How will this affect us? End of cell phone use!
- Thread starter lasound
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Been talked about for a while, LaHood is on a crusade to end all distractions, like he is trying to get all trucker to get a sleep test even though sleep apnea has no impact on trucking accidents according to their own studies.
Maybe end bus use on the highway is a better solution.
Maybe end bus use on the highway is a better solution.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
LaHood is in his position because he has the same ideals as barry...he is nothing more then another liberal that thinks they know better then anyone else and this issue is just another "over reaching" attempt to control the people, but this one is in the name of "safety"....
Did anyone see "big sis" say this week that they will start taking on "Global Climate Change" as a "Homeland Security Issue"....
Napolitano Says DHS to Begin Battling Climate Change
Napolitano Says DHS to Begin Battling Climate Change as Homeland Security Issue
Just another way for barry and his minions to bypass our elected office holders and the will of the people and do as they **** well please... just as directors lahood and sebelius and all of the over reaching czars....
Did anyone see "big sis" say this week that they will start taking on "Global Climate Change" as a "Homeland Security Issue"....
Napolitano Says DHS to Begin Battling Climate Change
Napolitano Says DHS to Begin Battling Climate Change as Homeland Security Issue
Just another way for barry and his minions to bypass our elected office holders and the will of the people and do as they **** well please... just as directors lahood and sebelius and all of the over reaching czars....
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
He's even proposed requiring car (and presumably truck) manufacturers to build in technology that will block cell phone signals. I never heard him address how that would affect passengers that want to use the phone while it's moving, or how that would affect emergency calls.
This rule-making crap has to stop. Want a rule? Go through the legislative process and make a law.
This rule-making crap has to stop. Want a rule? Go through the legislative process and make a law.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Amonger wrote:
NO NO NO!! The people would then have a voice and they might not like the liberal ideas...so barry and his minions will just pass it out to a Fed Agency and then they will mandate a "Regulation" to control the issue without any oversight or legislative action needed!!! It just happens !!! Just like the EPA is trying to do with Cap and Tax since they know they can't get it passed in legislation....
NO NO NO!! The people would then have a voice and they might not like the liberal ideas...so barry and his minions will just pass it out to a Fed Agency and then they will mandate a "Regulation" to control the issue without any oversight or legislative action needed!!! It just happens !!! Just like the EPA is trying to do with Cap and Tax since they know they can't get it passed in legislation....
The "control mentality" is not limited to liberals.
jujubeans
OVM Project Manager
Are you a self imposed moderator now cheri?
Been there, done that, don't wanna.
Since you never asked that of Greg when he suggested threads be moved to a more appropriate forum, why ask me?
Starting with post #3, this belongs on the Soapbox.
Maybe this should be moved to the SoapBox. MANY things in trucking, and most other things that involve government regulation, overlap forums. It is hard to confine some subjects to one forum or another.
Regulation, by it's very nature. is there to control. Control behavior, or actions or what ever. Control is not confined to one political party or idea. It is always based on the idea that the group imposing the controls is smarter, more experienced or just think that they are better than those they seek to control.
Regulation, by it's very nature. is there to control. Control behavior, or actions or what ever. Control is not confined to one political party or idea. It is always based on the idea that the group imposing the controls is smarter, more experienced or just think that they are better than those they seek to control.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Cheri wrote:
Thank You, Thank You berrymush...
An I totally agree, other than the thread from the 1 post is about a "political" topic...you can't discuss how it will affect the people without pointing out the politics of it....
Thank You, Thank You berrymush...
An I totally agree, other than the thread from the 1 post is about a "political" topic...you can't discuss how it will affect the people without pointing out the politics of it....
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
I used to think that it was, but the Bush administration and several people on this board have disabused me of that. The only difference which group in power makes is which set of rights are being stolen.
Cheri wrote:
Thank You, Thank You berrymush...
An I totally agree, other than the thread from the 1 post is about a "political" topic...you can't discuss how it will affect the people without pointing out the politics of it....
But you can - well, ok, YOU can't, but some can, as Greg did in post #2.
Most every regulation that affects us is inspired by politics, but the place to discuss that aspect is the Soapbox.
