Executive Order Bars Federal Workers From Texting and Driving

CWmike writes "A two-day Distracted Driving Summit in Washington concluded Thursday, after experts raised multiple thorny questions on how to reduce cell phone and texting while driving, with a big emphasis placed on driver and employer responsibility. But that was not before President Obama signed an executive order that tells all federal employees not to engage in texting while driving government vehicles. [US Transportation Secretary Ray] LaHood also announced that his department would ban text messaging altogether and restrict cell phone use by truck and interstate bus drivers, and disqualify school bus drivers from receiving commercial driver's licenses if they have been convicted of texting while driving. His department also plans to make permanent some restrictions placed on the use of cell phones in rail operations, he added without offering further details. The executive order 'shows the federal government is leading by example' and 'sends a signal that distracted driving is dangerous,' LaHood said."

Comments

Maybe it's a start

[MarkOnBoat]

And the next executive order will ban ALL kinds of stupidity by government workers... no, wait - isn't stupid a forever thing?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe government needs the wisdom of crowds?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

*Looks at MarkOnBoat*

Yup.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

He was a Senator...not the same thing as a Federal Worker...

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

After 8 years of embarrassment, "the people" got tired of being ashamed. Besides, the Canadians called, they wanted their flag lapels and patches back from all the USA tourists.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[BESTouff]

Interestingly North American people are genetically unable to thank their governement for anything it does or decides. If it comes from the governement, it must be a trap, mean or just plain wrong.

Wake up guys. Your governement is yours, you elected it. Consistently criticizing its actions is childish at best.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Sebilrazen]

Don't forget the US is still a young country, we think 517 years ago history began. Nobody did anything before Christopher Columbus ended up in this hemisphere. So in response to your claims of childishness, all I have to say is: I know you are, but what am I?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Runaway1956]

Dude - I voted for Obama. If Obama did EVERYTHING just like I want him to do, AND, he brought me breakfast in bed, did my laundry, fixed my car, and maintenanced my house, and gave me his salary for the privilege of serving me, I would STILL BITCH!! It's an American's right to bitch, even when everything is going better than right.

Wait - you didn't go to boot camp, did you? You would have learned, "A bitching sailor is a happy sailor." No one worries about what the troops have to say, until they quit saying anything. When they quit bitching, THEN YOU NEED TO WORRY!

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are, but what am I?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Thaelon]

isn't stupid a forever thing?

More boundless than the universe, according to Einstein.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we elected the current government to end the war in Iraq (some of us also would have liked to see our troops come home from Afghanistan, too). We elected them to give us public health care. We elected them to lead us into a new age of environmental responsibility.

So far, all we've got is an executive order telling federal workers not to text on their cell phone while driving. We're still mired in Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan, public health care just died in the Senate finance committee long before even coming to a floor vote, and we're not seeing much progress on the green side.

Our government isn't living up to the promises it made during the election, even with its supermajority and public support.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Talderas]

Don't project -your- perceptions onto the entire population that voted for Democrats over Republicans. It is as much the problem of Republicans betraying their own constituents, who decided to not vote for them, or even vote against them.

Don't be so vainglorious to assume that everything Pelosi, Reid, and the Media tell you about what the Democrat win in 2006 and 2008 meant is entirely accurate.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[mcgrew]

You can't ban stupidity, but you can ban stupid actions.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[psm321]

This. The pundits like to say that public opinion of the president and congress is falling because they are pushing for these reforms. The fact is, it's falling because they _aren't_ pushing for the reforms that the people put them into power for, and in fact doing the exact opposite in some cases (Obama supporting extraordinary rendition, etc)

Re:Maybe it's a start

[eht]

It is not your right to bitch, it is your obligation to bitch.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Red Flayer]

I know you are, but what am I?

I'm rubber, you're glue, anything you say bounces off of me at unpredictable angles and may or may not stick to you, depending on trajectory, velocity, and propensity to bond to the glue substance of which you are made?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Curunir_wolf]

Okay, children, since some of you (and you know who you are) have been using your crayons to draw on your desks, we are now banning all crayons.

We can't be bothered to punish just those that act irresponsibly - much easier just to punish everyone, remove the temptation, and then we don't have to teach people to be responsible for themselves.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[KC7JHO]

Well if ya can't fix stupid, maybe at least we can put it in jail!

Re:Maybe it's a start

[torkus]

Apparently a 'driving-while-texting' is a forever thing. "...prohibited from getting a job as a school buss driver if they have been convicted..."

Now, I understand it's not safe. And I fully agree that buss drivers, train conductors, etc. should not intentionally distract themselves for something trivial while working as it could endanger others. But why do we keep passing laws that perpetuate someone's status as a criminal? After the 'punishment', be it financial or penal, hasn't someone paid their 'debt to society' and been rehabilitated? Isn't the (claimed) point of laws and punishments to deter people from committing the crimes? I disagree with the perpetual sex-offender registration, but at least they're the result of a crime with an actual, identifiable victim. Of course, when offenders are forced to live in a tent city because they can't legally live anywhere else it's rather hard to imagine what motivation they have to follow the law.

What's next, you get branded for speeding in a work zone? Non-removable tracking bracelet for being late to too many meetings? At the rate we're going *everyone* will be a criminal in perpetual rehabilitation before too long.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[KC7JHO]

Guess you aren't an American child. It is a common insult retort used when one child calls another a "bad" name.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

Better start with the agreeing and get on board. Don't want to be labeled a racist like those evil republicans and libetarians, do you?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

At the rate we're going *everyone* will be a criminal in perpetual rehabilitation before too long.

Congratulations, you hit the nail on the head. Because once everyone has something to be shameful for, the population will be much easier to control.

It's much harder to rise up and say "What you are doing is wrong!" when the government has plenty of dirt on you with which they will be only too willing to launch a smear campaign against you.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

>>>Your governement is yours, you elected it.

Yes true, but we also wrote a Constitution with a limited list of powers, and that Constitution is supposed to act as a shackle to restrain the government, but the government functionaries like to pretend that document doesn't exist. That alone is reason enough to be angry.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

We aren't all good little subjects of the state. On this side of the Atlantic we understand that the power of the state comes from the individual citizen. We bestow the power to the state; we reserve the right to bitch, change our minds, and generally raise hell as we see fit. Nothing childish about that as I see it; we may be a young nation comparatively but keep in mind this has been working for a long time. We are the oldest surviving republic on Earth.

An interesting aside, living in a welfare nanny-state and making snide remarks about how others are simply being childish is a real hoot.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[cayenne8]

While I applaud the moves to try to get rid of texting, and to a lesser extent, cell phone conversations while driving, I do have a couple of questions.

This is on the federal level...exactly what power do they have over a state issuing drivers licenses to school bus drivers?

Do interstate commercial drivers, have to get some kind of federal license in addition to their state license? If not, again, what the hell power does the Federal govt. have to 'regulate' who gets a license in a state? Isn't this still a state power?

Oh sure, I know the Federal Govt. can do the usual to blackmail the states into submission by withholding federal monies, but, that's a different argument.

My other question is...exactly what legal binding power is given to a Presidental Executive Order? I admit, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, and am really coming in late on the civics lessons, but, where in the constitution can this Executive Order by justified and what are its powers? I thought with my rudimentary knowledge, that ONLY congress could make laws, and the president could pretty much ONLY sign them or veto them?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Uberbah]

Don't project -your- perceptions onto the entire population that voted for Democrats over Republicans.

That's not projection, that's reality. The vast majority of Democratic voters oppose the Iraq war and support health care.

It is as much the problem of Republicans betraying their own constituents, who decided to not vote for them, or even vote against them.

Not really. Bush had 4 years to prove his reckless, bloodthirsty incompetence, and Republicans still overwhelmingly voted for him in 2004.

Don't be so vainglorious to assume that everything Pelosi, Reid, and the Media tell you about what the Democrat win in 2006 and 2008 meant is entirely accurate.

Where's he doing that, exactly?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

Your governement is yours, you elected it. Consistently criticizing its actions is childish at best.

No, because you can always say, "I didn't vote for it. Dumb people voted for it even after I tried to talk them out it." Or even worse, "I only got to vote in the election, and the parties made sure there weren't any good candidates for that election."

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

An executive order is not law and there are no legal repercussions from not following them. However, they are political repercussions, which will be much more devastating to the departments. What will most likely happen is that if a federal employee gets in an accident while texting, his department will get dinged. Enough dings and they'll start losing funding, or even worse, the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) will start investigating, and no one wants that.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[dryeo]

Interesting how people from other places groups North America as the USA. Most of North America is not the USA, Canada is bigger and there is also Mexico and various other Central American countries.
Just because the people from the States are weird, please don't group the rest of us in with them.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

>>>It is not your right to [complain], it is your obligation to [complain].

