backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by boeush.. on Jun 29 at 8:17 PM


Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood  (Source: aarp.net)
The California and Delaware programs will test out increased law enforcement and public education campaigns for distracted driving

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has unveiled his “Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving” plan, and also provided California and Delaware with $2.4 million for distracted driving enforcement.
 
The new “Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving” calls for four crucial steps toward the elimination of distracted driving. The four steps are as follows: Encouraging the 11 states without distracted driving laws to enforce such legislation; push the auto industry to adopt guidelines for technology used in vehicles; offer educational lessons to new drivers about distracted driving; and provide all stakeholders with options for ending distracted driving for good.
 
“Distracted driving is an epidemic,” said LaHood. “While we’ve made progress in the past three years by raising awareness about this risky behavior, the simple fact is people are continuing to be killed and injured – and we can put an end to it. Personal responsibility for putting down that cell phone is a good first step – but we need everyone to do their part, whether it’s helping pass strong laws, educating our youngest and most vulnerable drivers, or starting their own campaign to end distracted driving.”

Last month, the U.S. Department of Transportation expressed concerns over automakers' decisions to continue adding in-vehicle technology that could aid distracted driving. It said automakers were doing this just to sell vehicles more easily, offering fun new gadgets and technology to entice drivers.
 
In addition to the new blueprint, the Department of Transportation is also awarding California and Delaware with $2.4 million for distracted driving enforcement and campaigns.
 
The pilot programs in both states will investigate whether increased law enforcement and paid media coverage can help decrease cases of distracted driving.
 
“We know from the success of national efforts like ‘Click it or Ticket’ that combining good laws with effective enforcement and a strong public education campaign can – and does – change unsafe driving behavior,” said David Strickland, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator. “Now, along with two great state partners, we’re using this proven formula to help tackle distracted driving.”
 
The pilot programs will take place in eight counties in the Sacramento valley region, which has 3.8 million residents, and statewide throughout Delaware. The pilot programs are to begin in fall 2012.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation



Comments     Threshold


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

By Cerin218 on 6/8/2012 6:42:49 PM , Rating: 1
Is there really someone somewhere that believes that this plan will ACTUALLY work?




By NellyFromMA on 6/11/2012 4:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
Um, what?


By boeush on 6/8/2012 8:22:26 PM , Rating: 3
If you're going to crash into me or run over my kid because you're texting while driving, then by trying to stop YOU from doing that doesn't protect ME from YOU?

Uh-huh. I think your blind and reflexively prejudicial hatred of government is clouding your lack of judgement and your inability to think...


By thejerk on 6/8/2012 11:15:40 PM , Rating: 3
You didn't get the memo.

As soon as someone defaults to a Hitler allusion, they automatically lose.


By boeush on 6/26/2012 8:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
IMHO, as soon as someone avers to mass slaughter of 100 million people, they deserve a Hitler allusion, and automatically lose.

Or didn't you get THAT memo?


By thejerk on 6/27/2012 6:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
It is apparent you have some sort of personal gripe with Reclaimer77.

It was pretty obvious that the number was arbitrary and pulled out of the air. Even though he has a LOT of free time to comment on DT all day long, I'm quite certain he doesn't have the time to create a 100 million person death list.

Quit being a reactionary idiot.


By boeush on 6/29/2012 8:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure that's what they told any concerned Germans back in the 1920's.

But eventually crude "jokes" made in "bad taste" somehow morphed into not-so-funny grim reality.

Funny, how that happens sometimes, when a$$holes are left unbridled and unchastened. They never self-correct or tone it down on their own: if nobody stands up to them, they only get more emboldened.

So, quit being a conciliatory idiot.


By yomamafor1 on 6/10/2012 1:00:36 PM , Rating: 1
Because we all know doing something that may potentially harm yourself is the same as doing something that may potentially (and fatally) harm other people. /s

People do stupid things. That is a fact. If people want to destroy themselves by drinking large amount of sodas, it should be fine as long as they don't force other people to do the same. However, the same thing cannot be said about distracted driving. When someone texts and drives at the same time, they are bound to kill someone innocent. Obviously you don't know the feeling when someone you love is forcibly taken from you because someone else made a stupid decision.

