U.S. bans truckers, bus drivers from texting while driving

[catdd]

Seems pretty unenforceable to me. Much harder to see in a truck or a bus unless you are in another one.

Could be pressure from the insurance companies. Cops confiscate the phone after an accident to see if the driver was texting then insurance refuses to pay off because he was breaking the law at the time.

 

[georgiaboy]

I see it as a way to increase tax revenues for the increasingly debt-ridden gov't.

Let's also not forget the potentially illegal activity of putting on makeup while driving.

 

[Razmear]

Regarding all the statements I've been seeing (not just here) about this being unenforcible, I have to disagree.
Cell phones have GPS units, if the GPS unit determines the phone is moving faster than 20MPH then texting could be automatically disabled. All it would require is some added code to the phones operating system, which could be installed on the phones of truckers, government workers and others who are not permitted to text while driving. Enforcement can be achieved without police interaction.
I have no issue with a ban on texting while driving, it's a public safety issue.

eb

 

[AggieforPaul]

This law doesnt bother me, we have bigger fish to fry

 

[Ninja Homer]

The way I see it, it's not a matter of whether or not this should be a law, or if it's safe or not. It's a matter of whether or not the people allow the US government to once again step beyond the bounds of the Constitution, overriding state laws and rights.

Any time the US government tries to do something outside of its Constitutional bounds, it does it badly and horribly inefficiently. How many tax dollars will they end up spending making sure that all states are in compliance? How many tax dollars will each state spend to comply with whatever silly scheme the US government comes up with? How many hoops will trucking and bus companies have to jump through, and how much extra paperwork will they have? How are the trucking and bus companies going to pass these costs down to you, the consumer?

Another thing to consider is how they will use this law in the future. I invite you to don your tinfoil hat and think about it a bit. When they can't enforce the law, what scheme will they come up with to enforce it... mandatory surveillance equipment in trucks and buses? Access to all text messaging records along with mandatory GPS units? What's the end game, complete control of the transportation of goods and people? Rights are rarely taken away all at once. They're usually taken away in small steps that people usually don't have a problem with at first. Before the people realize it, their rights are half gone, death by a thousand cuts, half-cooked frogs in a pot about ready to boil.

 

[KCIndy]

Cell phones have GPS units, if the GPS unit determines the phone is moving faster than 20MPH then texting could be automatically disabled. All it would require is some added code to the phones operating system, which could be installed on the phones of truckers, government workers and others who are not permitted to text while driving.

Yeah?

How will that work when one of these "offenders" is driving a private vehicle on personal time, off the job? What if they're riding as a passenger?

If such a restriction is passed, I would rather see it passed across the board, for all cell phones sold or used in the U.S.

That way some 12 year old kid can figure out how to hack the code, turn off the restrictions, and post the solution on youtube.

 

[jbuttell]

Regarding all the statements I've been seeing (not just here) about this being unenforcible, I have to disagree.
Cell phones have GPS units, if the GPS unit determines the phone is moving faster than 20MPH then texting could be automatically disabled. All it would require is some added code to the phones operating system, which could be installed on the phones of truckers, government workers and others who are not permitted to text while driving. Enforcement can be achieved without police interaction.
I have no issue with a ban on texting while driving, it's a public safety issue.

eb

You're really willing to allow that type of government intrusion? I agree, that type of scheme is totally doable. Technology has a lot of potential to fill in enforcement gaps that were never possible. I suspect you welcome the surveillance cameras and intersection cameras that are everywhere now. It's also possible to add remote-control circuits that cut the power to your drivetrain in case a police officer wants to pull you over. Yeah, public safety, that's what it's all about right??

A case could be made that all non essential components in the car should be removed, as they all contribute to negligent driving. It would sound like a joke, until you read some of the comments in this thread.

I'm sorry, but I don't at all agree with the people on here that have bought into these redundant new laws that limit what we can do within our cars. So many feelings, a bit of reason couldn't hurt.

I suspect most people with this view fucked up at one point while texting or using their phone, or they observed some dumb ass swerving with a phone attached to their head.... which if you think about it OBVIOUSLY means that this is how the majority behaves, therefor EVERYONE must now conform. Again, I'd love to see the data on this, but I really suspect it's a bunch of bull shit like most legislation.

 

[MurrayMe]

Regarding all the statements I've been seeing (not just here) about this being unenforcible, I have to disagree.
Cell phones have GPS units, if the GPS unit determines the phone is moving faster than 20MPH then texting could be automatically disabled. All it would require is some added code to the phones operating system, which could be installed on the phones of truckers, government workers and others who are not permitted to text while driving. Enforcement can be achieved without police interaction.
I have no issue with a ban on texting while driving, it's a public safety issue.

eb

That's a scary thought.

 

[Razmear]

You're really willing to allow that type of government intrusion? ...