- corrected by the United States Council against Hate Speech
.

>>>It is not your right to complain, it is your [retractable privilege] to complain.

- corrected by the Federal Truthfulness in Writing Division
.

>>>It is not your right to [provide positive reinforcement], it is your retractable privilege to [provide positive reinforcement].

- corrected by the Federal Bureau of Politically-correct Speech
.

>>>It is not an [individual right] to provide positive reinforcement, it is a retractable [collective societal privilege] to provide positive reinforcement.

- corrected by the Constitution Commission of the Supreme Court
.

>>>....

- Free speech privilege revoked due to numerous complaints from your fellow citizens. The desires of the community outweigh your rights as the individual. We live in a civilized society.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[pixelpusher220]

Lots of precedent for EO's but not a really explicit definition of their force and justification.

linky

Basically the President is saying, if you work for the Federal Gov't you now have to abide by this rule. It's not a law, but then my employer telling me I can't wear jeans to work isn't a law either.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[timeOday]

It would probably be better if we were more proactive in amending the constitution instead of just re-interpreting it to suit or will. On the other hand, the reason it has lasted so long in recognizable form is because it is so short and non-specific. But it's just not true that the 1776 federal government could still work. For white male landowners in a nation of almost unlimited natural resources 200 years ago, it was good. But there are also good reasons why it had to change, and almost nobody really wants to go back.

In what way is life not better now? We live longer, we're vastly richer, and none of us are slaves. Certainly there are changes we could make to be even better off than we are now, but reverting to the 1700s is not one of them.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[kimvette]

Does this mean that politicians will no longer legislate spending which exceeds revenue, and will cut spending rather than increase taxes?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[cayenne8]

"Interestingly North American people are genetically unable to thank their governement for anything it does or decides. If it comes from the governement, it must be a trap, mean or just plain wrong.

Wake up guys. Your governement is yours, you elected it. Consistently criticizing its actions is childish at best."

Actually, it is very American to be this way. Our founding fathers pretty much started this country off with the idea that a health distrust of the government is a GOOD thing. It is supposed to keep the citizenry on their toes, in order to keep the representatives we elect on THEIR toes, making sure they are actually doing the will of the people, rather than getting walled up in their own little world.

Obviously, this hasn't been working as well lately, but, I am actually encouraged that people ARE starting to take the time to show up to public forums and let their words be heard. I think it is kinda of taking people by surprise these days, because we haven't seen much of this in awhile, but, it is something that is deeply American since we started this country.

The criticism shouldn't be as bad as it is these days tho...so completely partisan that no one has a civil debate, and there is nothing but trying to overshout your opponent. That gets nowhere...a more civilized tone of discourse is something we need to return too, but, unfortunately, we've gone a few generations here where general manners, politeness and respect for others has gone out the window. But, I'm ever the optimist...maybe we'll get it back.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

During the Bush years Madam Pelosi encouraged the anti-war protesters by saying, "It's good. It's free speech." This year Madam Pelosi said about the anti-governmentcare protesters, "They are UNamerican and should be silenced."

Hmmm. She was correct the first time; incorrect the second. What's changed is that when people support Pelosi's view (antiwar) than it's free speech, but when people are against Pelosi's view (progovernmentcare) than it's unamerican.

Politician!

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

America is not a continent, North America and South America are continents...but who's being picky...

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

Actually it's a little of both:
- People who voted for Obama are disappointed because the reforms are happening too slowly.
- People who did not vote Obama are disappointed because they see the national debt rising from 10 to 20 trillion by 2016, and they think the reforms are moving too fast.

Aside-

I don't have a problem with Congressionally-provided healthcare, but it should follow the proper process. First a proposed amendment to give Congress the power, than debate in the 50 state legislatures, than approval to add it to the Constitution. The process should mirror the same or similar process that would be used over in the European Union - approval for Centrally-provided healthcare comes from the States upward, not from the central government downward.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[cayenne8]

"That's not projection, that's reality. The vast majority of Democratic voters oppose the Iraq war and support health care."

Ah, but you have to realize that it wasn't the Democratic voters that put the current administration in office....neither the Dems nor the Reps have a majority of people in the US. It is the Independent voters that swing who gets into power.

I'd dare say a for a lot of them, it wasn't so much voting for the Dem. platforms, it was just more of a vote against Bush and the Republicans mishandling of things the past 4-5 years.

I'd dare say many of them weren't on board for as much 'change' as they are trying to accomplish, and many thought Obama was a bit more moderate than he is turning out to be.

His current Health Care reform, as currently written, doesn't seem to have support by a majority of US citizens from the polls I'm seeing. Sure, I think the majority wants some form of reform, just not the overreaching overhaul of everything that the majority in congress is trying to put through.

I'm just saying mainly...just because the Dems are in power, doesn't mean the majority of US citizens are supporting all their policies. By and large, I'd dare say the majority of the US population, is moderate to slighly conservative side of moderate.

At least, that is the view of things from my part of the country.

I think it shows also, that ending something as convoluted as the war in Iraq...isn't as easy in reality as it is to speak out on in a campaign speech. Look, they can't even close Guantanamo by O's deadline...these things are much more difficult to do in real time than many think.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

America is not a continent, North America and South America are continents...but who's being picky...

LOL, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Even when speaking about "North America", there are twenty-three countries in it, and twenty-two of them have names and identities of their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_countries

Face it, your country has no name, no identity and no culture.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[BKX]

Not true. An executive order carries the force of law. The penalties can be severe. The President can have a person violating an executive order arrested and jailed on charges of contempt of the executive or under charges under any applicable federal law, or he can have them fired, their pay docked, etc.

The only caveat for the President is that executive orders must serve one of two purposes to be valid: 1. It may set, revoke and/or clarify the rules and procedures of any federal agency (they are all under the executive branch, except Congress and the Courts, which executive orders can't apply to.) OR 2. It may clarify the enforcement of an existing law.

Back to this case. This is clearly within his powers. He is setting employment regulations for federal agents. This is his job. This is the equivalent of the CEO of Microsoft saying that his company can only hire safe drivers for its truckers and that the rest of his employees can't use the work-laptops for non-work purposes. The only real difference is that the president can go a little further and say no cell phones (personal or work) while driving any car (personal or government). Not really a huge difference, and not without precedent in the corporate world (anti-moonlighting clauses, etc.).

Re:Maybe it's a start

[cayenne8]

"I don't have a problem with Congressionally-provided healthcare, but it should follow the proper process. First a proposed amendment to give Congress the power, than debate in the 50 state legislatures, than approval to add it to the Constitution. The process should mirror the same or similar process that would be used over in the European Union - approval for Centrally-provided healthcare comes from the States upward, not from the central government downward."

I agree here!! I've been hearing rumblings that at least parts of this new Healthcare mandate they are putting forward will be challenged as being unconstitutional. This article has some information on it. And I thought I'd heard a talking head on tv cite an actual Supreme ct. case where they had ruled that medical procedures were not, in fact, subject to interstate commerce, thereby negating the feds ability to legislate it...? I can't find that one yet...but here is an article that alludes to this principal.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Uberbah]

Ah, but you have to realize that it wasn't the Democratic voters that put the current administration in office...

It wasn't independents who caucused for Obama over Hillary. It wasn't independents who max out their credit cards donating to Obama. It wasn't independents using their two weeks of yearly vacation to call for Obama and wear holes in their shoes canvasing for Obama.

It was the Democratic wing of the Democratic party that put Obama into office, period.

I'd dare say many of them weren't on board for as much 'change' as they are trying to accomplish

On what planet is that, exactly? Obama was quite clear in his policies, the problem is that...

and many thought Obama was a bit more moderate than he is turning out to be.

...Obama has been acting far too conservative on everything from taxes to regulation to HCR to continuing Bush's unjustifiable violations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.

I'm just saying mainly...just because the Dems are in power, doesn't mean the majority of US citizens are supporting all their policies. By and large, I'd dare say the majority of the US population, is moderate to slighly conservative side of moderate.

Unfortunately, the facts don't match that storyline. A majority of Americans favor single payer, not just a "public option".

At least, that is the view of things from my part of the country.

Oh, so you have some of those teabagging protests in your area? You know, the ones where they thank Obama for making the largest middle class tax cut in history?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

The difference is that if a person says, "You can trust me to use my crayons responsibly," then turns-out to be a liar and scribbles on his desk... all he's done is damage the desk.

But if that same person says, "I can drive and cellphone at the same time," and it turns-out to be incapable of that task, and kills a person... well now you've killed a person.

BTW:

I saw a woman on tv crying because her 5-year-old daughter was run-over by a texter. The driver didn't even know what had happened, but stopped because she heard a "thump" and thought she'd run-over a pothole. The child had extreme brain damage and eventually died. How do you say "I'm sorry" for that? You can't.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[oldhack]

It is what it is.

