Fed takeover of the roadways? US ban on cellphone use while driving sought.

Originally posted by beezzer
A Beezzer Sermon on the Mount (actually my recliner)

The second this goes through, eating while driving, singing while driving, picking your g*d-damned nose while driving will become an issue.

That being said; why not get some entrepeneur to develope a wee little box that is mounted to the car. A simple key turn and it jams cell phone frequencies-this then becomes a individual responsibility instead of a government mandate.

Thus sayeth the sad little bunny.

Ironically in relation to this thread, because of FCC regulation.

Cell Phone jammers are highly restricted to the point of being virtually impossible to implement legally.

FCC

We remind and warn consumers that it is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi

This law would be fantastic for all those service techs that actually work out of their vans or trucks who actually have to be on their phone all day to earn a living... yet I see women filing their nails while they drive or reading books or even once folding laundry...

Funny enough even if it passed we would still see cops talking on their phones as they speed and change lanes with no turn signals.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by beezzer

 

They have been doing that for the past decade

all cars come equipped with bluetooth

hands free and all that.

From what I seen on TV the ban would include Bluetooth hands free devices as well. If you are driving down the road and are talking to your self or singing along with the radio and a cop sees it he can pull you over for talking on a cell phone. They said this could cause a lot of people to get pulled over just because some cop seen their lips moving. TPTB are taking the Internet from us are they wanting to take our cell phones as well?

reply to post by FortAnthem


You don't seem to understand the federal system of government. Let me try and explain;

1) Federal government outlaws texting while driving.
2) States pass laws to comply with federal law.
3) States that don't pass laws to comply with federal law have federal funds withheld.
4) The end.

Ultimately, the federal government enforces laws like these through funding. They don't make state troopers and local sheriff's start pulling people over. The FBI aren't going to pull you over for traffic violations anytime soon either.

This is how the federal government makes states obey federal laws. Not a single state governor wants to stop taking money from the federal government.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

You don't seem to understand the federal system of government. Let me try and explain;

1) Federal government outlaws texting while driving.
2) States pass laws to comply with federal law.
3) States that don't pass laws to comply with federal law have federal funds withheld.
4) The end.

Ultimately, the federal government enforces laws like these through funding. They don't make state troopers and local sheriff's start pulling people over. The FBI aren't going to pull you over for traffic violations anytime soon either.

This is how the federal government makes states obey federal laws. Not a single state governor wants to stop taking money from the federal government.

No, you are the one who doesn't understand our form of government. The federal government has limited powers listed in the Constitution. It is supposed to deal with only national matters and leave local matters up to the states and local governments to deal with. It is based on the idea of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. The concept is applicable in the fields of government, political science, cybernetics, management, military (Mission Command) and, metaphorically, in the distribution of software module responsibilities in object-oriented programming. Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism, where it asserts the rights of the parts over the whole.

Subsidiarity is also a tenet of some forms of conservative or libertarian thought. For example, conservative author Reid Buckley writes:

Will the American people never learn that, as a principle, to expect swift response and efficiency from government is fatuous? Will we never heed the principle of subsidiarity (in which our fathers were bred), namely that no public agency should do what a private agency can do better, and that no higher-level public agency should attempt to do what a lower-level agency can do better – that to the degree the principle of subsidiarity is violated, first local government, the state government, and then federal government wax in inefficiency? Moreover, the more powers that are invested in government, and the more powers that are wielded by government, the less well does government discharge its primary responsibilities, which are (1) defense of the commonwealth, (2) protection of the rights of citizens, and (3) support of just order.

Wiki

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

You don't seem to understand the federal system of government. Let me try and explain;

1) Federal government outlaws texting while driving.
2) States pass laws to comply with federal law.
3) States that don't pass laws to comply with federal law have federal funds withheld.
4) The end.

Ultimately, the federal government enforces laws like these through funding. They don't make state troopers and local sheriff's start pulling people over. The FBI aren't going to pull you over for traffic violations anytime soon either.

This is how the federal government makes states obey federal laws. Not a single state governor wants to stop taking money from the federal government.