We could discuss the practical considerations here, though. Like: how often would we need to stop driving to make a call?
DannyD
Veteran Expediter
I would f'in love it if there was technology to where a phone wouldn't work in a moving vehicle. You'll have to forgive me here but I think someone's right to live over rides someone's right to yammer on their phone & ram into em.
The technology to be able to call 911 while moving wouldn't be that hard to put in there. Then again, if it's an emergency (unless you're being chased by a gun man or something) it might be a good idea to pull over. I'd be fine if 911 could be dialed while moving though.
For that matter I'd be ok if phones worked in vehicles moving at very slow speeds. Once we get up in speeds where 5,000 people are killed & 500,000 are injured, it's time to put a stop to talking on the phone.
I don't know how many people are killed by drunk drivers. I'm guessing 10,000 or so. We all want to stop that. So why not stop cell phone use?
(wow, just checked to see how many deaths by drunk driving, 10,839 is the number in 2009. And that's 10,000 less than in 1982.. holy smokes. So what it appears is we're replacing 10,000 drunk driving deaths w/ 5,000 cell phone deaths)
If ya get a call, have the phone beep but no number shows up until ya pull over. That way there's no incentive to look at the phone when ya should be looking at the road.
As for the rights of the passenger over the rights of some innocent person getting ran into.......... oh for christ sakes. Then again, even that could be solved somehow if it's not good enough that the passenger can talk to the driver.
And yea I practice what I preach. I pull over to do my 2 hour call ins. Just the other day an issue came up & I pulled into a gas station to make my call.
I don't know much about this guy. Someone said he's one of Obama's hand picked czars or something. Obama blows chunks, as did Bush before him, but if this is his idea on this one he's actually got one right for a change.
The technology to be able to call 911 while moving wouldn't be that hard to put in there. Then again, if it's an emergency (unless you're being chased by a gun man or something) it might be a good idea to pull over. I'd be fine if 911 could be dialed while moving though.
For that matter I'd be ok if phones worked in vehicles moving at very slow speeds. Once we get up in speeds where 5,000 people are killed & 500,000 are injured, it's time to put a stop to talking on the phone.
I don't know how many people are killed by drunk drivers. I'm guessing 10,000 or so. We all want to stop that. So why not stop cell phone use?
(wow, just checked to see how many deaths by drunk driving, 10,839 is the number in 2009. And that's 10,000 less than in 1982.. holy smokes. So what it appears is we're replacing 10,000 drunk driving deaths w/ 5,000 cell phone deaths)
If ya get a call, have the phone beep but no number shows up until ya pull over. That way there's no incentive to look at the phone when ya should be looking at the road.
As for the rights of the passenger over the rights of some innocent person getting ran into.......... oh for christ sakes. Then again, even that could be solved somehow if it's not good enough that the passenger can talk to the driver.
And yea I practice what I preach. I pull over to do my 2 hour call ins. Just the other day an issue came up & I pulled into a gas station to make my call.
I don't know much about this guy. Someone said he's one of Obama's hand picked czars or something. Obama blows chunks, as did Bush before him, but if this is his idea on this one he's actually got one right for a change.
Can't agree, Danny. The killer habit isn't cellphones, it's distracted and/or inattentive driving. Focusing on phones is not a responsible approach, it's the easiest one, [because phones are visible, and records of usage are obtainable.]
Like the issue of speeding: it's not what causes accidents, [aggressive driving is], it's just what LEOs can see and prove.
LaHood is another 'take the easy way out' idiot who will cause more harm in the long run.
Focusing on alcohol related crashes and drunk drivers, and stressing the many ways of driving while distracted would do a lot more to promote safety than banning cellphones. For commercial drivers, no less - as if the rest are safe enough already.
Like the issue of speeding: it's not what causes accidents, [aggressive driving is], it's just what LEOs can see and prove.
LaHood is another 'take the easy way out' idiot who will cause more harm in the long run.
Focusing on alcohol related crashes and drunk drivers, and stressing the many ways of driving while distracted would do a lot more to promote safety than banning cellphones. For commercial drivers, no less - as if the rest are safe enough already.