If somebody doesn't like the executive order, she can take it up to the court. The White House will throw up the usual "national security" or some other bullshit, and she'd get fucked in the ass by the IRS, but that's just a part of the 'due process'.

Yes, I am a lawyer. Of couse, I'm lying.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

Wow... you used one strawman argument after another. I don't think we should go back to the 1776 government (which was the Articles of Confederation) or even the 1800 government (the Constitution plus 10 amendments). I never even suggested that idea.

What I said, which you can reread for yourself, is that the United States should operate more like the European Union. The central government has a limited list of powers, and all the rest are reserved to the member states. If the EU proposed to provide central healthcare, it wouldn't be able to just pass legislation - it would have to propose a treaty, have the treaty debated by the 30 member states, and then passed.

In the EU power comes from the states upward, and that's how the U.S. should operate too. Don't just pass healthcare - make it an amendment to the Constitution as ratified by the states. Follow the process laid-out in the supreme law.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[cayenne8]

"The only real difference is that the president can go a little further and say no cell phones (personal or work) while driving any car (personal or government)."

Oooh...I'd think that he'd be overstepping his bounds on the EO, if he tried mandating what they did on their own time in their own personal vehicles...I think that (from the wikipedia article) was sort of the basis for some EO's being overturned.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

I think it's funny how people grab the "commerce clause" and say it gives Congress the power to do anything it wants. If this what the authors originally intended? No.

To quote the Author of the Constitution James Madison - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41) He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)

Any who interpret the commerce clause to allow $1500 fines for individuals or $4000 fines for families, who do not buy health insurance, gives Congress the virtually unlimited power over everything.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[timeOday]

I'm sure you're not saying the Constitution should be the only federal law - that all federal laws should be in the Constitution? Why should health care reform have to be a Constitutional amendment unless it conflicts with something already in the Constitution?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[cayenne8]

"It wasn't independents who caucused for Obama over Hillary. It wasn't independents who max out their credit cards donating to Obama. It wasn't independents using their two weeks of yearly vacation to call for Obama and wear holes in their shoes canvasing for Obama.

It was the Democratic wing of the Democratic party that put Obama into office, period."

They put Obama in as the Dem candidate, but, VOTERS put him in office, and I stick by my assertions on the Independents.

"Unfortunately, the facts don't match that storyline. A majority of Americans favor single payer, not just a "public option"."

Wow..what polls are you getting this from?? Not a single poll I've seen say the majority of US citizens want the public option, much less a govt. single payer option. From what I've seen from multiple polls from multiple sources, it is quite the opposite of what you say. There is close consensus of some kind of public option, but, the single payer thing would be dead the day they actually tried to put that forth.

Sure, I know one can search and find special polls and stats that will argue for any side of any case, but, from what I've seen, there is just not a majority support of the single payer option at all in the US. I do thing the more left leaning side of the Dems DO want this, and know it won't go through immediately. I think they are going the route to slide it in the backdoor over time, if they stay in power that long.

"Oh, so you have some of those teabagging protests in your area? You know, the ones where they thank Obama for making the largest middle class tax cut in history?"

You seem to think something is wrong with people protesting Obama's policies? I think that healthy distrust of the govt is absolutely required to keep the govt. in check by the people, no matter what side you are on. I saw plenty of protest (and yes, some VERY distasteful things said too) back when GW's admin. was in office. I support that kind of protest just as much...I am, however, a bit puzzled why the news doesn't treat the two protest movements the same in their coverage or commentary.

This large middle class tax cut you mention....where and when exactly did this occur? I've certainly not seen this and I'm quite middle class. I actually see a raise by the current administration in my cost of living, due to the coming $$ it will cost us all with the Cap and Trade laws passed. It may not be a tax, but, I'm losing money either way, so I see them the same. I'm also worried about hyper inflation coming down the pipe in a year or two, due to the extremely high deficit spending, the level of which we've not seen before (and GW took it to soaring heights himself which pissed me off).

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

from a comment above by schwanerhill

Re "Just federal employees": The president can ban federal employees from texting while driving for work (or having cream in their coffee while on the job, for that matter, if he so chose) by an executive order. Banning all drivers from texting would take an act of a legislature, and this sort of thing is typically done by state law, not federal law. Congress can effectively force states to enact highway laws like this by withholding federal highway funds.

Congress may get there soon, but it takes more time.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1389603&cid=29615875

Re:Maybe it's a start

[cayenne8]

"It would probably be better if we were more proactive in amending the constitution instead of just re-interpreting it to suit or will. On the other hand, the reason it has lasted so long in recognizable form is because it is so short and non-specific. But it's just not true that the 1776 federal government could still work. For white male landowners in a nation of almost unlimited natural resources 200 years ago, it was good. But there are also good reasons why it had to change, and almost nobody really wants to go back.

In what way is life not better now? We live longer, we're vastly richer, and none of us are slaves. Certainly there are changes we could make to be even better off than we are now, but reverting to the 1700s is not one of them."

Ah, but there is a mechanism for change...and much of what you listed WAS changed according to the constitution, by amending it. I think much of the problem we have now is, we've bypassed doing that so much, that we are ensnared by a whirlwind of laws and loopholes...and due to this, it is starting to affect individual liberties and rights.

They way the country was set up IS what got us to such a good life today, but, if we get off track by too much, we lose that direction. Look how things are straying...no good civil debate anymore, only partisan shouting matches and name calling, dropping education quality and graduation rates, loss of liberties, and increased intrustion of the govt. into your personal life are just a few examples.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Curunir_wolf]

The difference is that if a person says, "You can trust me to use my crayons responsibly," then turns-out to be a liar and scribbles on his desk... all he's done is damage the desk.

But if that same person says, "I can drive and cellphone at the same time," and it turns-out to be incapable of that task, and kills a person... well now you've killed a person.

That's only a difference of degree, not of principle. The starting point is that cars are dangerous, and people need to be responsible with them. I'm sure there are other examples of deadly accidents from other kinds of distractions (after all, the issue is distracted driving, not texting per-se), but there aren't calls for bans of radios, GPS devices, conversations with passengers, open maps, etc.

Texting is just the latest form of distraction that's being focused on, and rather than acting like luddites and banning things that most people are using responsibly, we should be holding people fully accountable for their dangerous behavior, regardless of their distraction of choice.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Golddess]

exactly what power do they have over a state issuing drivers licenses to school bus drivers?

They hold the power to withhold funding for roads, schools, etc from any state that does not comply. Much like how speed limits and a national drinking age of 21 were forced upon all states against their wishes.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[eleuthero]

The problem is, the media hyped Obama so much, that even those who voted for him will be disappointed. I remember reading in Europe how some were calling him "savior" and a "demi-god" - That kind of hype means that even if Obama does a good / decent job at being president, he'll still be regarded as a failure by many come 3 years from now--and that, regardless of your party, is somewhat of a shame.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Yamata no Orochi]

Okay, you got us.

See ya around.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly North American people are genetically unable to thank their governement for anything it does or decides. If it comes from the governement, it must be a trap, mean or just plain wrong.

Wake up guys. Your governement is yours, you elected it. Consistently criticizing its actions is childish at best.

I did not elect it, ergo, you're a moron. I do not criticize everything, ergo you're a moron. Government has a fundamental nature that is not nice nor is it intended to be such even when appearing merciful. Withdrawing the sword may be politically expedient but its existence is, fundamentally, "mean". I really don't know what your racist ("genetically unable") comment hopes to accomplish. We have no activity by which to "thank" the government other than re-electing incumbants and paying taxes. Those two things happen all the time. What the hell are you smoking? What is the point or redeeming value of your post?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[blueZ3]

No.

The order is about using cellphones (personal or government) while driving a government car. What you do with your phone, in your car, doesn't come into it.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[ShannaraFan]

I can't speak for all North American countries, but I can say that the general populace of ONE of those countries is genetically incapable of being thankful for anything, government issued or otherwise. It's never enough, I deserve more, now where is it? Drives me nuts...

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

Because even though it's non-obvious to the law student currently residing at 1600 Penn Ave., the Constitution is not a list of things that the government can't do (even though it's expressed in those terms in the amendments) it's a list of things it CAN do. I honestly don't understand how "all other powers are reserved to the states" is so hard to understand.

If it's not specifically allowed (common defense, regulation of interstate commerce) then it's not allowed. Everything not compulsory is forbidden, in the words of T.H. White.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[blueZ3]

You can't even ban stupid actions, you can merely punish stupidity.

Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[blueZ3]

How do you say "sorry"?