Oh, and saying things like "you deserve to be run over" to someone who holds a different opinion from you doesn't make your argument more convincing either.


By yomamafor1 on 6/10/2012 2:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry but the statistics say otherwise. Put the emotions aside and actually think about this.


Ok, sure.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-cellp...

Next?

quote:
This is pitiful. Of course I do. So what? If you think dealing with grief means involving the entire country and making laws, you aren't coping very well. That's one of our biggest weaknesses today, nobody seems to have the ability to look past their own problems.


So your argument amounts to, "because I can get over it, everyone else has to suck it up", is that it? People distrust the government, I get it. But trusting the people who makes stupid decisions over the government? That I don't get.

quote:
In a country with 300+ million citizens, the amount of actual deaths caused by textdriving are stupidly low. And don't hand me some crap about "if a law can prevent just one death, it's worth it." This isn't even ABOUT preventing deaths, it's just more politics and job-justification and money grubbing. Calling something that would fall within the margin of error on most studies an "epidemic" is laughable.


Stupidly low you say? Total fatalities from traffic related accidents in the US in 2009 was 33k. According to Reuters, 2,667 deaths on average are related to texting per year. That's 8%, and 2,667 more than necessary. That's not "stupidly low".

Plus, if you don't text and drive, the law won't even affect you.


By yomamafor1 on 6/10/2012 5:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!

"Here's the proof that supports my point"

"I don't care, you're still wrong.".

Very convincing argument indeed.


By yomamafor1 on 6/10/2012 6:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and for the record, the only entities that would seek to ban your beloved Netflix is the media conglomerates that you loved so much, objecting to the "copyright", as well as wireless companies objecting to "excessive use of bandwidth".

I highly recommend you to do some research before spewing your uneducated Fox News "I hate government" lines.


By steven975 on 6/11/2012 8:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
Laws get abused all the time.

I was written a ticket for lack of a seat belt because I unbuckled it to get my registration and proof of insurance. I did not sign it, and the cop actually threatened arrest.


By x10Unit1 on 6/11/2012 11:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
I thought you were joking about the "large soda" ban.

Then using the power of google, I find your claim to be true.

Now begins the facepalming before the government steps in and stops me.

I pray there will be a time when we as a society look back on the past 50 years and laugh about how completely stupid we have been.


By kattanna on 6/11/2012 12:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
at the same time they are banning sodas over 16 ounces, they are "legalizing" carry pot up to an ounce.

jon stewart did a funny segment about the 2 changes in law.


By x10Unit1 on 6/12/2012 3:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for this!


By tim851 on 6/9/2012 6:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
Sure. Everybody who disagrees with you should just die.

Unsurprisingly that comes from a troll. When you have no friends in life, why would you care about anyone else.


By NellyFromMA on 6/11/2012 4:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's feel good legislation; Good for votes, not much else. Doesn't it make you feel good? -_-


The real epidemic
By The Raven on 6/8/2012 8:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
“Nanny-laws are an epidemic. While we’ve made progress in the past three years by raising awareness about this risky behavior, the simple fact is laws are continuing to be passed – and we can put an end to it."




RE: The real epidemic
By leviathan05 on 6/11/2012 8:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
Driving is a privilege, not a right. In order to retain that privilege, it is expected that you conform to specific behaviors while you are behind the wheel. Some of them are more obvious than others, such as driving in the same direction as other traffic and stopping when signaled to do so.

But all laws in regards to driving should be about protecting the safety of everyone on the road. Restricting phone use while driving meets this standard without unduly burdening anyone in the process. Nobody was driving with a phone in their hands 20 years ago, and they were able to continue living their lives. It aggravates me to no end when I see people with their phones out while driving because they tend to be the people disrupting the flow of traffic.

I don't support most nanny-state type laws, but I find this type of regulation acceptable and I approve.

I do, however, find the implementation to be highly lacking.