This is exactly how the federal government mandated a nationwide 55 mph speed limit back when the energy crisis happened in the 1970's (I think that's when it happened).
I agree with FortAnthem in that it isn't the way things should work, but that is how they did it.

Just thought I would let you know that in Australia it is illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving - the police use their cameras to record a person using a mobile phone. They are charged with dangerous driving.

"It is illegal in all Australian states and territories to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving. The motorist is, therefore, breaking the law by using a handheld mobile phone in a moving motor vehicle or even when stopped at traffic lights. Drivers who break the law face fines that vary from State to State."
Australian law on mobile phones



"Recent changes to the laws in Queensland effect the use of mobile telephones. The driver of a vehicle is not able to use a hand-held mobile telephone while the vehicle is moving, or whilst the vehicle is stationary, but not parked. However, this does not apply to a “hands-free” mobile phone, a CB radio, or any other two-way radio. The maximum fine for using a mobile telephone whilst driving is $1,500.00."
Fine payable

reply to post by FortAnthem


We're a federal system that has evolved over time to the point that subsidiarity has been found to be lacking in the needs of our nation. It was found lacking in the 1780's so the federalist papers were written and the articles of confederation scrapped for the federal power-grab set forth by the modern US constitution. After the 16th and 17th amendments were passed we saw more power going to the federal government. The depression and the New Deal sought for more power handed to the federal government because the states and localities were unable or unwilling to do the job their citizens demanded of them.

The same examples exist today. Many state and local governments are either unable or unwilling to handle the tasks that the federal government handles now, thus, citizens grant more and more power to the federal government. This is the basis of the funding issue, states may say they want more autonomy but when their funds dry up and their citizens shout at them they cave to the pressures of federal government.

Hardly a single state today would get by without federal funding of some sort. The federal government knows this and wields this power over the states. It's been 200+ years of lessons learned to get to the point we're at today, I'm quite happy with it.

ETA: That is an adorable kitty.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

You don't seem to understand the federal system of government. Let me try and explain;

1) Federal government outlaws texting while driving.
2) States pass laws to comply with federal law.
3) States that don't pass laws to comply with federal law have federal funds withheld.
4) The end.

Ultimately, the federal government enforces laws like these through funding. They don't make state troopers and local sheriff's start pulling people over. The FBI aren't going to pull you over for traffic violations anytime soon either.

This is how the federal government makes states obey federal laws. Not a single state governor wants to stop taking money from the federal government.

This is exactly how the federal government mandated a nationwide 55 mph speed limit back when the energy crisis happened in the 1970's (I think that's when it happened).
I agree with FortAnthem in that it isn't the way things should work, but that is how they did it.

edit on 27-4-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

*sigh*

Not correct at all. Wow.

There is no federal law for a 55 mph speed limit. There is no federal seat-belt law mandating the USE of seatbelts, except for those in rigs who are conducting commerce and are subject to the commerce clause. There is no federal 21 drinking age. And so on.

As has been stated above. The federal government subsidizes, (bribes or blackmails) the states into making these laws. If they do not comply the FEDS withhold money from the states (which is ironic because the money belongs to the states and the residents of those states to begin with). So, the states comply so they can get the money. Please, at least do a google search next time.

I would like to point out that, according to what I was told in U.S. history, the main highway systems in the U.S. (the federal ones) are technically for military purposes, and they just let civilians use them in peace times because they're not needed.

They've had the highways since day one :/

Well fellow ATSers I have to say I am amazed. Simply amazed.

I have never, ever seen such an outpouring of support for overreaching federal laws as I have seen here today. It is... surprising.

I am curious why so many think it is a federal problem and we need the federal government to take care of this issue for us? Too lazy to take care of it on our own I suppose.

See, YOU have the power to fix this problem in YOUR communities and States. It is really quite simple. First, petition your local Sheriff. They are elected officials (bet you never ever voted for/against one of them or even care who they are). Get a group together and address it with you locally elected Sheriff and I bet he/she will work on fixing it with whatever existing regulations exist in your county.

Next, petition your city council. Same thing. They are also elected officials (whom I doubt you have ever voted for or even care who they are). They can pass regulations in your municipality which prevent this from happening.