I always admired Heinlein's system from The Number of the Beast--you tie the driver down in the road, run over their head with a car, and then use a stopwatch to make them wait for medical help exactly the same amount of time that the victim waited.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[timeOday]

But it seems to me that the democracy IS working, that is, the laws we have are the laws that people want. There is no "other" that is imposing anything upon us, collectively. The issues causing most of the strife are issues where the American public is genuinely divided. Some resent the restrictions of environmental law, while some resent having to live in others' filth. Some want to preserve the freedom to have an abortion, while others want to preserve the freedom of the unborn to live. Some want unfettered freedom to spend money influencing politics, while others say vote-buying reduces freedom for everybody else in the long run. The legislative process can never make everybody agree, but what it should do is ensure that the laws generally reflect the will of the people, and I think they do. Do you not think so?

Whether the majority is right in what they want is another question, so I'm not saying US policy is perfect. But making the laws so rigid they don't change even when most people disagree with them, seems like a form of benevolent dictatorship of the present upon the future.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

Wow you love those strawman arguments don't you?
"Are you saying....." No I am not saying that,
and if I had meant to say such a thing,
I would have said it.

NO I do not think every federal law needs to be in the constitution, but every federal law does have to be approved BY the Constitution. That's why the Constitution exists - to specify precisely what the U.S. Congress can do. Or as the author of the document, James Madison said so eloquently: "The Government is a limited one, possessing enumerated powers." For example if Congress passed a law to take-over all newspapers, radio stations, and websites, clearly this would be unconstitutional because Congress was never granted the power to operate any of those things. That is a non-enumerated power.

>>>Why should health care reform have to be a Constitutional amendment unless it conflicts...?
>>>

It DOES conflict with something in the Constitution. QUOTE: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States..." That's plain English and very clear. The power has not been granted to the U.S. therefore it is reserved to the States..... just the same way the EU government could not create a central healthcare system, because the EU was never granted that power. It's reserved to the states.

If you want to give the US/EU central government the power to run a central healthcare system, then it has to come from the member states... from the bottom up. By amendment.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

I see your mistake. We're not a democracy.

We are a representative Republic, which is strictly limited in scope by its National and State Constitutions. The reason why the American Founders chose to confine this republic by a Constitution was because they were fearful of the government. They had just kicked-over one tyrannical government that had no limits on its power, and they didn't want to replace it with another one with no limits on its power. Therefore they created a Republic that is circumscribed and confined by the People's Constitution(s).

Also you're wrong when you say the U.S. Constitution can not be modified.

It was modified 10 times before the ink was even dry on the page. And 17 more times after that. It was *meant* to be modified as required, in order to keep it up to date... including a new amendment to provide Uncle Sam Healthcare, if that's what the People desire. There is no reason to ignore this process.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

Any who interpret the commerce clause to allow $1500 fines for individuals or $4000 fines for families, who do not buy health insurance, gives Congress the virtually unlimited power over everything.

I imagine most people here are familiar with the Katie Couric interview of VP candidate Sarah Palin before the elections, since Palin flubbed it completely. Personally, I was often disappointed and occasionally angered by Palin's responses. Yet not nearly as angered as I was by Joe Biden boasting of his attempt to abuse the commerce clause when it was his turn to be interviewed.

After Couric later interviewed VP candidate Joe Biden, he was generally considered to have done well in the interview - well enough that nobody discusses it anymore, whereas Palin's ignorance continues to generate criticism and material for the late night comedians. Biden described arguing in favor of federal legislation to protect women from spousal abuse specifically because such abuse limited the abused women's ability to engage in interstate commerce - and he was distinctly proud of it. I could understand being proud of working to protect abused women, but he was also proud of finding a way to justify such federal legislation with the commerce clause. That is horribly twisted. I like to think Madison would have challenged Biden to a duel, were Madison alive today.

The word "raped" doesn't come close to describing federal government abuses of the commerce clause. Even "double fisted" may be understatement. I don't know how we go about fixing this. It will be difficult to find house/senate candidates willing to abstain from using justifications so casually wielded by their predecessors and contemporaries.

- T

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

>>>Just because the people from the States are weird, please don't group the rest of us in with them.

Nice insult. Well take this:
Canada == United States part 2.
Or == Future States 51,52,53,54....

Just joking. ;-) Actually we don't want the eastern half of Canada. Just the parts west of Ontario where people still embrace and understand the meaning of freedom (and minimal government). I hear a lot of westerners bitching about Ottawa taxing them to death, and spending the money on building mega-bridges across the P.E.I. straits, which of course doesn't do anything for the folks living in Alberta. So it shouldn't be hard to convince them to join the U.S. where taxation is about 10% lower.

(ducks a spitball)

Re:Maybe it's a start

[commodore64_love]

Probably because listening to my radio doesn't require fiddling with buttons. Also I can tune-out the radio, whereas tuning-out my wife during a cell call might lead to divorce. Simply put - It isn't the same thing. Conversations are more distracting, and it has been shown that texting causes FAR more accidents than the radio or other distractions..... even more accidents than drunk driving.

Also I've seen people drive directly through red lights. They saw the light, but they were talking-up a storm on their phone and it never registered in their brain. ZOOM they went through the light nearly hitting other people in the process. DON'T sit there and tell me that's not a dangerous situation requiring immediate prohibition of phones.

One more thing

- I think you are an arrogant man. For you (or anyone else on this thread) to sit there and justify your cellphone use while driving, makes me hope you spend your last minute sizzling on an electric chair. I know that's mean, but I HATE murderers who kill people with their cars..... especially when it could have been avoided by just putting the phone in the glovebox & not touching it. Whoever is calling you is not that important. They can wait until you get to your destination.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Curunir_wolf]

Probably because listening to my radio doesn't require fiddling with buttons. Also I can tune-out the radio, whereas tuning-out my wife during a cell call might lead to divorce. Simply put - It isn't the same thing. Conversations are more distracting, and it has been shown that texting causes FAR more accidents than the radio or other distractions..... even more accidents than drunk driving.

[citation needed]

Sorry, but all I keep seeing is statistics about "distracted driving" that then make the leap that it all means "texting and driving" - but no data to support it. Maybe you've seen something that I haven't?

Also I've seen people drive directly through red lights. They saw the light, but they were talking-up a storm on their phone and it never registered in their brain. ZOOM they went through the light nearly hitting other people in the process. DON'T sit there and tell me that's not a dangerous situation requiring immediate prohibition of phones.

That's not a dangerous situation requiring immediate prohibition of phones. Rather, that's a dangerous situation requiring immediate confiscation of that person's phone and/or car.

One more thing

- I think you are an arrogant man.

I am! No, not really.

For you (or anyone else on this thread) to sit there and justify your cellphone use while driving, makes me hope you spend your last minute sizzling on an electric chair.

That's really nice. Look, I don't talk on the phone while driving. People that do annoy me (I don't call for their death, though). But I keep it with me. I'll know it's important if it keeps ringing after I ignore it the first time or two it goes to voice mail. Then I can stop and answer it - without continuing on for 2-3 hours and finding out I didn't need to go, or was needed somewhere else.

I know that's mean, but I HATE murderers who kill people with their cars..... especially when it could have been avoided by just putting the phone in the glovebox & not touching it. Whoever is calling you is not that important. They can wait until you get to your destination.

I agree with you there, but banning phones is not the answer. Holding people accountable is. You can ban and ban and ban until you think everybody is safe and people will still find a way to kill others through irresponsible action. We learned that during prohibition in the '20s.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[theaveng]

So the woman who ran-over a five-year-old while texting should be "held accountable". What's that mean? Electrocuting her on the chair? Now you have two dead people. Brilliant solution. (rolls eyes)

Wouldn't it have been better to simply ban phone usage while driving, and therefore have two still-living people?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Curunir_wolf]

So the woman who ran-over a five-year-old while texting should be "held accountable". What's that mean? Electrocuting her on the chair? Now you have two dead people. Brilliant solution. (rolls eyes)

Wouldn't it have been better to simply ban phone usage while driving, and therefore have two still-living people?

Actually, it would be simpler to ban cars, then we would save 45,000 lives every year. I mean, what's wrong with you anyway? You think it's okay to kill 45,000 people every year just so you can get around town quicker?

Re:Maybe it's a start

[badkarmadayaccount]

Yes.

Re:Maybe it's a start

[Uberbah]

They put Obama in as the Dem candidate, but, VOTERS put him in office, and I stick by my assertions on the Independents.

And who made up the vast majority of the VOTERS who put him in office? Democrats. And there is this fanciful idea that "independent" == the large middle between the Democratic and Republican parties, and that's just not the case. You have people who can't make up their minds, people who don't care about politics at all (but need to be categorized), conservatives who are consistent for two seconds at a time and thus can't vote GOP, and people who are pissed off at both parties for reasons both justified and not.