A software block is not government intrusion, and I'd rather see a technical solution than have cops having another excuse to pull people over.
If you have your cell phone on, then the government already knows where you are anyways, same goes with On-Star and all these other little conveniences that folks willingly buy that increase the surveillance state. Blocking one function of a tracking device does not increase the existing level of intrusion.

I personally can see no need to text while driving and see many idiots driving with their knees doing so anyways.

eb

 

[MelissaWV]

The use of these items is not, in and of itself, dangerous. The use of these items in a moving vehicle is not, in and of itself, dangerous (passengers could be going over 20mph and safely using a phone, for instance).

I wasn't aware of the NJ law. That's insane. I would be all for the trucking companies themselves having mandatory "down time" restricting the number of hours one can work in a row/week/whatever. I do know that most companies don't allow you to use your phone while you're driving for them, or have some kind of policy that requires you to pull over, but enforcement is very spotty.

"Texting while driving" isn't the thing you're all pointing out as being bad. "Driving like crap" is. If we're going to have police pulling people over, let's at least have them pull people over who are actually being unsafe. Speeding isn't necessarily dangerous. Going too fast for present weather conditions, though, is potentially a hazard. Yes, that gives police a lot of discretion, though we have dash cams, and we have the speed guns that let a cop know how fast you were going. If you were going 70 mph and it's snowing so hard the dash cam has trouble seeing out of the vehicle, you were an accident waiting to happen. Evidence like that can easily be presented in court. Court will be a fine place to present that evidence, because nonsense speeding tickets will be greatly reduced.

Of course, the next step would be to just have people react to actual accidents, rather than people driving hazardously. I acknowledge that argument, but think we would benefit greatly (so long as we're going to have police) from having people who are really obviously creating a hazard getting pulled over. Oh, but please don't tase them

 

[MelissaWV]

A software block is not government intrusion, and I'd rather see a technical solution than have cops having another excuse to pull people over.
If you have your cell phone on, then the government already knows where you are anyways, same goes with On-Star and all these other little conveniences that folks willingly buy that increase the surveillance state. Blocking one function of a tracking device does not increase the existing level of intrusion.

I personally can see no need to text while driving and see many idiots driving with their knees doing so anyways.

eb

It does not distinguish between a driver and a passenger. I'm sure the "cellphone not working in a vehicle going over 20mph" will go over well the first time a kidnap victim tries to dial for help, and their phone doesn't work.

 

[UnReconstructed]

I worked for a huge trucking company once... number 8 as far as revenue goes. All of our trailers had the number to corporate safety on the rear doors. People would call in to safety to report when they saw a driver talking on their cell phones.

Reducing the number of accident claims and damages is the number one priority of every trucking company on the road. I can't speak for the buses but trucks already have a stigma because of TV and movies. People are scared of trucks because they are huge and can do a lot of damage. The transportation companies themselves have done more to improve their safety than any law could ever do.

Just like anything else, this law has nothing to do with keeping people safe but has every thing to do with control. This is a feel good law. There is a video clip out of a bus driver texting on his phone and he rear-ends the car in front of him. Government people jump up and yell "we have to do something" so they write a shitty law and feel good about themselves.

 

[brandon]

This shit pisses me off to no end. Just because some people are not coordinated enough to text and drive, they have to ban it for everyone. Fuck 'em. I text and smoke cigs at the same time, while steering with my knee. And I'll keep doing it, all the while driving better than these pussies.

 

[brandon]

Sorry guys but I agree with the government on this one. I have seen too many people texting and not looking at where there driving. Texting is infinitely more dangerous than talking on the phone while driving. Driving with your knee while looking down with both hands texting is worth a ticket. It's just too dangerous.
Sometimes we need laws to stop the stupidity. I know Ron says we have to put up with foolish stuff with liberty, but if it's going to endanger my life on the road it goes to far. Sort of like drunk driving

Prohibiting Drunk Driving is not self defense

Just replace drunk driving with texting and driving.... same thing.

 

[Travlyr]

Recklessly driving any type of vehicle is already illegal in all 50 states. The only reason for these types of laws is to give police more power.

That's right. A lot of things are distracting drivers, CB radios, music, pets, kids, partners, navigators, bikini clad women for sure, and smoking... SMOKING is a big one... and on and on.

I for one am not ready to give up looking a bikini clad women for my safety.

​

 

[unklejman]

Don't forget road-side advertising! Have to ban that too, regardless of private property.

 

[ProBlue33]

This shit pisses me off to no end. Just because some people are not coordinated enough to text and drive, they have to ban it for everyone. Fuck 'em. I text and smoke cigs at the same time, while steering with my knee. And I'll keep doing it, all the while driving better than these pussies.

Sorry, but I have seen this way to many times, your FULL attention needs to be on the road and circumstances around you. Now it is true some people are better multi-taskers than others, but in this instance I agree with the government and that is my freedom to do so.

And don't even try to defend drunk driving in any shape, way or form, that is one freedom we should not have. End of discussion.