Home  ›  News  ›

Obama Bans Federal Employees from Texting and Driving

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 32 replies

WOW

ruler_goddess

Oct 1, 2009, 4:13 PM
Hell whats nexts? People can now not talk on their phones while driving? What if the trucker has the blue tooth? What Obama should ban should be woman doing their make up while driving, Or men shaving while drinking. Or how about the awsomly great people who think they can read a map of read a book? How about one better why don't we crack down on people drinking while they are driving? Our "President" Is a real DA
...
OldPhone

Oct 1, 2009, 4:20 PM
Years ago when the first local laws were being passed near where I live, I stated that that there are some problems with these types of laws: 1. They are a violation of our Constitutional Right of freedom of speech; 2. What if I drive around with a phone held to my ear, but, I am not talking on it; 3. People are distracted in the car for a variety of reasons. The ONLY real difference between being on a cell phone and other distractions (changing CD's/radio stations, etc, playing with car climate controls, reaching into a bag on the seat next to you, car passengers, animals, negligence, etc., is that it can be proven that at 12:31 pm on such and such a day you were on the phone. They cannot show what other distractions may have contribute...
(continues)
...
JeffdaBeat

Oct 1, 2009, 6:01 PM
Eh, I don't think it is a restriction of Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is basically you not being censored by the government. What this does is say that you cannot communicate using your phone while driving because it is dangerous.

I do, however, agree with your other points. I remember one of the things I had to do for my driving test is turn on the radio, let down the window, and turn on the heat...all while driving. Why are these things different. I don't think a person should hold a phone to their head for an extended amount of time...but I think people should be able to use bluetooth.
...
melissaisme

Oct 1, 2009, 6:02 PM
I do not agree that a ban would be a violation of our freedom of speech...Anything that makes the roads safer and saves lives should not even be questioned! 👿
...
Azeron

Oct 1, 2009, 6:49 PM
Well it IS being questioned. This is ridiculous.
...
bp3dots1

Oct 1, 2009, 9:34 PM
Questioned indeed. By the same kind of people who would argue that they are great at holding their liquor, so drinking and driving laws are unnecessary.

It's time for people to stop being spoiled brats and accept that some things are done for the greater good.

Ask the families of the thousands of people who've been killed or injured due to cellphone use while driving if this is a good idea. Or better yet, put yourself in their shoes.
...
Azeron

Oct 1, 2009, 9:54 PM
I don't drink so I have no idea what you are talking about. This IS America though and as long as it is there will be no Alien and Sedition Acts. We the People have the right to disagree with our leaders and even one another without being jailed or murdered. Thankfully...
...
bp3dots1

Oct 1, 2009, 10:00 PM
The problem is that we Americans are spending too much time disagreeing and not enough time working together to fix the problems we face.

As for your response, you day you dont drink, btu do you think its good that we have drunk driving laws? Thats basically the same thing as the no cellphone use issue.
...
Azeron

Oct 2, 2009, 12:41 AM
It is NOT the same thing. I can operate a vehicle and talk on a cell phone without incident. I've owned a cell phone since 2002 and have never been involved in an accident or had a traffic violation. Those who are involved in accidents while texting of all things simply have poor judgment and if it were not a cell phone involved would likely cause accidents in some other manner.
...
Mektah

Oct 2, 2009, 7:40 AM
So are you saying that if I can drink alcohol and drive without incident I should be allowed to?
...
Azeron

Oct 2, 2009, 7:51 AM
No. I am not saying that. However, if you are in an accident and your blood alcohol content is .07 or less they will not arrest you for drunk driving as the legal limit in most states is .08 so obviously they allow some drinking and driving. The problem is that you wish to make arguments that are not on the screen. If I did not make a statement don't post it as if I did.
...
Mektah

Oct 2, 2009, 8:59 AM
Actually it depends on the state. There are some states that you can be arrested for driving under the influence even if your blood alcohol level is below the allowed limit. As far as your statement, I was just trying to figure out if you feel that the law should not be, based solely on the reason that you have not have any accidents. It seems as if people who are against the law, seem to be almost ignorant of the fact that texting and talking on the cell phone while driving is a growing problem that if unchecked will cause more and more deaths.
...
OldPhone

Oct 2, 2009, 7:51 AM
Drinking and driving undeniably and physiologically impairs your judgment, sight, reaction time, concentration, motor skills, and depth perception the entire time you are intoxicated. Of this there is NO credible scientific dispute.