Wow..what polls are you getting this from??

The reputable ones. On the page they say "almost half" but it's actually 59%. LA Times: 53%. Hell, even a majority of Republican voters support a public option when separated from the lies about "Death Panels" and Concern trolling over the deficit which, funny enough, was never a concern with Iraq.

Not a single poll I've seen say the majority of US citizens want the public option

Maybe you should get out more; the reality-based community is a nice place to visit.

From what I've seen from multiple polls from multiple sources, it is quite the opposite of what you say.

That's because your poll is from Rassmusen, who are noted hacks.

Sure, I know one can search and find special polls and stats that will argue for any side of any case, but, from what I've seen, there is just not a majority support of the single payer option at all in the US.

The funny thing is that batshit crazy, immigrant hating, fascist, warmongering corporatist right wingers in other countries wonder what the hell is wrong with American conservatives for opposing single payer. For reasons like....single payer is the most fiscally conservative policy possible. The entire existence (and massive profits of) the health insurance industry depends on taking your premiums while doing their best to deny your claims. Which is why Medicare spends about 2 cents on the dollar in administrative costs, compared to 30-35% for private insurance.

And I thought conservatives wanted to hold onto their money...

You seem to think something is wrong with people protesting Obama's policies?

You seem to ignore that these protesters were didn't care about Bush doubling the national debt, lying us into a war, and shredding the Bill of Rights? You have Republican Congressmen calling for violent revolution, yet never gave a shit about NSA wiretapping?

One of the most glaring problems conservatives face is the complete inability to be consistent for two seconds. The other problem is that they are utterly divorced from reality. What SNL said: you guys can't complain about how Obama is a socialist, because he hasn't done anything yet.

I saw plenty of protest (and yes, some VERY distasteful things said too)

LOL. Not only are they not on the same page, they aren't on the same planet. Where were the liberals burning and hanging GOP congressmen in effigy? Were Democratic voters showing up to rallies headed by VP nominee John Edwards, yelling "kill him" about Bush? Republicans mocked liberal celebrities for saying they would leave the country if Bush was re-elected, yet were openly calling for secession the month Obama took office.

This large middle class tax cut you mention....where and when exactly did this occur?

Lame headline?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"Executive Order Bars Federal Workers From Texting and Driving"

" But that was not before President Obama signed an executive order that tells all federal employees not to engage in texting while driving government vehicles."

Why not "texting or driving" next time? "The last time I looked in a dictionary, "or" was no closer to "while" than "and".

Re:Lame headline?

[jandersen]

The last time I looked in a dictionary, "or" was no closer to "while" than "and".

Perhaps you need another dictionary, or maybe you should look more carefully. According to Wiktionary:

While and whilst are conjunctions whose primary meaning is "during the time that"

IOW, it means (or implies) "at the same time as"; thus, "I text while I am driving" means "I text and drive at the same time". To most users of the English language, the sentence "I text or drive at the same time" doesn't make much meaning. Ergo, "while" has a good deal to do with "and", and not so much with "or"; some would even say that they are functionally equivalent.

Re:Lame headline?

[Sique]

Because the conjunction A v B is only true when A and B both are true, while A ^ B is true if at least one of A and B is true.

So it is forbidden now to do both A and B at the same time, while Texting itself and Driving itself are still allowed. Thus only (A v B) is forbidden, but (A ^ B) is still allowed if (not A B).

Re:Lame headline?

[Ihlosi]

Why not "texting or driving" next time? "The last time I looked in a dictionary, "or" was no closer to "while" than "and".

Hand in your geek card.

if(employee.is_texting && employee.is_driving)
{
fire(employee);
}

Re:Lame headline?

[FlyingBishop]

Um... Ok I'll bite... I think you have the symbols for "and" and "or" backwards

But other than that, you are quite right.

Re:Lame headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Texting and driving" is an analogy to "drinking and driving", which does not mean "drinking while driving" but driving under the influence of alcohol intoxication (which is long enough to justify the less precise expression "drinking and driving"). Barring federal workers from texting and driving can be interpreted as barring federal workers from texting and barring federal workers from driving. If the author had meant to express that federal workers are barred from texting while driving, why didn't he write that?

Re:Lame headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod points really are like condoms, you never have them when you need them. I wish I could mod you insightful.

Re:Lame headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, there was a serious bug in this program. Due to namespace issues, fragile base class problems, etc, the call was mapped to Kiln::fire() rather than Employer::fire(). It is regrettable that this has resulted in a substantial loss of life. Appropriate steps have been taken to improve coding standards and developer training to ensure that this won't happen again.

Re:Lame headline?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

So the last time your mother forbade you as a teen to take drugs and drink, you took some drugs and argued that you were not drinking at the same time?

Re:Lame headline?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Would you be willing to trade your linguist card for my geek card? :-)

Re:Lame headline?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Perhaps you need another dictionary, or maybe you should look more carefully.

I'm looking into my SOED very carefully, and yet I have a really hard time trying to spot it.

IOW, it means (or implies) "at the same time as"; thus, "I text while I am driving" means "I text and drive at the same time". To most users of the English language, the sentence "I text or drive at the same time" doesn't make much meaning.

Reading comprehension fail? I should have used a sarcasm tag.

Ergo, "while" has a good deal to do with "and", and not so much with "or"; some would even say that they are functionally equivalent.

Yes, some would, the recipients of negative imperative sentences being some of the most prominent. :-)

Re:Lame headline?

[zippthorne]

Don't be ridiculous. "and" and "or" can be logical operators. The can also be used to enumerate members of a set. You are expected to know which is which based on context, as anyone over the age of four should be competent to figure out. You're not dumber than a four year old, are you?

Re:Lame headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

You knew what was meant. Stop acting stupid just so you can be a grammar Nazi. Anyone dumb enough to think that texting and driving prohibits both of those things separately or one after another is a moron and shouldn't be driving AT ALL.

Re:Lame headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the vee symbol is for disjunction, and the wedge for conjunction...just sayin'.

Re:Lame headline?

[ColdWetDog]

Mod points really are like condoms, you never have them when you need them.

Are you saying we shouldn't need mod points? Don't you like the moderation system?

Re:Lame headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that by your own analogy, if "drinking and driving" equates to "driving under the influence of alcohol", then "texting and driving" would equate to "driving under the influence of texting". Since texting only influences your driving if they are done at the same time, by your own description, it means "texting while at the same time driving".

Re:Lame headline?

[JimboFBX]

Really? I literally seem to have an endless supply of mod points on slashdot because I rarely use them (and for some reason when my mod points expire I instantly have 5 again).

Oh crap your analogy still stands! Damn you drawer full of condoms!

Re:Lame headline?

[Chris Burke]

You're not dumber than a four year old, are you?

Of course not! He's Slashdot Pedant Smart, which is so smart that it wraps around and seems dumber than a four year old. But it's not, really!

Basically it involves pretending that a very imprecise word with many definitions is actually extremely precise and has only one definition, and that you can ignore context that indicates which definition is the correct one, and instead pick whichever one you want. Then you use that definition to argue that the word was misused. This proves how smart you are.

*sigh* Remember when pedantry was about being picky about the precise definition of things that had precise definitions like technical terms? Yeah, those were the days. The grass was greener too, before all these kids trampled my lawn.

Re:Lame headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Drinking and driving" is an expression which was chosen primarily for being catchy, which is a result of its syntactic and phonetic structure. "Texting and driving" is a syntactic analogy. Trying to allude to the established "drinking and driving" taboo is the only reason for saying "texting and driving" instead of "texting while driving". You're being manipulated.

"Driving under the influence of texting" is even more vague: Are you under the influence of texting if your friend dumped you via SMS before you got in the car?

Re:Lame headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the conjunction A v B is only true when A and B both are true, while A ^ B is true if at least one of A and B is true.

So it is forbidden now to do both A and B at the same time, while Texting itself and Driving itself are still allowed. Thus only (A v B) is forbidden, but (A ^ B) is still allowed if (not A B).

How dreadful. I shall have to inform my wife I am no longer allowed to do hole A and B at the same time.

Employer Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, the Executive Order applies to employees of the Federal Government. That sounds like an employer taking responsibility by stating company policy for employees when they are driving employer-owned vehicles. When those same people are driving their own cars on their own time they are still free to be fucking morons and kill themselves.

Re:Employer Responsibility

[noidentity]

That sounds like an employer taking responsibility by stating company policy for employees when they are driving employer-owned vehicles. When those same people are driving their own cars on their own time they are still free to be fucking morons and kill themselves.

And kill others. Which is why this is kind of odd, since it's not just the vehicle that's put at risk.

Re:Employer Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

...except when using a goverment phone ibn their own car, or when using their car for governemtnbusiness, or when they're on the clock or in uniform.