Or, you can petition your state representative or senator. Again, they are elected officials (Whom I doubt you know who they are but probably vote for them depending on the R or D next to their name). They can pass laws in your state preventing these things from happening.

There are probably a hundred other ways to address this problem. Perhaps you could petition car makers to advance self-driven cars, or better bluetooth, whatever. A combination of all of the above?

The federal government has done a great job convincing us we need them to solve all of our problems. We, as a whole, have forgotten that there are plenty of local solutions to our problems. We just want big daddy fed to hold our hand and tell us it will be all right. It is pretty sad.

Much more can be accomplished with your local officials than the federal ones. 1st, they are local, you can actually just walk up and talk to them. 2nd, they care about what you care about, they are local. 3rd, their constituency is much smaller meaning less bribes (er, contributions) from lobbyists and so forth, meaning a better chance for your voice to be heard. 4th, they are very powerful at the local level.

Almost every single law or regulation you encounter on a daily basis is a LOCAL one, NOT federal. This includes seat-belt laws, speed limits, parking regs, cellphone while driving laws, drinking age, where you have to stop at, who can build what where, how land can be used, where the roads are built, and so on and so forth. None of that is from the feds.

So, all you people on here who hate these people texting and talking while driving; call your local Sheriff, representative, city councilperson, whomever and tell them it pisses you off. Get your friends and family to call. You will get results and you won't have to give up your rights to more federal oppression.

Besides, do you really think those jackasses in congress will get it right anyhow?

Originally posted by FortAnthem
The movement to ban texting while driving is commendable but, it should be done on a local and state level. Last I checked, local cops aren't supposed to enforce federal laws, that's the job of federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI, ATF and (worst of all) the TSA.

Some interesting questions for sure...

I completely agree that texting / use of phone while driving is a State matter and not federal. The feds need to stick to interstate commerce and leave the rest to the states.

As far as enforcing Federal law, the officer must be authorized by the appropriate federal agency to do so. Absent that we are prohibited from enforcing Federal law. It would be like a Police Officer from Texas crossing into Arkansas and pulling people over for speeding.

Finally, the Feds need to spend some time reading the Constitution and understanding how the judicial system works. Primary responsibility for the enforcement of laws within a state and the subsequent prosecution belongs to the State, not the Feds (there are some exceptions).

Passing a federal law and then allowing say the FBI to conduct traffic stops within a state to enforce that law is an over reach in my opinion. It tramples on State sovereignty in my opinion and is just a bad bad bad idea.

The Feds cant even balance its own checkbook... Why would we want them expanding even more?

On the other side what I can see the Feds doing is what they did with the BAC level. The Federal Government told states that if they did not lower their BAC level to.08% they would lose Federal highway funding.

Originally posted by Bakatono
There is no federal 21 drinking age.

Sort of:

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress as a mechanism whereby all states would become thereafter required to legislate the age of 21 years as a minimum age for purchasing and publicly possessing alcoholic beverages. Under the Federal Aid Highway Act, a state with a minimum age below 21 would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.

Not directly outlawing it but forcing the states to comply with what the federal government wants. If you're trying to say, 'It doesn't read exactly how you claim.' You're simply arguing semantics and not seeing the forest for the trees.

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Bakatono
There is no federal 21 drinking age.

Sort of:

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress as a mechanism whereby all states would become thereafter required to legislate the age of 21 years as a minimum age for purchasing and publicly possessing alcoholic beverages. Under the Federal Aid Highway Act, a state with a minimum age below 21 would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.

Not directly outlawing it but forcing the states to comply with what the federal government wants. If you're trying to say, 'It doesn't read exactly how you claim.' You're simply arguing semantics and not seeing the forest for the trees.

edit on 27-4-2012 by links234 because: Bad coding.

Right, as I said, there is no law for a drinking age of 21, just a threat of removing funding if the States don't make a law as the feds want.

The part you highlighted in bold states that they "require" the states to pass a law in order to get the funding for their highways. They cannot Constitutionally pass a law telling the states to write a law so they are requiring them to dance to the feds tune in order to get their just rewards.

It isn't semantics, there is no fed law. Just a fed threat.

