end of a southbound donkey, you probably shouldn't be behind the wheel until at least morning.

91 posted on 12/15/2011 4:28:10 PM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (Perry's idea of border control: Use both hands to welcome the illegals right in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Just another TOOL given the new police state.

Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with insurance companies being able to exact punishment from people who caused accidents due to cell phone related distractions, so long as it can be proven that the cell phone played a material role. But to give the cops another reason to harass the citizenry is ridiculous.

Funny that the propaganda case the NTSB is using here blames the cell phone, when the guy was severely sleep deprived and they also conveniently forget that the accident would have occurred anyway, cell phone or no.

I've lived in a state that bans texting and even phones in the hand. I appreciate being able to hold my phone. I like being able to check my phone at a red light without some jackoff cop trying to exact a penalty from me.

These nanny state apologists make me sick. Thank God our governor here in SC is an outspoken opponent of this kind of childish idiocy.

92 posted on 12/15/2011 4:37:20 PM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (Perry's idea of border control: Use both hands to welcome the illegals right in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

Comment #93 Removed by Moderator

To: cva66snipe
Maybe you need your guns removed from you for the safety of all?

If someone is using a gun while driving then I agree with you that guns should not be allowed in cars, at least not by the person that is driving. Actually, a gun used by the non driving person would be a distraction to the driver.

You have raised an excellent point. Cell phones should not be allowed by anyone in a car, not just the driver. Just look how much of a distraction a cell phone is when it is used in a restaurant. People at all the other tables in the restaurant get really distracted.

The only exception I would be that the phone would be allowed in the trunk of a car for emergencies. But the phone would have to be turned off even if it was in the trunk.

94 posted on 12/15/2011 4:46:57 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
As I get older and see more and more Nanny State laws I see the corporate interest pushing them to protect their profits {insurers} and government pushing them for the added revenue. It is past the point now where an average person can go about their everyday normal life without violating a law or statute on the books. The average person as well in any metro area will subject themselves several times a day to government cameras.

Fifty years ago if someone tried to search persons before boarding a plane, train, or bus, the officer would be ran out of town on a rail. Politicians political careers would end. Even at the height of the 60's and 70's hi-jacking persons were not treated as subjects of the government void of rights too unlawful search. The last searching of my person and belongings I submitted too was when I was in the Navy 30 years ago but that was a different set of laws as the UCMJ applied.

Today people don't question agencies like TSA violating their person. It's all about conditioning the next generations for submission. Some now will speak out. Many others thrive on the false security of government knows best laws. Sad too say some of the ones thriving on and demanding more and more Nanny State laws are Freepers as well.

95 posted on 12/15/2011 4:59:28 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom
No you don't get it at all. If government is too start dictating what we can and can not do and what is safe and what is not safe in our vehicles and now our homes as well then you Freeper can kiss your firearms and other rights and freedoms good bye. You'll only get PRIVLIDGES that Dear Leaders allow you.

You can then look in a mirror at the person who allowed government to begin that process and supported it till government finally came for what was yours. There are laws on the book in all 50 states covering reckless driving and/or failure to maintain control of vehicle. They have served us for nearly a century in some places. Reckless driving covers a wide range of situations and is officers disctretion to determine when a true danger exist and he must justify {prove} in a court of law. That law is a plenty enough for me.

The same arguements you make about cellphones others can make against firearms. Do you keep yours in the trunk and unloaded? Be very careful about the laws you wish for you might just get them.

96 posted on 12/15/2011 5:12:13 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

If I had a loved one out at night I would feel more comfortable being in contact with them including them calling via cell phone. Years ago I was told something when I took a job as a night clerk. The phone was your friend. If someone looked suspicious pick up the phone and at least act like someone was on the other end. The criminal knows that if they made a move that other person will know and call the police.

Many of the cell phone comments of posters supporting the total ban in vehicles are from persons who loathe cell phones in any venue. Anyone got offical figures on the number of lives cell phones save? When your loved one is robbed, beaten, murdered, or they ran off the road were penned in and could not be seen, and could not call for help as they bled out you can take comfort in the fact they did not use a cell phone. It was locked up in the trunk.

97 posted on 12/15/2011 5:23:59 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
I can say with absolute 100% confidence the cars built today are not built near as safe and solid in construction as the ones when I began driving and drove as a teenager.

What you are missing is that "safe" and "solid in construction" are two very different things. The car that is more solid/rigid, and thus makes it through a crash with barely a dent, can be far more dangerous than the car that is totaled in the same crash. The "totaled" car's frame absorbs the impact of the collision, while the "solid" car's frame does not (the car's passengers do). That's the reason that most modern cars are designed with "crumple zones." The car itself may look a whole lot worse after a crash, but its passengers come out a whole lot better.

As an extreme example, look at race cars. The fact that modern race cars appear to come apart upon seemingly minor impact is a safety feature not a flaw. It's the crashes where that does not happen that are the worst for the driver.

98 posted on 12/15/2011 5:23:59 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
A race car has far more built in supports than the average beer can car. Do you wear a racing suit driving per chance? Is your seat built into a cage?

Cars of yesteryear if they had three basic safety features would survive most wrecks we see today and injurues less severe. Airbags, seatbelts and antilock breaking if placed in older cars would be far better then todays car construction.

I'd still rather take my chances in lets say a 65 Fairlane than most new cars being built today. I'd not even think twice about my chances in a K-5 Blazer against any average car built today. Remember why the whacko's wanted them off the road? Becuase beer can cars could not take the impact from them.

Yes you might survive a beer can car crash. You can thank advances in emergency medicine and advanced trained parimendics for it. Are you going to tell me for example a Smart Car is a safe vehicle? No nor would I be caught in something like it or a Prius either. To get the mileage and the emissions to government standards they must be very light.

99 posted on 12/15/2011 5:44:46 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

What you call a beer can car, I call a car with crumple zones. If I’m going to be involved in a crash, i’d rather my car absorb the impact than my body.


100 posted on 12/15/2011 5:55:31 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-128 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