backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by sdfasdgdhasdf.. on Jan 30 at 12:58 PM

Drivers of large vehicles are the latest to feel the wrath of the anti-texting movement

Driving is a privilege that most Americans take for granted. We drive to work, we drive to see family, and we run errands on the weekend to Home Depot or fend off soccer moms in their minivans at Target. However, technology continues to invade not only our lives, but also our vehicles, which is making the normally mundane act of driving more challenging.

From GPS units to cell phones to SYNC in-car infotainment systems, U.S. drivers have found new ways to distract themselves while driving thanks to technology (not to mention other favorites such as applying makeup, eating, reading the newspaper, etc.). Texting while driving is the latest craze to infect drivers and states around the country are swiftly implementing laws to make such activities illegal. Texting is already banned in 19 states, and 23 states are currently prepping their own laws to tackle the problem.

"Legislators are looking to see if it (texting) is enough of a safety issue that they need to intervene," said Anne Teigen told the USA Today. Teigen is a transportation specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "They often get involved because there's a high-profile accident that had to do with texting. Also, because everybody has a cellphone now."

While states are currently going it alone in drafting "no texting while driving" laws, there are a few nationwide texting bans that drivers should heed. President Obama issued an executive order at the close of 2009 banning all federal workers -- rather, those on the job -- from texting while driving. The ban affects roughly four million federal workers.

Now a new, federal ban is coming down from the U.S. government. The latest nationwide texting ban applies to drivers of big rigs and buses. "We want the drivers of big rigs and buses and those who share the roads with them to be safe," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "This is an important safety step and we will be taking more to eliminate the threat of distracted driving."

Drivers that choose not to abide by the new law face a fine of $2,750.

The bans from both the states and the U.S. government come on the heels of numerous studies which point out the dangerous consequences of texting and driving. A study by the University of Utah showed that drivers that text behind the wheels are six times more likely to be involved in a collision. The National Security Council notes that roughly 200,000 accidents are caused each drivers who text behind the wheel.

However, it's wishful thinking to believe that nationwide texting bans are going to stop people from partaking in America's favorite electronic pastime. Reuters has previously reported that teens aren't persuaded to stop their texting addictions just because there are laws on the books to prohibit the act.

"What I would say is that texting and cell phone devices have become such a component of life for teens and for young people that it's hard for them to differentiate between doing something normal and doing something wrong," remarked Steven Bloch, a senior research associate for the Automobile Club.

Considering that texting while driving isn't a habit that only affect teenagers, it's more than likely that drivers in a more "advanced state of age" are reluctant to stop the practice as well.

While the current nationwide texting bans affect a relatively small portion of the entire U.S. driver pool, Senator Chuck Schumer (Democrat, NY) is looking to change that. Senator Schumer has introduced legislation that would call for a federal ban on texting while driving. States that don't comply with the legislation would be see a 25 percent cut in the federal highway funds they receive.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: It's a good start
By rbsguy on 1/26/2010 3:52:15 PM , Rating: 1
You are absolutely correct.

We don't need anymore laws, just enforce the ones we already have. If someone is guilty of causing a wreck because they were distracted it doesn't matter what distracted them.

This is like hate crime laws. If you kill someone its bad. If you kill someone and it is proved that you did it because you hate them or what they represent, uh-oh this is double bad. This is nuts. The person is dead either way. Just throw the book at murderers in general. Same with distracted drivers. Throw the book at all of them and don't worry about legislating the different classes of distractions.


RE: It's a good start
By Bateluer on 1/26/2010 3:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
No, we need more laws, and more bureaucrats to support them. This is the only way government actually creates jobs.


RE: It's a good start
By msomeoneelsez on 1/26/2010 4:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
While I absolutely do see the sarcasm in your comment (quite well done btw, props) I just want to make a quick economic point.

Government jobs creates nothing. There is no value add at all. Government jobs are all regulation, no production. Government jobs, while some are necessary, i.e. police, fire, military, etc. are bad in excess.

So to anyone thinking that government jobs are good... I truly pity you.


RE: It's a good start
By xmichaelx on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: It's a good start
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 8:16:43 PM , Rating: 3
Why not actually read his post before replying to it? He clearly said police protection was a necessary government role.


RE: It's a good start
By msomeoneelsez on 1/27/2010 1:37:38 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks porkpie :D


RE: It's a good start
By xmichaelx on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: It's a good start
By sinful on 1/26/2010 11:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Government jobs creates nothing. There is no value add at all. Government jobs are all regulation, no production. Government jobs, while some are necessary, i.e. police, fire, military, etc. are bad in excess.

So to anyone thinking that government jobs are good... I truly pity you.


You fail, because service jobs don't "produce" anything either; your waiter doesn't "produce" anything, nor does an IT dept, etc.
Yet, they add considerable value, as do many governemnt services (USPS, etc).

Second, you magically ignore things like roads & bridges, which are "produced" and DO add value.

Finally, most of those services provided would be required anyway; the only difference is that those services on the free market would command considerably more money than what the government "charges".
i.e. do you REALLY believe that water service would be cheaper if on the free market? Or that you'd get a better deal on "road maintenance costs" if the government got out?

So, I pity you, because you're just another one of those "Teh evil gubberment ruinz our econome!!!" types that can't see the forest from the trees.


RE: It's a good start
By msomeoneelsez on 1/27/2010 2:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse me for not being entirely clear; I do believe that some government jobs are necessary. My point was that...
quote:
while some are necessary, i.e. police, fire, military, etc. [they] are bad in excess.


Is that more plain to you?

quote:
Yet, they add considerable value, as do many governemnt services (USPS, etc).