RE: The real epidemic
By The Raven on 6/11/2012 12:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
So you are saying that you are ok with getting a BJ and eating a hambuger while driving? Because I don't see you proposing a law to ban that.


RE: The real epidemic
By topkill on 6/11/2012 4:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
ROFLMFAO! Best response in this whole thread...Thanks for the laugh.


RE: The real epidemic
By NellyFromMA on 6/11/2012 4:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
Burger job?


RE: The real epidemic
By JediJeb on 6/11/2012 12:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
You are right that the laws should help protect us from others, but there is no need to add another law. There is already a law against reckless driving, which would include distracted driving. If the law enforcement agencies would just work to enforce the reckless driving law, there would be no need at all to add yet another law that covers the same thing.

We have laws covering purchase of guns, yet when something happens involving a rifle, they make another law to cover the rifle, then something happens involving a pistol and they make a law to cover a pistol, then something happens involving a semi automatic pistol and they make a new law to cover semi automatic pistols...ect,,ect. One law usually covers what needs to be covered but lawmakers have to do something to justify their existence so they just keep making layer upon layer of laws that all cover the same thing.

Laws do need to be reviewed and updated sometimes, but there needs to be some logic to the process and some restraint when proposing new laws that cover something that is already covered in another form.


RE: The real epidemic
By NellyFromMA on 6/11/2012 4:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
In this country, you will have to search deep for the difference between a privilege and an entitlement. Dig for it.


RE: The real epidemic
By knutjb on 6/12/2012 12:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't support most nanny-state type laws, but I find this type of regulation acceptable and I approve.
As I posted elsewhere on the subject:
quote:
How often do you hear law enforcement preventing something from happening vs. mopping up the mess after the fact. This idea that LaHood has falls into the later category. All the cellphone laws I know of do not allow cops to pull over offenders solely for that. States use laws like this to raise money after the fact as an add-on to other violations, i.e. swerving, speeding, driving too slow, accident, etc...

LaHood means well, I think he would like to keep people from getting hurt. Unfortunately he hasn't figured out, like most law makers and bureaucrats, you can't fix stupid. To punish bad behavior after the fact is fine if you understand that is all it can do. Once he believes he will make you change your behavior because he knows best is where the problem resides. I believe from Lahood's previous actions he falls into this false trap.

When he doesn't get the change he demands he will just add to it, i.e. seatbelts, cars have had seatbelts for a long time but many refused to use them. So they added beepers and lights to annoy you into using them.

It comes down to expectations of what a law can do. LaHood demands the public to change by his fiat. Why, because he knows better than you. When Bureaucrats believe they are the end all authority you get nothing more than ineffective rules that fail to deliver.


If you believe that...
By dgingerich on 6/8/2012 6:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
...I have the blueprint for ending human stupidity! It starts with posters all over all public structure saying "Don't be stupid, think before you do something." That's sure to work.

yeah... sure thing...




RE: If you believe that...
By ppardee on 6/8/2012 7:52:01 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, except people would be distracted by those while driving.


RE: If you believe that...
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2012 5:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
Then ban people from looking at them. They should set up cameras inside the billboards to see if you look at them, then automatically ticket you if you do.

We obviously need more laws for things we already have laws for.

These new laws will change nothing, they just serve as a reminder that progressive reactionaries will never actually think these things through.


RE: If you believe that...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2012 8:27:15 PM , Rating: 1
No no, we need Federal cameras inside every VEHICLE with 24/7 monitoring by Homeland Security to make sure this "epidemic" is being stopped!!!


RE: If you believe that...
By kattanna on 6/11/2012 12:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
sadly.. i can actually foresee the day when they will try just that. We already have states wanting to implant GPS devices into all cars

and the sad thing is.. most people seem to be OK with the continual degradation of our personal freedoms.