Just federal employees?

[salmacis2]

What? Texting and driving isn't already illegal in the USA? It's illegal in the UK, and quite right too. A car is a lethal weapon if you are not paying attention - and it's impossible to compose a text message while simultaneously maintain the necessary level of attention to driving.

Re:Just federal employees?

[clickety6]

and it's impossible to compose a text message while simultaneously maintain the necessary level of attention to driving.

Rubbish! I'm writing this on my iPhone right now and I am safely in control of this vehic

 

Re:Just federal employees?

[Svartalf]

Texting probably is- I'd think it was covered under reckless driving statutes.

You'd think it was a foregone conclusion, really, that this was a BAD thing to do- but people do it right along with the trying to drive whilst the phone's up to the head. But noooo....

Re:Just federal employees?

[Jason Levine]

It's illegal where I live (New York) even though I've seen people obviously texting while they're driving. Many states, though, are having problems passing bans because some people think it is a "personal rights" issue. They fail to realize, however, that while you might have the right to take a chance with your life due to texting while driving, you don't have the right to take chances with other people's rights. If you cross the center line and plow into another car head on because you just *had* to reply to your friend's incoming text message, you could wind up killing people other than yourself. (There was a story on NPR where this exact thing happened. The twenty year old who was texting killed a parent and child and he survived.)

Personally, I think it is sad that we even need to ban it. It should be a common sense thing that you shouldn't be looking at your phone to compose a text while you're driving. If you really need to text, pull over, send the text, then start back up. If you really need to talk with the person, get a hands-free set and call them. (Yes, being engaged in a phone conversation is still distracting, but it is less distracting than looking away from the road for a few seconds to type and send a text message.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have heard that laws against texting / talking on the phone / whatever while driving do not actually cause there to be less accidents. People will continue to do so. However, the only thing that does change is the amount of revenue generated from traffic violations.

My ideal system for dealing with texting / drinking / $distraction while driving would go like this: Once you've hit someone while being distracted or intoxicated, they get you not only for whatever injuries and damages you do, but also get you for criminal negligence. Otherwise, consider yourself very very lucky that you haven't hurt or killed someone or damaged something. Bonus points if the cops pull you over while you're intoxicated and hold you until you are no longer intoxicated.

Re:Just federal employees?

[c]

> Personally, I think it is sad that we even need to ban it.

That's the really silly part... we don't need to ban it. Just about any sane jurisdiction that allows driving already has laws against various forms of reckless or distracted driving. Before cell phones, our parents and grandparents were dealing with people driving while shaving, reading newspapers, having sex (partner optional), applying makeup, eating, beating the kids, etc. This stuff isn't new, and if we aren't enforcing the laws already on the books, creating a new law isn't going to do a damn thing except (maybe) raise awareness of the issue.

c.

Re:Just federal employees?

[kemenaran]

It's illegal in France too : you can't text while driving, and can phone only with a hands-free set. Makes sense - for the obvious reasons mentioned above. I was really surprised to see USA *bus-drivers* answering long calls : they have a full pack of passengers right behind them, what are they thinking ?!

Re:Just federal employees?

[FlyingBishop]

I think that's the first stop mid-sentence where the supposed loss of connection is actually plausible. Usually it involves the actual internet connection or computer going down, but here, you actually could've crashed, accidentally hitting submit in the process.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I have heard that laws against texting / talking on the phone / whatever while driving do not actually cause there to be less accidents.

I've heard that listening to unsourced claims by anonymous cowards on Slashdot may be hazardous to your brain functions.

My ideal system for dealing with texting / drinking / $distraction while driving would go like this: Once you've hit someone while being distracted or intoxicated, they get you not only for whatever injuries and damages you do, but also get you for criminal negligence.

That's lovely, unless you're the guy who got dead because no-one pulled the driver for doing something obviously dangerous before the accident.

I propose an alternative approach: anyone who drives a vehicle that is likely to cause a fatality in a collision, and who is demonstrably not properly alert and in control of that vehicle for any reason, should be treated the same way as someone who attempts murder. A crazy number of people get killed or seriously hurt on the road every year, and a crazy number of drivers are scarily blasé about it, warm and cozy inside their big metal safety cages.

Re:Just federal employees?

[L0rdJedi]

If you really need to text, pull over, send the text, then start back up.

Isn't New York one of those places where if you're even in your car, on the side of the road and on the phone, they'll still give you a ticket?

Re:Just federal employees?

[Rogerborg]

Legislators make new laws so that us peons vent our wrath arguing over the merits of the laws, rather than over the merits of having legislators at all.

That's not much of a damn thing, but it does explain why the statute book always grows.

Re:Just federal employees?

[corbettw]

Actually, it turns out that's not the case. I thought it was too, until a recent Slashdot discussion where someone corrected me. I've since done a little more research and found this chart published by the AAA: http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Assets/Files/20099111616410.DistractedDrivingLaws.doc (warning: Word doc, not HTML or PDF for some reason).

Only four states ban "distracted driving", and various other combinations of states ban texting, talking on a phone, or other specific actions. There are only two states (Ohio and Wisconsin) that don't ban any of these behaviors. As for the rest, it's a hodgepodge of restrictions. It's worth checking out the link to make sure you know what your state does, and does not, ban.

Re:Just federal employees?

[corbettw]

What? Texting and driving isn't already illegal in the USA? It's illegal in the UK, and quite right too.

It's absurd to compare the USA to the UK in this type of situation. It's much more accurate to compare our national government to the EU. Under our Federal system of government, most laws like this are supposed to be handled by individual states, not the central government. That doesn't mean that Congress won't pass some stupid law, only that they shouldn't bother getting involved in minutiae.

There's an argument to be made that since the Federal government pays for much of the maintenance on the interstate highway system and regulates it under the Commerce Clause, that they could ban texting while driving on an interstate or US highway; they could also withhold highway funds from states that allow that behavior (that's how we ended up with a national drinking age). But they can't pass a law saying that you can't drive on state or private property while texting, that would be a violation of each state's sovereignty and the 10th Amendment to our Constitution. (Yes, I know this is splitting hairs since it all accomplishes the same thing, but these are important hairs to keep intact.)

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Coward]

...you might have the right to take a chance with your life due to texting while driving, you don't have the right to take chances with other people's rights.

Actually, you do have the right to take chances with other people's rights, but not the right to interfere with others rights. Think of it this way, from your point of view, you have the right to drive on the road without fear that some idiot is going to hit you because they're too stupid to realize they can't text while driving. From my point of view, telling me that I can't text while driving, is interfering with my rights. Your supposition is that it is impossible to safely text while driving. To that end I point out, that an act is not considered inciting a riot, a crime, unless you can reasonably expect that your actions will cause a riot. In other words, it's akin to the difference between reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, and preponderance of evidence in a civil trial. The american way is to err on the side of freedom. If your concern is with the twenty-year-old mentioned in your anecdote, I purport that the American way of dealing with it is the following solution instead of trampling on people's rights: Apply the law that provides a recklessness enhancement to both wrongful death (civil) and manslaughter (criminal). If this law cannot be succesfully applied, then pass new legislation that strengthens it. A silly $500 fine to "prevent" behaviour that takes "chances" is certainly not the answer, and serves only to take away rights, without solving the underlying problem.

Re:Just federal employees?

[schwanerhill]

Re "Just federal employees": The president can ban federal employees from texting while driving for work (or having cream in their coffee while on the job, for that matter, if he so chose) by an executive order. Banning all drivers from texting would take an act of a legislature, and this sort of thing is typically done by state law, not federal law. Congress can effectively force states to enact highway laws like this by withholding federal highway funds.

Congress may get there soon, but it takes more time.

Re:Just federal employees?

[gEvil (beta)]

What? Texting and driving isn't already illegal in the USA? It's illegal in the UK, and quite right too. A car is a lethal weapon if you are not paying attention - and it's impossible to compose a text message while simultaneously maintain the necessary level of attention to driving.

But we're constantly getting conflicting messages on what to do from our media! How are we supposed to know what's right and what's wrong?!?

Re:Just federal employees?

[Waffle Iron]

That's the really silly part... we don't need to ban it. Just about any sane jurisdiction that allows driving already has laws against various forms of reckless or distracted driving.

I'm so sick of people making this argument every time this topic comes up. To penalize texting while driving under the current law, you would have to haul each offender into court, and each and every time try to prove to a jury that texting is indeed distracted driving. Huge amounts of resources would be wasted doing this over and over again. Each time it would be fought tooth-and-nail by slick and clever defense lawyers who would bring in all sorts of pseudo statistics to try raise doubts that texting while driving has been 100% air-tight proven to be dangerous. Remember how they convinced a jury that OJ wasn't guilty?