Yes, texting and talking on a cell phone may affect your concentration and reaction time, however, it is not the same as being drunk. If I take a quick call for 30 seconds and hang up, then my full concentration should be back to my driving. I personally do not make or answer calls in any kind of moderate or heavy traffic.

The comparison of driving while intoxicated and talking or texting on a cell phone are NOT the same thing, other than a few similaries.
...
Mektah

Oct 2, 2009, 8:54 AM
How can you say they are not the same, and yet at the same time you just said they both affect your concentration time. How much of a reaction time loss does it take to have an accident?
...
OldPhone

Oct 2, 2009, 9:15 AM
Read the rest of my posting. It is a temporary and intermittent distraction versus a long-standing and consistent impairment that affects the body on a physiologic level, as to how the body and the nervous system functions and how it impairs eyesight, depth perception, reaction time, concentration, etc., versus just being a distraction. They are similar on a very basic starting point, but, drunk impaired driving is much more severe and, truly, they cannot be used in the same context. Even starting the car, or getting behind the wheel of a car, or walking down the road while impaired by alcohol can be a violation of the law, BECAUSE it, again, affects the body and our judgements.

I can take a quick call while driving "Hello, yeah honey ...
(continues)
...
bp3dots1

Oct 2, 2009, 9:31 AM
The problem is that people aren't having 30 second conversations, I see people on the highway, almost everyday totally not looking at the road and sending texts. (among other things) When you are focused on a text message and not the traffic moving 60-70 miles pre hour around you, I would say that you could easliy be worse off than the drunk. At least most times the drunk guy is trying to watch the road, if only to look for a cop (no i dont advocate this either) At highway speeds, you have seconds to react, and if you are not even watching the road, your chances are pretty low of pulling it off.

I'll try to find the study they did comparing DUI vs phone use after i get outta work, but i think it was on phonescoop fairly recently.
...
Mektah

Oct 2, 2009, 11:39 AM
This may be true for you, but what about the millions of other people of who don't just stay on the phone for 30 seconds or who are more than imparied for just a small amount of time. I understand your fear of losing your freemdom, but this law is about more than just taking away your phone usage, if that's the case the government could just revoke the companies right to use spectrum. Yes you may not ever cause an accident and you may use your phone responsibly, but what about the millions of people who don't. As of now drunk driving is one of the leading causes of accidents, but consider this, legal drinking age is 21. There is no legal age for a cell phone. Add the fact that teens are more likely to have an accident plus the fact that ...
(continues)
...
bp3dots1

Oct 2, 2009, 9:24 AM
It is actually very close. Multiple sutdies have found that using a cellphone while driving is equally impairing as being drunk.

And just because you havent had an accident while doing it isn't a good argument. I know people who have beeen drunk driving since before 2002 and have never had an accident or got a DUI. But theyre still putting themselves and others at risk. Also, it doesnt matter how many times you do it successfully, its the one time when something goes wrong that will matter. Ask the guy who caused a fatal car accident because he was on the phone if he'll remember the accident, or the times he didnt kill anyone.


The poor judgement is the choice to use the phone while driving. Just because you think you're driving ama...
(continues)
...
OldPhone

Oct 2, 2009, 7:45 AM
I think your name is appropriate to your comments.
...
bp3dots1

Oct 2, 2009, 9:32 AM
How so? 👀
...
donebrasko

Oct 2, 2009, 9:49 AM
Well I guess that we will not be able to talk to other passengers while driving next. What about blinking? Will I be able to do that? What if my kids are yelling and i am driving. You are already trying to tell me that I am not allowed to spank them, can I at least look their direction in the mirror and tell them to hush?

This is rediculous.

But you cant complain. Who voted for him? Someone did. All this is is him trying to take out the easy stuff so that he can say that he made a difference. All the other stuff is too hard for him to do so why not go for the easy targets. Its the same as video games. No one has said a word about the semi porn videos and all the violence, but put it in a game and you have to let Congress...
(continues)
...
Jayshmay

Oct 1, 2009, 7:24 PM
With reguards to freedom of speech, I don't think freedom of speech is guaranteed if it endangers others. And talking on a cell phone while driving could be considered an example of exercising freedom of speech and putting others in danger.
...
OldPhone

Oct 1, 2009, 8:16 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Passing laws that tell people they cannot talk in a manner in which they desire is a violation of The US Bill of Rights. I wholeheartedly agree that no one is allowed to yell 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater, or even joke "I have a bomb" while preparing to board a plane. However, carrying on a normal conversation, innocent enough in it's intent, that could, may, won't, may not cause damage. As stated earlier and by others, so could changing the radio station, so w...
(continues)
...
asLeepLessman

Oct 1, 2009, 4:30 PM
I actually like the fact that our president has issued this ban on "Government Employees".

