Schumer would force all states to ban texting while driving

[Nutczak]

imported post

for all you proponents of this law,
Whats next? How about all those crashes from someone using their GPS NAVMAP while driving, are we going to outlaw those too? Smoking? Talking with your passengers? fiddling with your ipod to skip to the music you want.
We already have laws addressing inattentive driving, use those current lawsinstead of creating more Pseudo probable-cause to be stopped, illegally searched and selectively taxed by the police.

I think the driving test should be a little tougher and the operator must show the ability to multitask while driving!

Anyone here have a pilots license (private or commercial)?
How many things have we got going on in the left seat at any given time? We have a radio we are communicating on, VOR dial that we are screwing with, localizer, transponder and dealing with 3 different axis instead of only 2 of them. Along with traffic that could be anywhere around, above or below you. Restricted airspace, Etc Etc Etc. We just can;t pull over to stop if we get overwhelmed, we still need to maintain control and handle the 7-8 different tasks required to navigate including a serious discussion with ATC while also reading charts to figure what frequencies, transponder settings, ILS, pattern & glide slope. Why is it that GA aircraft are not falling out of the sky every day?
Because the education and training requirements are higher! there are alot of people that are driving that really shouldn't be! Any major city I visit I see people reading the paper & driving, applying make-up, and tons of other dangerous activities. Laws already exist to counter this, but nothing is being done still, so how would enacting a duplicate law help curb this activity?

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

for all you proponents of this law,
Whats next? How about all those crashes from someone using their GPS NAVMAP while driving, are we going to outlaw those too? Smoking? Talking with your passengers? fiddling with your ipod to skip to the music you want.
We already have laws addressing inattentive driving, use those current lawsinstead of creating more Pseudo probable-cause to be stopped, illegally searched and selectively taxed by the police.

I think the driving test should be a little tougher and the operator must show the ability to multitask while driving!

Anyone here have a pilots license (private or commercial)?
How many things have we got going on in the left seat at any given time? We have a radio we are communicating on, VOR dial that we are screwing with, localizer, transponder and dealing with 3 different axis instead of only 2 of them. Along with traffic that could be anywhere around, above or below you. Restricted airspace, Etc Etc Etc. We just can;t pull over to stop if we get overwhelmed, we still need to maintain control and handle the 7-8 different tasks required to navigate including a serious discussion with ATC while also reading charts to figure what frequencies, transponder settings, ILS, pattern & glide slope. Why is it that GA aircraft are not falling out of the sky every day?
Because the education and training requirements are higher! there are alot of people that are driving that really shouldn't be! Any major city I visit I see people reading the paper & driving, applying make-up, and tons of other dangerous activities. Laws already exist to counter this, but nothing is being done still, so how would enacting a duplicate law help curb this activity?

+1

 

[Repeater]

imported post

The real issue here is not whether a law banning texting while driving would be good thing; it's whether the ends justify the means.

Schumer wants the power to force all states in the Union to do what he wants.

This, after he waged a filibuster against the so-called Thune Amendment to preserve State's Rights.

Here's what he said in the NY Daily News, Mouth of the Potomac:

Not only is texting and driving a bad idea, it should be illegal, Chuck Schumer argued today in proposing a bill that would make all 50 states ban the practice.

Schumer insisted a federal law is needed because “many state legislatures have decided not to take decisive action on this problem, citing a lack of data on whether texting while driving is dangerous.”

Well, many states have not taken "decisive action" in defending citizens' Second Amendment rights, one of them being New York. Does he care about that? Of course not.

Hypocrite.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

The folks who worry about this kinda stuff are the same bunch of morons who, on seeing the 3-digit lottery was "454" and the 4-digit lottery was "4454" make a big deal about the numbers "repeating". The "Pattern" is nothing but 20=20 hindsight and has no bearing on what will happen in the next night's drawings.

