Law Proposed to Ban Texting While Driving

[Shadow703793]

[citation][nom]Netherscourge[/nom]People might as well be drunk and smoking pot while driving, because that's about the same level of attention you are devoting to driving while you Text on your stupid cell phone while driving.[/citation]
Well played man, well played. +1000

 

[connacht]

Just another nanny law to pile on top of hundreds of other nanny laws that will never be enforced anyways. We can't drive while texting but we can put a child on the back of a motorcycle and go 70mph down a freeway, all legal just as long as the kid's feet meet the pegs... I will still continue to drive with a cell phone and text whenever I find I want to. That's called Free Will and I will act upon it as much as I like. I love people who want freedom of speech and freedom of press, but at the same time think texting while driving should be outlawed.

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
— Ronald Reagan

 

[connacht]

Just another nanny law to pile on top of hundreds of other nanny laws that will never be enforced anyways. We can't drive while texting but we can put a child on the back of a motorcycle and go 70mph down a freeway, all legal just as long as the kid's feet meet the pegs... I will still continue to drive with a cell phone and text whenever I find I want to. That's called Free Will and I will act upon it as much as I like. I love people who want freedom of speech and freedom of press, but at the same time think texting while driving should be outlawed.

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
— Ronald Reagan

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]wayneepalmer[/nom]The effects are roughly the same so why shouldn't the penalties be?[/citation]
You don't see the difference between a person who knowingly tries to kill other people and someone who does it by accident? I find that hard to believe.
------------------------------------------
[citation][nom]connacht[/nom]I will still continue to drive with a cell phone and text whenever I find I want to. That's called Free Will and I will act upon it as much as I like. [/citation]
I hope you don't find the desire to text while driving, then. If so, I find this remark rather like saying, "I'll have a few drinks whenever I damn well please, no government's gonna tell ME I can't knock back a fifth of the Thunder Chicken while barreling down the freeway at 75 mph!"

[citation][nom]connacht[/nom]I love people who want freedom of speech and freedom of press, but at the same time think texting while driving should be outlawed.[/citation]
I'm not seeing the contradiction, here. Could you explain it?

[citation][nom]connacht[/nom]"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." — Ronald Reagan[/citation]
Like laws against drunk driving protect us from each other? Because drunk driving doesn't just endanger you as a driver, it endangers everyone else sharing the road and sidewalks. Apparently texting while driving is at least as dangerous.

 

[1pp1k10k4m1]

It's already illegal in Virginia because we elected some communist as our governor, and his cronies. He can't pass a decent or reasonable law because he is too busy doing the research for the no-roadhead proposal on our current president.

 

[connacht]

spanky deluxe 08/03/2009 2:56 PM
".A step in the right direction. Now just ban smoking in bars and restaurant, ban gun ownership and provide a high level of healthcare to everyone no matter their wealth and the US may start to look a lot more civilised."

Let me finish your statement: (And this is if you infact WERE not performing a high degree of sarcasm in this statement)

"the US may start to look a lot more civilized, you know, like Cuba or Russia!"

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

You still haven't explained anything, buddy. Try posting again when you can tell us why this makes us "like Cuba or Russia," why there's a contradiction between this and free speech, and why you should be allowed to do something incredibly dangerous to yourself and others like that.

 

[connacht]

It starts somewhere with everything. First it's no texting while driving, then no texting while walking in public, then no texting unless you are in your home, then it's no texting unless you get a license, then its no texting at all. Then next comes the same steps with using a cell phone for verbal communication... In Cuba you can not own a cell phone unless you are approved to have one and carry a license. It's a slippery slope in ANY country who begins creating numerous nanny laws. Nanny laws eventually extend their arms in others areas until eventually no one can be left to make a good, or bad decision because the Government has preventing you from making ANY decision except the one they allow you to make. People need to realize that for every law that is passed the less freedom we all eventually have. More laws lead only to more laws. Name how many times you have read about a law being removed off the books. Freedom is a PIE, you take away a small slice with cell phones, or health care, each time it's a liberty lost. Until eventually the PIE is GONE.

 

[astrodudepsu]

WheelsOfConfusion is a fool, no other way to state it.

You argue that the Fed should do something that it is NOT empowered to do under the Constitution, the enumerated powers exist for a reason. Then complain about individual states not taking enough action.

Show me ONE state that doesn't already have a law that stupid behavior such as texting while driving doesn't fall under and then you have a point.

As the cop and many others have already pointed out there are a slew of existing traffic violations you can be cited for if you text while driving. In this case there is NO need for more legislation, especially from Washington. How about getting us out of the Trillion dollar debt? Or maybe have a REAL healthcare plan? Nah that stuff is too hard, let's strong-arm the states with useless laws!

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]connacht[/nom]It starts somewhere with everything. First it's no texting while driving, then no texting while walking in public, then no texting unless you are in your home, then it's no texting unless you get a license, then its no texting at all. Then next comes the same steps with using a cell phone for verbal communication... [/citation]
Riiiiiiiight
Try again without using a classic logical fallacy, because you're not going to impress me with such a blatant error in reasoning.

[citation][nom]connacht[/nom]It's a slippery slope...[/citation]
That's exactly why your argument is wrong, your argument is a Slippery Slope.

[citation][nom]connacht[/nom]... in ANY country who begins creating numerous nanny laws.[/citation]
So why aren't cell phones illegal without a license in all those other "nanny laws" countries? You talk about the restrictive Cuban regime (which was literally born out of radical Communism) but completely gloss over modern European mixed-economy states like Finland. You're just blatantly cherry-picking, and it's disgusting.

[citation][nom]connacht[/nom]Name how many times you have read about a law being removed off the books.[/citation]
Any time the state or federal Supreme Court has ruled a measure unconstitutional, as in saying it violates the constitutional rights of the citizens. Or how about the time Prohibition was repealed by the legislature without even going to SCOTUS? Believe it or not, we DO have measures of protection against such laws. Also keep in mind that there are countries many times older than the US, with laws that have evolved over those lengths of time. If your line of thought about "adding more laws eventually takes away all freedom" were true, nobody would have any freedoms by now. I'm sorry, every argument you're making here is just not borne out by the facts and demonstrates a lack of reasoning skills.

[citation][nom]connacht[/nom]Freedom is a PIE, you take away a small slice with cell phones, or health care, each time it's a liberty lost.[/citation]
I'd kind of like to know exactly what kind of "freedoms" you think would be lost under "healthcare," but I don't think that would really be a productive conversation.

@astrodudepsu: If you think things like "reckless endangerment" are good enough, why are there laws specifically against DUI? Do you think we shouldn't have any DUI laws?

 

[astrodudepsu]

DUI laws are established on a STATE BY STATE basis. If a state wanted to not have DUI laws, then that's up to the citizenry of that state. I wouldn't live there, but I would respect their right's to govern themselves.

The crux of your argument is Federal intervention. DUI laws are not federal statutes.

Sorry try again.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]astrodudepsu[/nom]DUI laws are established on a STATE BY STATE basis. [/citation]
Under the proposed bill, states will also have the ability to implement or not these anti-texting-while-driving laws on their own basis too. If they choose not to, they'll lose up to a quarter of their federal highway money. Given the danger apparently posed by texting while driving, I don't think that's an unreasonable string to attach to the money they're getting from the feds.

My point about DUI is that obviously there's a need to address that situation under something beyond "reckless endangerment," and I don't see why texting should be treated any differently.

Sorry, try again.