These people represent us when it comes down to it. What good is a Government Representative that falls subject to the same dangers we are trying to avoid? If you want to clean up the country, start with the people that run it.

ruler_goddess said: Hell whats nexts? People can now not talk on their phones while driving?


You really shouldn't.

ruler_goddess said: What if the trucker has the blue tooth?


I think thats ok (although Bluetooths are equally as distracting, you don't have a shoulder or a hand holding up the device. You do however, have at least 1 ear off the road. So...
(continues)
...
SprintCC

Oct 1, 2009, 5:26 PM
I don't have a problem with a president passing any executive order that impacts government employees in the course of their job. It is his right as head of the executive branch.

I do have a problem with the federal government telling us what we can or cannot do in our vehicles, or what truck drivers can do in theirs. Funny thing, but our bill of rights says that the federal government is restricted in what they can do. Anything that isn't expressly granted to the federal government is reserved for the states. Thus, it would be logical that they could limit what happens on interstates and federal highways, but what happens on a local street isn't "interstate commerce" so it isn't their domain.
...
JeffdaBeat

Oct 1, 2009, 6:03 PM
I agree with you on the counter points. I don't, however, think a bluetooth is dangerous because an ear is off of the road. We have stereos in our cars that make plenty of noise. And so far, I haven't encountered any deafening bluetooth ear pieces...
...
Jayshmay

Oct 1, 2009, 7:38 PM
I know, bluetooth should be encouraged. I remember a little while back when California enacted they're hands free law one of the handset makers was giving out free bluetooth earpieces.
...
mist668

Oct 1, 2009, 5:34 PM
I'm glad to know that they blocked cell use from truckers. I'm also glad that they forgot about miss prissy the 16 year old teenybopper who uses it all the time vs the truck driver that probably doesnt even have one.

What a joke. Its not truck drivers, its people with cars that cut in front of them that cause wrecks. You think 80,000 pounds stops on a dime?
...
Chromemember

Oct 1, 2009, 6:16 PM
You don't appear to be one of those people that thinks before actually opening up their mouths.

The only two drivers I am afraid of on the road are either drunk or talking on their damn cell phone. I cannot even begin to count all the times that someone talking on their phone has nearly merged directly into my car, driven way too slow for current road speeds or nearly rear ended someone else.

If this law applies to bluetooth devices as well then I don't agree with it as much. Maybe you should do a little research before opening your mouth though. The #1 distractions for anyone that causes an accident is some a$$hole talking on their cell phone.

I'm not saying there aren't other distractions (You're an idiot if you think any...
(continues)
...
NEgadgetguy

Oct 1, 2009, 6:44 PM
Wow, ruler goddess, what a sad commentary on the American educational system you are. If you don't like our president then get the hell out because nobody wants or needs you here. At the very least, learn some spelling skills and proper sentence structure as you may find it will serve you well in the future as I am hoping by your post that you are no older than 13. Absolutely nobody should be legally allowed to text, put on make up, read maps or anything else stupid while they are driving. If I ever got hit by someone who was texting or whatever, I would beat them to death with their phone, make up bag, map or whatever. None of those things are a joke, except of course for your post. They need to make these bans apply to everyone and not ju...
(continues)
...
stephen5688

Oct 1, 2009, 7:36 PM
If somebody doesn't like the President they should get the hell out. It is your right to not like anybody you choose as an American, from what I have read of your post, I don't think I like you, but I do like America and what it stands for, do feel free to stay. 🙄
...
Azeron

Oct 1, 2009, 7:47 PM
I don't like Obama and I disliked Bush even more. Fortunately, this is America and one does not have to like or worship the President to live here so I am staying. I will likely stay longer than he will be President.
...
acculabs

Oct 1, 2009, 8:55 PM
How about posting stupid crap on a message board, skippy.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.