Ray is Back At It!!

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Yeap more of the Libs on the Left "Taking Care of Everyone, Because They Know whats Best For EVERYONE!!! LOL, there is no reason to use the laws we already have, we need new ones...

Hey, anyone have see the straw for my chocolate shake from MC'D's!?!? :rolleyes:

Tough federal legislation is the only way to deal with what he called a "national epidemic,"

* 3,000 U.S. fatalities from distracted driving last year

[h=1]U.S. ban sought on cell phone use while driving[/h]Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:08pm EDT
By Jim Forsyth
U.S. ban sought on cell phone use while driving | Reuters


* Drivers of any vehicle would be covered
* 3,000 U.S. fatalities from distracted driving last year
* Approach to compliance akin to anti-drunk driving campaign
By Jim Forsyth


SAN ANTONIO, April 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called on Thursday for a federal law to ban talking on a cell phone or texting while driving any type of vehicle on any road in the country.

Tough federal legislation is the only way to deal with what he called a "national epidemic," he said at a distracted-driving summit in San Antonio, Texas, that drew doctors, advocates and government officials.

LaHood said it is important for the police to have "the opportunity to write tickets when people are foolishly thinking they can drive safely or use a cell phone and text and drive."

LaHood has previously criticized behind-the-wheel use of cell phones and other devices, but calling for a federal law prohibiting the practice takes his effort to a new level.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 3,000 fatal traffic accidents nationwide last year were the result of distracted driving. Using a cell phone while driving delays reaction time the same amount as having a blood alcohol concentration of .08, the legal limit, the highway agency said.

But Gary Biller, president of the National Motorists Association, said laws banning specific actions like talking on a phone or texting are not necessary because those actions are already covered by existing distracted-driving laws. It would be more productive, he said, to invest resources in campaigns that discourage inattentive driving in general.

"It shouldn't matter if the driver is distracted by a conversation with another vehicle passenger, tuning the radio, eating a snack, or talking on a cell phone," Biller said in a statement. "Existing laws cover all those distractions and more."
LaHood said, however, he was not as concerned about people who eat, apply makeup, or perform other distracting activities in cars because "not everyone does that."

"But everyone has a cell phone and too many of us think it is OK to talk on our phones while we are driving," he said at the summit, sponsored by insurance company USAA, the Texas Department of Transportation and Shriners Hospitals for Children.

LaHood was joined by people who have been hurt in accidents caused by motorists talking on cell phones, including children in wheelchairs who were paralyzed. Such accidents are "100 percent preventable," he said.
He compared the situation facing the United States today with the problem of drunk driving 20-30 years ago.

"It used to be that if an officer pulled you over for drunk driving, he would pat you on the back, maybe call you a cab or take you home, but he wouldn't arrest you," LaHood said. "Now that has changed, and the same enforcement can work for people who talk on cell phones while driving."

Thirty-eight states have laws restricting or outlawing the use of electronic devices while driving, LaHood said.

LaHood said his department was researching the effect that hands-free devices and new systems like Ford Motor Company's Sync have on distracting drivers. He said he has called the CEOs of major car companies and encouraged them to "think twice" before placing too many Internet-based systems into new cars.
(Editing By Corrie MacLaggan and Philip Barbara)
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Libs.... it's what they do. They try to intrude in every aspect of peoples lives.:mad:
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Dumber than dirt liberal moron. What else do you expect? Now, texting and driving are definitely a no but talking on a bluetooth handsfree device is less dangerous than talking to passenger(s) in the car. If dumbo wants this law he also needs a law banning any conversation among passengers of a motor vehicle.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
The government is attempting to protect us from life, accidents happen. I would like to see the breakdown of the 3000 accidents to see what actually happened rather than what LaHood says happened.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The government is attempting to protect us from life, accidents happen. I would like to see the breakdown of the 3000 accidents to see what actually happened rather than what LaHood says happened.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

Accidents do happen, but getting in a crash because one is too irresponsible to put down their cell phone is criminal.

distracted-driving.jpg
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
The government is attempting to protect us from life,

Nah - it's just another ploy to protect a cushy paycheck by appearing to 'do something' about a problem behavior of the few by banning it for everyone.
If LaHood wants to reduce distracted driving, he'd do much better to request that EVERY structure display an address that's clearly visible from the street, because it's impossible to search for an address and drive safely at the same time. Especially if you're driving a truck!

accidents happen. I would like to see the breakdown of the 3000 accidents to see what actually happened rather than what LaHood says happened.

Was the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that said that, & it's actually an 'estimate' that apparently includes all forms of 'distracted' driving, not just cellphones. I guess the agencies [like FMCSA] can just spout 'statistics' and they're accepted without question.....

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums


 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Accidents do happen, but getting in a crash because one is too irresponsible to put down their cell phone is criminal.

View attachment 4742

Absolutely, I am all for punishing those that injure someone or even just damage their property. The idea that they can legislate away stupidity just gives people the idea that since there is no law it must be safe.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"Was the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that said that, & it's actually an 'estimate' that apparently includes all forms of 'distracted' driving, not just cellphones. I guess the agencies [like FMCSA] can just spout 'statistics' and they're accepted without question....."



Not only the FMCSA, the government in general. How about 40 million without health insurance as a ploy to take over health care? There was never any proof of that number given, even when I asked for it. How about the number of guns that the government says are illegally shipped into Mexico, again, no proof.

The list of these types of things are endless and yet there are still people who believe that the government is NOT out to take over every aspect of their lives. How stupid is that?
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Absolutely, I am all for punishing those that injure someone or even just damage their property. The idea that they can legislate away stupidity just gives people the idea that since there is no law it must be safe.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

Right you can punish them to the full extent of existing laws for causing accidents or property damage. I had a "distracted driver" slam into the back of my van and knocked me off the road. I rolled a few times and ended up in a ditch. Wearing my seat belt I came away unscathed. I asked the driver why he hit me and he said "I guess he wasn't paying attention".He had a blackberry in his hand. I checked the police report later and the driver JUST received a ticket for following to close. Should have received reckless driving ticket IMO. Maybe make heavier penalties for causing an accident while being distracted.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Right you can punish them to the full extent of existing laws for causing accidents or property damage. I had a "distracted driver" slam into the back of my van and knocked me off the road. I rolled a few times and ended up in a ditch. Wearing my seat belt I came away unscathed. I asked the driver why he hit me and he said "I guess he wasn't paying attention".He had a blackberry in his hand. I checked the police report later and the driver JUST received a ticket for following to close. Should have received reckless driving ticket IMO. Maybe make heavier penalties for causing an accident while being distracted.

If you damage property I would say fines should be over $500 plus restitution and any injury to a person even just a scratch should mean a minimum of $2k paid to the victim plus fines and restitution. A simple $100 or $150 just isn't enough to stop it, we need to rework the laws we have before making more that will have little to no impact.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Big question is...Why is no one enforcing the distracted laws on the books now? I seen 3-4 truck drivers with phones stuck to their ears...surely a trooper can spot that?.....they can make a 100 laws, but if it is not enforced they mean nothing...
 
Top