If I am driving and have to use voice contact with the office, I have to push a button to request access, pay attention to when it is granted, change the frequency of the radio, speak, and then go back to data and clear the computer in my unit. How do I do this without causing a wreck? Easy. I keep in mind at all times that my focus should be on the road, and if my senses are overloaded or the conversation gets too involved I either terminate the conversation OR pull TF OVER.

Most people can handle a cell-phone conversation while driving. The hazards presented by such behavior are presented by goddamned idiots. And a goddamned idiot does not have the intelligence to think about a law. If these morons who text while driving - which is on a par with rummaging in your pocketbook or glove compartment in terms of distraction - had enough brains to obey such a law there would be no need for such a law to begin with.

In any case maybe a law is needed. But for Gawds sakes, Schecky Schumer, who very recently reamed out the Conservatives for "violating State's Rights" with the CC recioprocity biz to turn around and do this..... That's kinda like a guy saying nobody can rape his nephew except him. That's the DemonRat Way: Freedom of speech as long as you freely agree with them, freedom of religion as long as they don't find it offensive, and a right to keep and bear arms as long as you're in the (federally controlled) National Guard and the arms are under their control. Boy what I wouldn't give to smack ol' Schecky in the face with a pie.......

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

SNIP We have a radio we are communicating on, VOR dial that we are screwing with, localizer, transponder and dealing with 3 different axis instead of only 2 of them....

SEX IN THE COCKPIT

Dissassociated Press 7/31/09

A local pilot's revelations about sex in the cockpit during flight has scandalized the local Ladies' Auxiliary.

Mrs. Imogene Prude commented, "Momma always said flyboys were a wild bunch, warning me against their invitations to 'take the stick.' No other profession has a cockpit, except sailors--and she warned me about them, too."

Speculation is rampant as to whether the pilot's references to other instruments were actually code words for something else.

The manager of Adult Toys said he suddenly started receiving calls asking if he carries "transponders" and "localizers". Hereminded the public that they may not remove magazine wrappers in a quest to find out more about "three different axes."

The former Rev. Satyr, recently defrockedover the church secretary cover-up, demanded black boxesfor all aircraft.But, thevice-president of the high-school promiscuity club called him a hypocrite more interested in the recordings than prevention.

Dr. Friedbrain, local psychiatrist commented, "Pilots, althoughwellknown for multi-tasking and keeping cool under pressure, should keep theirmind on flying. Only psychiatrists are qualified to havesex during office hours."

This story compiled from wire reports and imagination.

 

[altajava]

imported post

Every state I've driven in has some kind of law against "driving while distracted". Adding another law on top of that makes as much sense as charginga killer with a hate crime just because he might have said something racial along the way.

If the powers that be would put as much effort into enforcing the laws we already have instead of creating a bunch of feel good laws, we would be a lot better off.

 

[modelo57]

imported post

A Federal law is unnecessary. Most if not all States have a "distracted driver" law covering everything from pets in the lap to reading to breast feeding (I've seen it at 70+mph). I believe the States have it covered thank you very much!

 

[Don Barnett]

imported post

The other day, my wife and I pulled up next to a Prince William County police cruiser at a stop light. I looked over and what was the LEO doing?

Yep, you guessed it...texting.

 

[Statesman]

imported post

TheMrMitch wrote:

Already have a law. Careless driving. Reckless driving. Whatever.:banghead:

We do NOT need more laws.

But how would politicians justify their paychecks, and their political existence, if they were not managing the states? We all know the states are COMPLETELY incapable of taking care of their own business. :quirky

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

rugerdon wrote:

The other day, my wife and I pulled up next to a Prince William County police cruiser at a stop light. I looked over and what was the LEO doing?

Yep, you guessed it...texting.

Shoulda called 911 and reported the officer and his cruiser #

Woulda been an eye opener at the next roll call for him to inform all the rest of his shift that the citizens are proactive against one way cops. Or youcould've in turnbeen cited for profiling..:lol:

 

[PT111]

imported post

I am 100% against any federal legislation on this and pretty much against any similar federal legislation including the forcing of states to accept each others CCW permits. However textimg whil driving is a dangerous thing to do but there are other dangerous things that people do while driving including waving their arms around gesturing, looking at each other and sightseeing at the girls in bikinis instead of paying attention to the road. Always wear you seatbelt. If you are an SC state employee, are involved in a fatal accident your life insurance will not pay off to your family if you aren't wearing your seatbelt so it is not just a personal decision but affects your family if you don't wear one.