Horrible example. Before UPS and FedEx (i.e. competition) USPS was quite horrible. Maybe the DMV would suite better? Oh... wait... maybe they need some competition?? (sorry, low blow, I know haha)

quote:
Second, you magically ignore things like roads & bridges, which are "produced" and DO add value.


produced by private companies who are contracted by the government for the work... yeah... Where did I forget them?

quote:
Finally, most of those services provided would be required anyway; the only difference is that those services on the free market would command considerably more money than what the government "charges".


Oh, you mean the tax dollars which are terribly hard to track, and are perverted by the 16,000+ pages of tax code? Yeah, thats a great argument to take...

quote:
So, I pity you, because you're just another one of those "Teh evil gubberment ruinz our econome!!!" types that can't see the forest from the trees.


I am not against a body of government, I am against a body of over government. I know you may be used to people taking extremes to win arguments, but I am not here to debate, I am here to educate. I understand economics and can explain it using rational thought and discourse, while it appears that many others cannot.

Back to the point which I originally made...
the government has no resources of its own, and does not produce any goods (wait, I lied, the GM acquisition changed that...) In fact, all it does is provide "services" such as the military, emergency forces, and education. Unfortunately, the government also provides the "service" of "protection" from things and people such as "wall street fatcats" (who, by the way, are now allowed to give all the money they want to politicians...) and "big business", which has lately only shown to allow the businesses with lobbyists to write laws vicariously through politicians in a way that harms competition, and ultimately allows the big businesses to continue monopolizing. Then there is the "service" of warrantless wire-tapping which STILL has yet to be repealed, and was in fact passed by two separate congresses, one Dem, one Repub, and is an absolute violation of our civil liberties.

Want me to go on?

You see, I have reasons for why I am against the expansion of government. I am glad that government exists, I just see the reasons why it should be limited. In that regard, I am quite like the Founding Fathers who, by the way, created a nation with only necessary and proper regulation of the private sector which skyrocketed this nation from creation to world power in a span of 150 years, a feat which has never been done before, and has yet to be approached again (although, not much time has been allowed for that yet.)

Freedom is a much better way in every regard than more government control, so long as there are governmental restrictions on people so that the people do not violate the rights of others.


RE: It's a good start
By sinful on 1/28/2010 2:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Horrible example. Before UPS and FedEx (i.e. competition) USPS was quite horrible.

LOL, Compared to WHO?
You might as well add "They were the worst, and the best, because nobody else was even around!".

quote:
Maybe the DMV would suite better? Oh... wait... maybe they need some competition?? (sorry, low blow, I know haha)

Yeah, maybe they should put the folks from ENRON in charge.
Oh, low blow right back at you!

quote:
Oh, you mean the tax dollars which are terribly hard to track, and are perverted by the 16,000+ pages of tax code? Yeah, thats a great argument to take...

Funny you should say that, since the government is often forced to disclose FAR more than what a company does -- and they can be voted out / kept out of office.
Don't like how your state is being run? Vote your leaders out. Don't like how Toyota is run? TOUGH LUCK, BUDDY.

quote:
and "big business", which has lately only shown to allow the businesses with lobbyists to write laws vicariously through politicians in a way that harms competition, and ultimately allows the big businesses to continue monopolizing.


The fault with that logic is that this happens BECAUSE of government, paradoxically ignoring the fact that big businesses try to monopolize and harm competition ANWYAY -- and only government regulation actually stops them.
What, you don't think Intel wouldn't pull every dirty trick in the book against AMD if they didn't have to worry about the Feds?

quote:
Then there is the "service" of warrantless wire-tapping which STILL has yet to be repealed, and was in fact passed by two separate congresses, one Dem, one Repub, and is an absolute violation of our civil liberties.

Want me to go on?

No, because its just a rant irrelevant to the topic at hand.

quote:
You see, I have reasons for why I am against the expansion of government. I am glad that government exists, I just see the reasons why it should be limited. In that regard, I am quite like the Founding Fathers who, by the way, created a nation with only necessary and proper regulation of the private sector which skyrocketed this nation from creation to world power in a span of 150 years, a feat which has never been done before, and has yet to be approached again (although, not much time has been allowed for that yet.)

Freedom is a much better way in every regard than more government control, so long as there are governmental restrictions on people so that the people do not violate the rights of others.


Funny you should say that -- "The USPS is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution... the USPS's first incarnation was established by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1775 by decree of the Second Continental Congress. "

Looks like you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the founding fathers.
Oh, but let me guess, Ben Franklin is an ignoramus on the constitution compared to you.


RE: It's a good start
By csrdt on 1/26/2010 5:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We don't need anymore laws, just enforce the ones we already have. If someone is guilty of causing a wreck because they were distracted it doesn't matter what distracted them.


I want people fined for texting and driving before they cause an accident, not just after they cause an accident.


RE: It's a good start
By AEvangel on 1/27/2010 1:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want people fined for texting and driving before they cause an accident, not just after they cause an accident.


This is as well is already covered by a current law called reckless driving.


RE: It's a good start
By mindless1 on 1/28/2010 12:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
Fine, so long as we ammend the definition of reckless driving to include operating the new CE devices which can text.

It would be pointless then to try and discriminate between that law, and a law specifically for texting.

The point is simple, we fine people before they are weaving out of control. I totally support that, there is no such thing as a responsible driver that feels they can text while driving. No matter how great a driver they think they are, they'd be even better at it without texting.

I also support legislation against many other things people do while driving. No shaving, no lipstick, no eating, etc. Why? Because I don't want some a-hole running into me or my family, it'd be different if the only risk they posed was to themselves.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki