No cellphones, no texting by drivers, US urges

I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
drunk driving.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?...e-31b011b19e32

No cellphones, no texting by drivers, US urges

December 13, 2011 9:33 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — Texting, emailing or chatting on a cellphone while
driving is simply too dangerous to be allowed, federal safety
investigators declared Tuesday, urging all states to impose total bans
except for emergencies.

Inspired by recent deadly crashes — including one in which a teenager
sent or received 11 text messages in 11 minutes before an accident —
the recommendation would apply even to hands-free devices, a much
stricter rule than any current state law.

The unanimous recommendation by the five-member National
Transportation Safety Board would make an exception for devices deemed
to aid driver safety such as GPS navigation systems.

A group representing state highway safety offices called the
recommendation "a game-changer."

snip
__________________
Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals
put together!

Affirmative action is double racism. Persecuting whites in the belief
blacks can't make it on ability.

Judy "**** 4 Brains" Dairya spewed:

>
>I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
>penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
>drunk driving.

Great, just what we need: another nanny state law to protect imbeciles
like you from yourself. No wonder that america (sic) has been swirling
down the loo for the last 50 years.

Now, then do us all a big favour and blow your head off.

--
Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:

"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?

Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."

Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: >
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg

Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj

"Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"
> wrote in message
...

> I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
> penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
> drunk driving.

I can go with banning texting, and even talking on hand held phones. BUT,
unless they are also going to ban talking to passengers, listening to the
radio, eating, drinking, etc., etc., while driving, I can't see banning
hands free devices.

NHTSA is like most nanny state bureacrcies that are close to out living
their usefulness - they have achieve 99% of their original goals but instead
of quietly down-sizing, they have to spend billion of dollars on trival
matters to prove they are still important. Unfortunately, they can't just
dig holes and fill them back up to keep busy, so they keep coming up with
more "suggestions" designed to prove they are worth keeping around.

Ed

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:32:15 -0500, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>"Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"
> wrote in message
...
>
>> I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
>> penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
>> drunk driving.
>
>I can go with banning texting, and even talking on hand held phones. BUT,
>unless they are also going to ban talking to passengers, listening to the
>radio, eating, drinking, etc., etc., while driving, I can't see banning
>hands free devices.
>
>NHTSA is like most nanny state bureacrcies that are close to out living
>their usefulness - they have achieve 99% of their original goals but instead
>of quietly down-sizing, they have to spend billion of dollars on trival
>matters to prove they are still important. Unfortunately, they can't just
>dig holes and fill them back up to keep busy, so they keep coming up with
>more "suggestions" designed to prove they are worth keeping around.
>
>Ed
>
>


Fear not, there is little chance of any lawmakers banning hands free
telephone usage. I can see banning texting, even banning holding the
phone to your ear, but handsfree usage is totally unenforceable.

On Dec 14, 5:45*am, Steve > wrote:

> Fear not, there is little chance of any lawmakers banning hands free
> telephone usage. *I can see banning texting, even banning holding the
> phone to your ear, but handsfree usage is totally unenforceable.

Not so. If you are in an accident, the police need only look at your
cell phone records to determine if you were using it. Additional
charges could then brought.

On Dec 14, 1:31*am, necromancer
<Zidane's_Last_Red_Card@worldofnecromancer_no_spam _no_way.org> wrote:
>
> Great, just what we need: another nanny state law to protect imbeciles
> like you from yourself.

It would be a law to protect me from imbeciles who feel the need to
multi-task while driving. If someone wants to harm himself, I am all
for it as long as he knows exectly the consequences of his actions. I
would support a law that allowed drunk driving between 2AM and 3AM,
those who choose to drive during that 'happy hour' would know the
situation and adjust their schedual accordingly.



No wonder that america (sic) has been swirling
> down the loo for the last 50 years.
>

America swirling since 1961? Man on the moon, internet, decreased
infant mortality, sattelite communication, robotics, cleaner air and
water ... those are the signs of swirling? Bring more, please. Even
our homicide rate is the same as it was in 1961, and seems to be
trending down further. I guess as one gets older and more frail, one
sees the world as increasingly scarier.

On Dec 14, 2:23*pm, Steve > wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:32:12 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
>
> > wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 5:45*am, Steve > wrote:
>
> >> Fear not, there is little chance of any lawmakers banning hands free
> >> telephone usage. *I can see banning texting, even banning holding the
> >> phone to your ear, but handsfree usage is totally unenforceable.
>
> > Not so. If you are in an accident, the police need only look at your
> >cell phone records to determine if you were using it. Additional
> >charges could then brought.
>
> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...

After an accident?????? Especially if an injury or death is involved.
Damn, you must have studied hard to be so stupid.

On Dec 14, 11:23*am, Steve > wrote:
>
> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...

Proof? You just make this up as you go along or what?

From yesterday's news:

"
WASHINGTON - A 19-year-old pickup truck driver involved in a deadly
highway pileup in Missouri last year sent or received 11 texts in the
11 minutes immediately before the accident, federal investigators said
Tuesday...

"Investigators are seeing texting, cell phone calls and other
distracting behavior by operators in accidents across all modes of
transportation with increasing frequency. It has become routine for
investigators to immediately request the preservation of cell phone
and texting records when they launch an investigation."



Read mo http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...#ixzz1gXndLn2Z

Routine. Get it? No big deal to pull one's cell phone records.
Driving is a privlage, one in which one gives up certain rights. Look
at implied consent, that's all that needs to be done as far as phone
records.

Why would you want to defend such stupid behavior?

On Dec 14, 12:03*pm, liberal > wrote:

> Damn, you must have studied hard to be so stupid.

Insulting is not an argument. Please, leave the discussion up to the
adults.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:03:50 -0800 (PST), liberal
> wrote:

>On Dec 14, 2:23*pm, Steve > wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:32:12 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Dec 14, 5:45*am, Steve > wrote:
>>
>> >> Fear not, there is little chance of any lawmakers banning hands free
>> >> telephone usage. *I can see banning texting, even banning holding the
>> >> phone to your ear, but handsfree usage is totally unenforceable.
>>
>> > Not so. If you are in an accident, the police need only look at your
>> >cell phone records to determine if you were using it. Additional
>> >charges could then brought.
>>
>> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
>> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...
>
>After an accident?????? Especially if an injury or death is involved.
>Damn, you must have studied hard to be so stupid.

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html
A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private
and therefore can't be released without a warrant, in a case that may
affect how law enforcement officials use data in criminal
investigations