By Beenthere on 6/8/2012 10:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
Why are state governments NOT removing and preventing braindead zombies from operating motorized machinery, aka autos on our roadways? There is no Gog-given right to a driver's license. Why do government agencies issue driver's licences to people who CLEARLY lack proper driving skills, who have a history of DUIs, who have a history of irresponsible driving behavior? Why aren't these people permanently REMOVED from the highway? Maybe the state government licensing agencies need to be sued for negligent behavior?

Giving states money to issue vehicular traffic tickets for "inattentive driving" is just throwing good money after bad. There is NO verified statistical data to support the conclusion that "Click-it or Ticket" has done anything to improve compliance or safety. While I agree people dumb enough to not wear a seat belt should be ticketed, there is no way traffic tickets are going to force braindead people to make responsible choices or drive safely.

Thi is just like the increase fines for injuring a worker in a construction zone. Do you REALLY think irresponsible/unskilled people drive more safely in a construction zone because of the threat of a doubled fine? Really? Not likely...

Permanently removing unqualified, irresponsible drivers from the highway is the only means to reduce "inattentive driving".

They make buses for those too challenged and irresponsible to be operating motorized vehicles on our roadways.




By ritualm on 6/8/2012 11:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
There is no degree required to reproduce, even the stupidest know how.


By thejerk on 6/8/2012 11:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. You can't kill stupid (sort of like zombies).


By tim851 on 6/9/2012 6:27:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I agree people dumb enough to not wear a seat belt should be ticketed


No. I agree that irresponsible drivers should be banned from the roads, but if all I do is risk my own life, I shouldn't be ticketed.

That's where intrusive government begins. Government should protect me from you - although it's up to debate how far they must go - but government should NEVER protect me from myself.


Say What?
By The Raven on 6/8/2012 7:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has unveiled his “Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving” plan, and also provided California and Delaware with $2.4 million for distracted driving enforcement.
I think that should be:
quote:
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has unveiled his “Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving” plan, and also refunded California and Delaware with $2.4 million for distracted driving enforcement.




Is the plan?
By FITCamaro on 6/8/2012 11:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
Kill everyone on earth except one person?

Because that's the only way its going to end.




What epidemic
By GatoRat on 6/9/2012 2:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Accident rates are down, amongst commercial trucking, way down, so how is there an epidemic.

People need to understand that what DOT is doing is declaring correlations as causation. If a cell phone is found at the scene of an accident, this is declared as the cause for statistical purposes.

A truck is parked well off a road. A drunk driver veers off the road and hits the truck. The truck driver is given a black mark as an unsafe driver (this isn't a joke.)

DOT is out of control as are most government agencies today.




...
By integr8d on 6/9/2012 3:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
"and provide all stakeholders with options for ending distracted driving for good."

All kinds of ambiguity in that statement.




Um...
By ATX22 on 6/10/2012 11:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn’t this already be covered under reckless driving?




By GotThumbs on 6/10/2012 3:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
How dumb is this guy? More of OUR money going towards an easy and obvious problem that CAN be solved with clearly stating expectations and following through with law ENFORCEMENT.

The only thing that needs to happen is pass a law that drivers can be pulled over specifically for texting and no other need such as speeding. Make hands-free ONLY the law. Ticket anyone not using hands-free setup. They will get the idea eventually.

The roads are PUBLIC and all who travel on public roads should have a right to feel safe from irresponsible drivers.




Imagine -
By Dr of crap on 6/11/2012 8:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
Imagine what we could to for REAL problems if we could rally the troups and money like this.

Oh wait, must have been day dreaming for a minute!




The Hood
By DigitalFreak on 6/8/2012 8:48:46 PM , Rating: 1
Heil LaHood!




LaHood wants to be head of the Nanny-State
By topkill on 6/8/12, Rating: -1
RE: LaHood wants to be head of the Nanny-State
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/12, Rating: -1
RE: LaHood wants to be head of the Nanny-State
By The Raven on 6/8/2012 8:01:33 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah why doesn't this guy just look at porn all day and sleep around with hookers like everyone else in DC?


RE: LaHood wants to be head of the Nanny-State
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/2012 8:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to trying to make us all "safe", I consider those worthwhile pursuits. They cost a lot less for the country too.