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

Whether this is good law or not is irrelevant and itis not justifiable because the federal government would supercede the traffic laws of the several states.

That is a negative.

What constitutional authority does the federal government believe theyhave that suggests they can pass traffic laws for all states?

To make this gun related, itwould be tantamount to passing gun laws that supercede state law and the 2nd amendment rights of the people.

That often happens and it is unconstitutional just the same.

 

[Don Barnett]

imported post

Hah!

He was replying to my text.

We caught one of the lifeguards at our pool texting while on the "stand"...fired immediately.

 

[darthmord]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Nutczak wrote:

for all you proponents of this law,
Whats next? How about all those crashes from someone using their GPS NAVMAP while driving, are we going to outlaw those too? Smoking? Talking with your passengers? fiddling with your ipod to skip to the music you want.
We already have laws addressing inattentive driving, use those current lawsinstead of creating more Pseudo probable-cause to be stopped, illegally searched and selectively taxed by the police.

I think the driving test should be a little tougher and the operator must show the ability to multitask while driving!

Anyone here have a pilots license (private or commercial)?
How many things have we got going on in the left seat at any given time? We have a radio we are communicating on, VOR dial that we are screwing with, localizer, transponder and dealing with 3 different axis instead of only 2 of them. Along with traffic that could be anywhere around, above or below you. Restricted airspace, Etc Etc Etc. We just can;t pull over to stop if we get overwhelmed, we still need to maintain control and handle the 7-8 different tasks required to navigate including a serious discussion with ATC while also reading charts to figure what frequencies, transponder settings, ILS, pattern & glide slope. Why is it that GA aircraft are not falling out of the sky every day?
Because the education and training requirements are higher! there are alot of people that are driving that really shouldn't be! Any major city I visit I see people reading the paper & driving, applying make-up, and tons of other dangerous activities. Laws already exist to counter this, but nothing is being done still, so how would enacting a duplicate law help curb this activity?

+1

+1000

The driving reqs need to be tightened up. No need for more laws, just tighter requirements on what it takes to get a driver's license.

 

[Repeater]

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

for all you proponents of this law,
Whats next? How about all those crashes from someone using their GPS NAVMAP while driving, are we going to outlaw those too?

Actually, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has called for a 'Distracted Driver' summit next month, and he specifically mentioned GPS devices:

Ray LaHood, US transport secretary, also hints at action against drivers distracted by mobile phones and GPS devices.

LaHood appeared to accept that GPS systems are acceptable provided they have a lock that prevents drivers adjusting them while a car is in motion.

Chuck Schumer has submitted his bill to ban 'texting' -- which includes reading, not just writing. Go to Thomas.gov and review S. 1536.

Remember, Chuckie trashed the Thune Amendment as a violation of States Rights. Here is part of his bill:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

• Congress finds that--

• • (1) cell phones and other electronic devices are not only instrumentalities and channels of interstate commerce, but products of interstate commerce;

• • (2) for those reasons, regulation of the use of cellular telephones or other electronic devices to send text messages is covered by the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce as enumerated in article I, section 8 of the Constitution;

• • (3) additionally, the Supreme Court held in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (June 23, 1987), that Congress may condition Federal highway funding on State compliance with certain conditions;

• • (4) people in the United States are using cellular telephones and other personal electronic devices to send text messages or emails, more commonly known as `texting', with increasing frequency;

• • (5) according to the New York Times, more than 110,000,000,000 text messages were sent in the United States during the month of December 2008 alone, a tenfold increase in just 3 years;

• • (6) texting and portable email are valuable to consumers, businesses, and private individuals throughout the United States, but those services also create an extreme risk when used by individuals while operating motor vehicles;