A specific law would point out that texting while driving == distracted driving, no ifs, ands or buts. This fact would not have to be re-proven in every case. Pay the ticket, move on, and don't do it again.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Coward]

Distracted driving is dangerous.

Texting while driving is not necessarily distracting. There is a large angry group of people who don't find driving to be that difficult and don't really pay attention anyways. I probably pay _more_ attention when texting.

I'm sorry that you can't do it, but please stop making laws that keep me from doing it because you can't.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's impossible to compose a text message while simultaneously maintain the necessary level of attention to driving.

Nonsense, Heck I am doing it right now on going down i-90 at

[Carrier lost]

Re:Just federal employees?

[SonnyDog09]

It should be a common sense thing ....... the problem is that "common sense" is all too rare. If we could rely on common sense, we wouldn't have to remind people that coffee is hot.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Ost99]

Just about any sane jurisdiction that allows driving already has laws against various forms of reckless or distracted driving.

Reckless or distracted driving is (somewhat) subjective, those laws will only be used when something happens.
If you want the problem to go away, you need to pull people over for doing it and the fine must be substantial.

Where I live the fine is $200 for using a phone without handsfree while driving (roughly one fine pr 500 inhabitants were handed out last year).
Unfortunately that doesn't seem like a high enough fine to get people to change their behavior. It might help if the fine was raised to the same level as the Italian fine, about $1000.

Re:Just federal employees?

[zippthorne]

and *my* ideal would be to take advantage of the silicon revolution and get the driver out of the equation.

Re:Just federal employees?

[drinkypoo]

All states ban driving in an unsafe manner. States with "driving while distracted" laws are on the way to the same stupid proliferation of laws that leads to "no texting" laws. If someone can drive so well and hold their phone against the wheel such that you can't tell they're texting, you don't need to stop them. Otherwise, it's pretty much always obvious; the guy who is driving like he's got lag needs to be checked out. If it turns out he was on his phone at the time, he should be given a ticket, not for using his phone while driving, but for unsafe driving.

The reason we do have these laws is to get these people through the court system faster, of course. It eliminates all arguments about whether one was driving safely or not. I should think it would be enough to rely on precedent, but I guess not.

Further proof that more courts, more judges, more laws, more jails, and more prisons will not solve what is really wrong with this country.

Re:Just federal employees?

[mcgrew]

It's illegal in many states, but by no means all of them. This is about a Federal mandate that the states all outlaw it.

Re:Just federal employees?

[TapeCutter]

"Once you've hit someone while being distracted or intoxicated..."

...it's too late for justice, all your left with is heartfelt remorse and state sponsered revenge.

"My ideal system for dealing with texting / drinking / $distraction..."

I don't understand your problem with what amounts to a stupidity tax but my ideal would be to install a jamming device into the cars of people caught using a mobile, at their own expense of course.

Re:Just federal employees?

[TapeCutter]

AKAIK negligent/intoxicated driving that results in a death attracts a charge of manslaghter here in Oz, I suspect it would in the UK also.

Re:Just federal employees?

[KC7JHO]

This document dos not accurately reflect the law in Oklahoma. We do have a distracted driving law, however in order for a DA to file the charge the offender has to be in an accident, and the distracted driving must occur in the presence of an officer.

Re:Just federal employees?

[D Ninja]

A specific law would point out that texting while driving == distracted driving, no ifs, ands or buts. This fact would not have to be re-proven in every case. Pay the ticket, move on, and don't do it again.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think this would have to be proven for every case. First off, precedence would play a big part into this. Secondly, there is no "proof" that speeding is necessarily dangerous (and, it really isn't up to certain speeds - difference in speed is the issue), yet they still smack down tickets left and right without any challenge. So, I think your worry really isn't a valid one. If an officer says, "They were texting and driving and I felt that they were being a reckless towards other drivers and themselves," the officer, by his position of authority (which I hope he is not abusing), has a right and an obligation to make that call. Except in extreme cases, he would receive the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, oh wait it's a jackass with an iPhone swerving ov

Re:Just federal employees?

[kimvette]

A lot of police cars have cameras already; all they need to prove is:

  * failure to maintain control of the vehicle
  * improper lane changes
  * driving left of center
  * failure to yield
  * driving >10mph under the limit
  * reckless driving

In the cases I see where someone is texting and is not capable of multitasking, they are violating MULTIPLE laws already. It's very easy to prove violations of those existing laws when the police cars have cameras on board. Texting laws are unnecessary. In fact, they're stupid.

Why?

Ban texting. What else is distracting? Surfing the web. Ban that. Watching youtube. Ban that. Reading a book. Ban that! Shaving. Ban that!

Why bother banning each individual activities when the existing laws suffice, if only states and municipalities quit using police officers as revenue clerks (i.e., speed limit enforcement for raising revenue, not increasing safety), drop speeding ticket quotas, and instead let them focus on actual safety issues? Then, this problem will be greatly reduced or even eliminated - without the need for additional laws.

What makes this REALLY stupid is a lot of states are starting to offer traffic reports via SMS messages. It's hypocrisy at its height. "Accident at columbia road" - OK so I know to get off before then and take Dot ave. Such laws would make state-endorsed use of texting illegal. So, the state would be conspiring to engage in a criminal act! :)

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The light penalties for causing or nearly causing death or serious injury while driving relative to causing the same harm by any other means have been rather controversial in the UK in recent years, following a string of court cases where people walked out with what amounted to a slap on the wrist after negligently killing someone. New laws are planned (and might have come into effect recently, I can't remember just now) to address this to some extent.

The problem with all of these laws, however, is that they only work after-the-fact. Driving in such a way that you are likely to seriously hurt or kill someone does not in itself attract a severe penalty, given the potential consequences of those actions.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Waffle Iron]

Secondly, there is no "proof" that speeding is necessarily dangerous (and, it really isn't up to certain speeds - difference in speed is the issue), yet they still smack down tickets left and right without any challenge.

That's because there's a specific law that says speeding is illegal in and of itself. That was exactly the point I was making: texting while driving should get the same treatment.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Waffle Iron]

Why bother banning each individual activities when the existing laws suffice,

Because, as I originally explained, they *don't* suffice.

Why make police officers follow someone who is texting for miles until they see them actually commit a life-threatening driving error? Is it just for the silly principle that the number of characters in the road laws needs to be minimized for some reason? You'd just be wasting police resources and risking the safety of everyone.

Texting while driving is stupid and dangerous, period. You know it, I know it, and the law ought to know it.

Re:Just federal employees?

[sponga]

It's illegal here in California and in New York, those states are always a little head of America and usually the rest follow suit.

Re:Just federal employees?

[CastrTroy]

even though I've seen people obviously texting while they're driving

Doesn't matter that it's illegal. People don't always obey the laws, especially traffic laws. People speed/ forget to signal/ drive drunk all the time.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Coward]

They fail to realize, however, that while you might have the right to take a chance with your life due to texting while driving, you don't have the right to take chances with other people's rights.

The law does not address taking chances with other peoples' lives (technically, I don't think their "rights" are at issue even though "life" and "property" are in play). A law or ban addresses the action - texting - not the act of "taking chances". There are a numerous potential distractions while driving:

- texting
- talking on the phone
- fiddling with the radio
- kids in the back seat
- talking with passengers
- watching other drivers, not the road or cars

You make it clear in your post by defending "talking on the phone" that your level of tolerance is less than texting but more than talking on a cell phone. Whooop-dee-fucking-doo. How is it "common sense" that your level is the precise correct one? Why can't I text with little traffic and nothing but dead bodies around me (cemetary road) that I am ("5 mins") away? I wish the assholes would call but they don't always have minutes. Likely, text will be transcribed to voice for both sending and receiving and people will just text via a voice-activated interface. Problem, not solved but partially mitigated.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Jason Levine]

Not that I know of. As far as I know, being on the side of the road talking on the phone isn't against the law (unless you're in a no parking zone or something in which case being on the phone isn't the problem).

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's illegal in many states, but by no means all of them. This is about a Federal mandate that the states all outlaw it.

No, it's not.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Coward]

But just like a speeding ticket, it would be pretty easy to get out of the penalty.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Anonymous Coward]

Must they prove that putting on makeup or shaving is distracting? How about reading the newspaper?
If they have to prove every individual situation, why do they bother with such laws?

I've gotten careless driving citations. I've been cited for violating "the basic rule" which really has no specific numbers, just excessive speed in an inappropriate place (75 in a residential neighborhood in this case), and I really didn't think I could fight it by arguing that I had control of the vehicle at that speed under those conditions.

Re:Just federal employees?

[barzok]

It's illegal where I live (New York) even though I've seen people obviously texting while they're driving.