I have an idea.

Since we appear to want the feds to control everything, and since texting and driving is so obviously dangerous it should apply to all states and be controlled by the feds, I think we should look for all the other things that the feds can protect us from.

Personally, I hate people who zip in and out of lanes. They cause accidents which cause traffic, and I hate traffic. I think we need the feds to pass federal wreckless driving laws.

I hate jaywalking. I mean, no matter which city I go to--New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Tampa, etc--there are always jaywalkers. Don't they know they can get run over? I think we need a federal law to protect them from their stupidity.

I hate it when people speed down my residential street. There are kids everywhere and they could get run over chasing a ball or riding their bikes. I think the feds should come into my neighborhood and prevent speeding.

Those kids doing tricks and stuff on their motorbikes are dangerous. They could hurt themselves and others. I think we need a federal law preventing anyone under the age of 30 from riding a motorbike.

Riding bikes on the road. That is just nuts. Someone can get hurt or killed. I think we need a federal law preventing people from riding their bikes on the road.

Shoplifting is horrible. Whenever people shoplift it causes the company to lose money so they raise their prices to cover the loss and I have to spend more money because of these shoplifting jerks. I think we need a federal law against shoplifting.

I am sure there are plenty more federal laws we need. I mean, it is just common sense that we need the feds to protect us because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves.

Right?

I think seat belt laws are lame because its you are the only one really getting hurt because of it.

Talking on hand held cell phones however, should be illegal because they are distracting and cause accidents.

There has been a law in my state for 2 years banning hand held cell phone use while driving. Don't even let me get started on how f#ed up texting while driving is.

I am an advocate for banning cell phone use while driving. It's totally annoying to see someone driving down the road yapping on their phones and it seriously effects their driving. I mean honestly, if the call was that important you should have called before you left the house. Cops are just as bad i see them doing it too. I wish the damned things had never been invented.

Now we got people dying in car crashes because of using cell phones while driving. Talking, texting, sexting, playing games while they drive.

reply to post by Bakatono


Completely agree...

I am not sure why but the government is becoming more and more delusional that its responsibility is to run the lives of everyone. Provide for the common good - NOT act as a nurse maid to the population.

Personal accountability has given way to Nanny Feds..

Originally posted by PrestonSpace
Talking on hand held cell phones however, should be illegal because they are distracting and cause accidents.

There has been a law in my state for 2 years banning hand held cell phone use while driving. Don't even let me get started on how f#ed up texting while driving is.

Right, you state already has a law. So we need a federal law for....?

The only thing a federal law would do is give them more control over our lives. The law itself wouldn't be any more enforceable than the current laws, at least not without extensively increasing the presence of "officers" to look for law breakers. Perhaps we need more TSA stooges? I am sure that would stop people from breaking the federal law right? I bet it would do wonders for traffic as well. Look how efficient they are at the airline checkpoints.

I wonder, would they be allow to grope you after stopping you for talking on your phone while driving? Make sure you don't have any hidden cell phones on you which you may do harm with later?

Maybe steal your laptop from your back seat while they are "inspecting" your car?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Bakatono

 

Completely agree...

I am not sure why but the government is becoming more and more delusional that its responsibility is to run the lives of everyone. Provide for the common good - NOT act as a nurse maid to the population.

Personal accountability has given way to Nanny Feds..

edit on 27-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

To be honest, a few years ago I may have thought the other way, that we do need fed intervention. I also probably would have believed it if people told me that speed laws, drinking ages, seat belt laws, etc... were fed laws as well.

However, that was a few years ago. Since then I have woken up. I encourage others to wake up as well.

One of the most interesting things I have found since I have woken up is that the local officials are quite powerful, but ignored. Because everyone is concerned about their stooge representative in Congress, their idiot senator, or who the president is, no one pays attention to the local officials.

You have a problem, take it up locally. No one in congress gives a damn about you anyhow. You are a number assigned to a demographic used to gerrymander voting districts, that is all. Just look at all the horrible laws they have been passing that the people hate. Yet they pass them anyhow. Why is that?

So, please, everyone, get to know your local Sheriff, city council, state government representatives. There is where you get change.