Comments on: A universal driver-cellphone ban?

By: LaHood’s cellphone crusade, cont’d - Overlawyered

LaHood’s cellphone crusade, cont’d - Overlawyered — Sun, 20 May 2012 15:00:05 +0000

[…] enacted national across-the-board ban on cellphone use. (The Newspaper; our earlier posts here and here; Ramesh Ponnuru, Bloomberg […]

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 08 May 2012 13:53:12 +0000

David, you asked the question, “Or are we going to ban the use of navigation devices while driving?” Funny you should ask that, because the NHTSA just published a report that navigation devices are a distraction and recommended that they be changed in such a way as to make them useless for actual navigation (no dynamic view, latency, etc.). Wait for the first lawsuits against Garmin, Magellan, Tom Tom, etc. because the device offered those features.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Tue, 08 May 2012 01:02:45 +0000

Frank: Why not penalize drinking as it can lead to drunk driving? Heck, why not penalize driving?

I wouldn’t mind so much if I thought the ban would be effective. But actually, it will just encourage people to be further distracted by the effort to look for nearby police, try to conceal what they are doing, and so on. It will also discourage the development of technologies that could make it less distracting.

I’m also puzzled how police can tell the difference between texting and navigating. Or are we going to ban the use of navigation devices while driving?

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 07 May 2012 23:30:35 +0000

“We penalize the action, not what may happen. Texting and cell phones may be a distraction that we can address through education. If texting and cell phones lead to an actual act of unsafe driving, you penalize that act.”

Like speeding?

By: DEM

DEM — Mon, 07 May 2012 21:00:35 +0000

It seems to me that the operation of modern cars –almost uniformly automatic transmission, steering highly assisted, with all sorts of alerts, not to mention the sense if invincibility that comes with umpteen airbags and 5,000 lbs of SUV steel surrounding you — is incredibly easy and safe. The reality is that one can safely operate a car while talking on the phone, as evidencing by the fact that it happens about a billion times a day without incident.

This proposed ban is about the fact that some people, me included, find it annoying when other people use phones while driving. Often, you have to wait on them to start when the light turns green, etc. In that respect, and probably in many others, phones are no different from fishing your hand around in a bag to find some of the french fries you just bought at the drive-thru. Why one supposedly calls out for a massive (and likely unenforceable) ban, while the other does not, is a mystery to me.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:38:05 +0000

There are two major points that need to be mentioned:

First, as Mr. Olson points out in his editorial, the government is ginning up the numbers to make the proposed regulations seem more “palatable.” Yet when the basis for the regulation is rooted in the sand of lies, the regulation itself is faulty and without merit.

Secondly, in deference to Frank’s thoughts on the issue, it is already illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to drive in an unsafe manner. If you are swerving in a lane, that is a traffic violation. If you merge into a lane where someone is there, that is a traffic violation.

We penalize the action, not what may happen. Texting and cell phones may be a distraction that we can address through education. If texting and cell phones lead to an actual act of unsafe driving, you penalize that act.

(And this doesn’t even address what right the Federal government has to mandate regulations on what is by definition, a state issue.)

Adding more laws on top of those that already exist is the epitome of “overlawyered” or at least “overlawed.”

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:01:06 +0000

Frank: So you admit to intentionally distracting yourself from driving by taking a survey of what other drivers are doing? Interesting.

By: mojo

mojo — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:38:33 +0000

Then why are they asking me to break the law with their “Call 911 if you see a drunk driver” signage?

Does anybody think about this stuff?

By: Dave B

Dave B — Mon, 07 May 2012 15:36:35 +0000

Yep, and they ought to ban radio use for the police too. Dang, those guys/gals get to drive fast with red and blue flashers, sirens, got the radio, cell phone, and mobile data terminal, not to mention the adrenalin rush. Can’t forget the pilots, always on the radio near the airport, busy airspace they encounter and they’re on the radio with the tower, ground control, flight planning, geez, lots of distraction. Just can’t agree with nanny government, hold people accountable and quit punishing the rest of us.

By: Mannie

Mannie — Mon, 07 May 2012 14:14:24 +0000

the feds blame a crash on distraction if a cellphone is so much as “in the presence of the driver at the time of the crash.

What’s that line about lies, damned lies and statistics?

I wouldn’t mind this so much if they also banned radios and computers in police cars. But the rules are for the little guy.