• • (7) a 2008 study by Nationwide Insurance found that 20 percent of drivers in the United States send text messages while operating motor vehicles;

• • (8) according to a study by Car and Driver Magazine, texting while driving is more dangerous than driving while intoxicated;

• • (9) a recent study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found operators of motor vehicles who sent text messages while driving had a collision risk that was 23 times greater while texting as compared to the risk when the operators were not texting;

• • (10) another study by the University of Utah found that college students using a driving simulator were 8 times more likely to have an accident while texting;

• • (11) after a serious accident occurred on the Boston public trolley system in May 2009, the trolley operator was found to have been texting at the time of the accident;

• • (12) the problem of texting while driving has been recognized across the United States;

• • (13) as of the date of enactment of this Act, 14 States and the District of Columbia ban all drivers from texting while operating motor vehicles, and 11 other States have a modified ban on texting while driving;

• • (14) the risks created by texting while driving are increasing nationwide as the use of texting increases nationwide;

• • (15) it is necessary for Congress to act to protect the safety of all people in the United States on highways and roads in the United States; and

• • (16) a Federal law to address the problem of texting while driving is necessary to ensure minimum standards of protection across the United States, in the same manner as the national minimum drinking age provides a uniform standard of protection.

 

[Gil223]

MSC 45ACP wrote:

+1000

The driving reqs need to be tightened up. No need for more laws, just tighter requirements on what it takes to get a driver's license.

It is absurd to defend an obviously unsafe act. First of all, a "law" has no meaning if it is not enforced. The most recent stats I can find, say that 38 states have passed anti- "texting while driving" laws, but nobody seems to be enforcing those laws, and you don't get the full appreciation of preoccupied drivers unless you ride a motorcycle. I have had three instances where "cagers" have blown red lights because they were either looking at their laps, or they had their cellphone centered on their steering wheel. Had I not been paying attention for all the other drivers, I would have been killed (please hold your applause). About two weeks ago, on my way to a doctor's appointment, I stopped at a traffic signal beside a car with a young woman in it - she was busy looking at her lap. The light turned green, and when she finally began to move I was already about 100 yards ahead of her (driving at the posted speed limit, and without smoking my tires). I insured that I stayed well out of her way.

I can see no sensible reason for engaging in any potentially deadly activity while distracted (with the exception of participating in a war... where everything is a distraction). Driving is a state-granted privilege, not a right. Pax...

 

[davidmcbeth]

Ancient thread re-viver ---- ACTIVATE !

 

[Gil223]

Whether this is good law or not is irrelevant and itis not justifiable because the federal government would supercede the traffic laws of the several states.

That is a negative.

What constitutional authority does the federal government believe theyhave that suggests they can pass traffic laws for all states?

To make this gun related, itwould be tantamount to passing gun laws that supercede state law and the 2nd amendment rights of the people.

That often happens and it is unconstitutional just the same.

Apparently, you have forgotten that His Royal Highness, King Barack I, does not have to abide by our Constitution (as he has proven on an almost weekly basis, and without challenge from our Congress). According to English law - upon which our laws are based - the King IS the law, and therefore cannot break the law. Pax...

 

[Chief1297]

I say no new laws BUT if you cause an accident or injury due to your texting/talking on the phone while driving, you need to be held responsible for your actions. If you cause a death, you should be responsible for supporting that persons family for the rest of your life and with the resources you currently have and that you would ever make. If you cause property damage, you should be made to replace it and make things right. If one want to be and act stupid, then pay the consequences of your actions.

 

[conandan]

I say no new laws BUT if you cause an accident or injury due to your texting/talking on the phone while driving, you need to be held responsible for your actions. If you cause a death, you should be responsible for supporting that persons family for the rest of your life and with the resources you currently have and that you would ever make. If you cause property damage, you should be made to replace it and make things right. If one want to be and act stupid, then pay the consequences of your actions.

I agree 100%. But it seems nobody is responsible for what they do. Its someone else's problem because I was allowed to do it. There should be a law to stop me. (Sarcasm) .