RE: LaHood wants to be head of the Nanny-State
By boeush on 6/8/2012 9:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I'm glad the laws exist and are enforced against drunk driving (or generally, driving while under the influence of intoxicants.)

I don't see a huge fundamental distinction between a DUI and driving while texting. The consequences of both are quite similar, and can be quite final for all involved (including the innocent bystanders.)


By Mitch101 on 6/8/2012 9:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
Its getting there.

Teen gets year in jail in texting-while-driving crash
http://www.timesnews.net/article/9047619/teen-gets...


RE: LaHood wants to be head of the Nanny-State
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/12, Rating: -1
By JediJeb on 6/11/2012 12:45:55 PM , Rating: 1
Some I have seen will text and drive for a longer distance than those who are drunk would drive so maybe it is very similar.

In the end there could be a death caused by the behavior so maybe they should be considered nearly the same. And if you think about it, driving after you are drunk means you began driving after your judgement was impaired, but texting while driving you are doing that with a clear mind, so which is the more wanton crime?


By The Raven on 6/11/2012 1:31:20 PM , Rating: 1
Not sure why you got rated down. Sometimes people don't like the condescending tone lol.

Basically, while driving while texting "might" be similar to drunk driving (for arguments sake let us assume as much) I'd rather assume that someone texts 1 time during an hour long drive than be drunk for an hour long drive.

I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with that.

I guess they want to figure that everything is as bad as drunk driving and that everyone is as bad as Hitler lol.


RE: LaHood wants to be head of the Nanny-State
By Ammohunt on 6/9/2012 10:23:49 AM , Rating: 1
What’s next banning sugary drinks over 16oz?..oh wait..


By The Raven on 6/11/2012 1:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
lol, I'm guessing that mandated Camelbacks are around the corner too. "We don't want that 12oz can distracting you while driving."


By spread on 6/9/2012 12:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
For the hardcore "conservatives", they're called hotel baggage boys.


By WinstonSmith on 6/9/2012 10:35:45 AM , Rating: 4
"I wish this guy would find something to do."

I wish you'd get out of the way when your BSing about nothing on a cell phone causes you to sit through half of a short left turn arrow (at which point I honk), or at a stop light, or at the supermarket when you drive your cart AROUND about as well as you do your car for the same reason.

WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING YOUR MULTI-TON CAR, THAT IS _JOB #1_. GET OFF THE F'ING PHONE!


By Uncle on 6/9/2012 12:21:31 PM , Rating: 1
+1 then go after the auto industry for putting dvd players and screens in the front, mapping screens to your right so you take your eyes off the road. simple fix for the cell phone ,install a jammer in every vehicle so you have to park and get out to use the cell phone,or the jammer shuts off when you shut your ignition off. So simple.


By knutjb on 6/9/2012 1:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
You're talking about a bureaucrat. You NEVER want them to find something to do. That is how they come up with foolish ideas like this one.

The problem is that law makers and bureaucrats have is they think new rules and laws will prevent something from happening. They ignore human behavior, and much of the time, the constitution too.

How often do you hear law enforcement preventing something from happening vs. mopping up the mess after the fact. This idea that LaHood has falls into the later category. All the cellphone laws I know of do not allow cops to pull over offenders solely for that. States use laws like this to raise money after the fact as an add-on to other violations, i.e. swerving, speeding, driving too slow, accident, etc...

LaHood means well, I think he would like to keep people from getting hurt. Unfortunately he hasn't figured out, like most law makers and bureaucrats, you can't fix stupid. To punish bad behavior after the fact is fine if you understand that is all it can do. Once he believes he will make you change your behavior because he knows best is where the problem resides. I believe from Lahood's previous actions he falls into this false trap.

When he doesn't get the change he demands he will just add to it, i.e. seatbelts, cars have had seatbelts for a long time but many refused to use them. So they added beepers and lights to annoy you into using them.

All of this cost us a lot of money. No I'm not saying we should have no safety at all. Just where do we draw the line to stop an over active bureaucrat from exceeding his authourity.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














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