But it's only a secondary offense. You can't be pulled over for texting while driving. If you're driving w/o a seatbelt, or speeding, have an expired registration, etc. and you're texting when the officer sees you to pull you over for those other offenses, you can be ticketed for both.

But texting alone isn't a stop-worthy offense. Holding a phone to your ear & having a conversation, OTOH, is.

Re:Just federal employees?

[herojig]

Crap, I can't even text on an iPhone when I am sitting at my desk and the phone is perched on it's suction cup stalk, so I can't imagine how it's done on American or UK roadways. What a hoot! But the bigger question is, why can't people just drive from point A to point B and do only that? Is it that hard to do one thing well, and with full attention on the doing? If drivers can't do that, then I think they are just plain stupid and ill-trained from birth.

Re:Just federal employees?

[pete6677]

Does this mean you would support a specific law banning every possible behavior that could possibly distract a driver? Sometime discretion and judgment really are necessary parts of the legal system. Zero-tolerance approaches generally don't work out to well.

Re:Just federal employees?

[Xtifr]

It's worth checking out the link to make sure you know what your state does, and does not, ban.

Um, thanks, but I think I'm going to try to refrain from insane, hazardous driving techniques no matter whether my state bans 'em or not! :)

Re:Just federal employees?

[corbettw]

Yes, but states with merely unsafe driving laws look at the behavior of the vehicle more than anything else. Until you cross over that double-yellow line, there's not much they can do.

Re:Just federal employees?

[TapeCutter]

"Driving in such a way that you are likely to seriously hurt or kill someone does not in itself attract a severe penalty, given the potential consequences of those actions."

Mobile phone usage attracts an on the spot fine here, drink driving is not tolerated and the cops regularly set up roadblocks for random testing, punishment is handed out by a magistrate, it varies but typically it would be something like..

1st offence - no license for a year or so and a big fine
2nd offence - tear up your license, turn out your pockets and a good behaviour bond.
3rd offence - mandatory jail, time 3+ months.

If you do lose your license for DD it's likely you will have to be re-educated and have to pass a court ordered drink driving course to get it back, not to mention your insurance premium going thru the roof.

"rather controversial in the UK in recent years, following a string of court cases where people walked out with what amounted to a slap on the wrist after negligently killing someone. New laws are planned"

Statistically Victoria's has been a world leader in reducing the road toll. The DD laws came to be when we had a similar string of "wrist slaps" in the early 80's. Their campaigns have been remarkably successful.

Our registration fee includes compulsory third party insurance, when the DD laws were introduced it saved the state government billions in TAC payouts in the first couple of years. In effect the TAC had been "too successfull" and there was a huge political stink when the government took the savings from the TAC and put them into consolidated revenue.

Re:Just federal employees?

[misnohmer]

Well, here is your problem. You (and countless others) are attempting to legislate what "you personally thing is right". Where do you draw the line? Let's make changing radio stations while driving illegal (I've heard of number of accidents where people died due to driver changing the radio station). How about driving within 24hrs of breaking up with your girlfriend, or getting fired (you must take a cab home if you're fired, since you'll be too distracted to drive). By your logic it should be also illegal to take off your jacket while driving, scratching your rear, or anything else anyone has ever done and caused an accident. In some countries some people "personally think" that women should not walk in public without covering their face - so they stone them if they do, by law. See the problem? People should stop legislating based on a knee-jerk reactions - someone txt and drive and killed someone, oh let's make it illegal! How about holding people responsible for their actions and not for stupidity of others?

The legal system doesn't scale. Every year there are more laws created than repealed. Let's set aside the recent issue of laws being copyrighted by some stated, but even if you had unrestricted access to all laws, there is no way you could know all the laws applicable to you already. Since every year we have more and more laws, the problem is only getting worse, partly because people want to legislate EVERYTHING!

'bout time

[dkleinsc]

Now the more interesting question is how you enforce this.

For starters, I think they're going to have to punish managers who want their people available 24x7x365. If you ban cell phone use and texting by federal employees while driving, and the federal employees in question are driving home, you're just going to have to wait. Which shouldn't be a problem - if it is a real problem then you haven't properly trained backup personnel to cover for the guy who's driving home, which means that if he slams into a tree due to texting you're all going to be in much bigger trouble.

This came up in a discussion on another site, and a doctor pointed out "If I can get to the side of the road and stop to handle what could easily be a life-or-death emergency, you can get to the side of the road and stop to handle whatever you're dealing with."

Re:'bout time

[Svartalf]

You don't have to ban use of the voice function while driving. Just mandate that they can't do it without using a proper speakerphone mode or other hands-free.

Most of the phones this lot use have Bluetooth as a feature- there's little excuse for not having a "Borg implant" or using a speakerphone device on the visor that ties to their phone while they're driving.

Re:'bout time

[characterZer0]

Using a hands-free is only slightly less dangerous than holding a phone to your head.

The problem is no so much the occupied hand as the distracted brain.

Re:'bout time

[Firemouth]

It doesn't matter. If you're distracted, the method of the distraction doesn't matter. If they're calling you, odds are its not a "ok is the computer plugged in?". The call is probably going to require some kind of thought, which means your brain isn't focusing on the dynamic traffic conditions. If someone slams on their brakes in front of you, and you're distracted, there's a good chance you won't see them braking before its too late. I say "distracted" not "on the phone" because there have always been other methods of distraction that I think are equally as bad. I think cell phones are getting the limelight because the frequency of their usage is significantly higher than any other distraction out there. Kids not behaving, something rolling around you're trying to grab, eating a big mac, doing your makeup, shaving, etc. All of those happen and cause distractions which can and have caused accidents.

Re:'bout time

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would be simpler to just not give the employees access to government vehicles. Make them drive their own vehicle. Problem solved. No more texting while driving a government vehicle.

Re:'bout time

[TapeCutter]

I can talk to hands free, I can talk to a passenger but a mobile to my ear is down right dangerous and I stopped doing it of my own accord in the nineties. I found myself unconsiously averting my eyes upwards when I had to think about what was being said on the mobile. I don't know why a mobile is worse, perhaps it's a pavlov dog thing since when you have a phone to your ear you are normally trying to block out your surroundings.

Having said that, talking to a passenger is an experience thing, you have to learn how to ignore the social imperitive to engage with the person you are talking to, beginers universally suck at this particular skill. If you have ever tried to teach your kids to drive you will know what I mean.

/old_fart_anecdote

Re:'bout time

[schwanerhill]

I don't know why a mobile is worse, perhaps it's a pavlov dog thing since when you have a phone to your ear you are normally trying to block out your surroundings.

I suspect a big part of it is that passengers are present and can see what's going on on the road.

When there's traffic that needs attention and I, as the driver, get distracted from the conversation I'm having with my passenger, the passenger understands why I'm distracted from the conversation without the need for me to explain why. When talking on the phone, it takes both more time and more mental effort on my part to explain what's going on to the person I'm talking to. ("Sorry, I'm concentrating on switching lanes now, so I'm not listening to what you're saying".) In practice, when on the phone, the driver is more likely to just keep full attention on the conversation.

That's not to say that having an involved conversation with a passenger can't be dangerous, just less so.

Re:'bout time

[Skater]

This is more of a retroactive thing, I assume. If you work for the federal gov't, and cause an accident that's the result of you texting while driving on official time, you can be fired for conduct problems (and it's easy to remove people for conduct problems - it's performance problems that are difficult to deal with).

Re:'bout time

[characterZer0]

The audio quality on phones is quite poor. It takes a lot more brain power to parse language from a poor quality source than from a high-quality source, like the person sitting next to you.

Re:'bout time

[zippthorne]

I haven't seen a ranked list of distractions in a while, but when the debate was going on in the early aughts, AAA had a list of "causes of distracted driving" on which cell phone was somewhere around #7 or #10, and "food or beverage" was #1, by like an order of magnitude.

IOW, we're not going after the low hanging fruit first, which bewilders me.

Re:'bout time

[TapeCutter]

I like that theory! To summarise - The social interaction in a car uses different unspoken rules to those found in a lounge room, which are different again to those used on a phone. Swapping contexts is dangerous because the brain starts unconsiously using the wrong attention pattern for driving.

Re:'bout time

[EvilBudMan]

Most states have this in place with heavy fines. It's bad enough that people talk on the phone while driving let alone text.

The only way I see them being caught, is for them to have a car wreck which they sure as hell probably will if they text and drive. Maybe the feds will have the added bonus of loosing your job. So it's probably not if but when they wreck if they text.

Re:'bout time

[D Ninja]

For starters, I think they're going to have to punish managers who want their people available 24x7x365.

Give me a break. I don't know any SANE human being that expects someone to literally be available 24x7x365. If you have a manger like that, you have much bigger issues to worry about. It is quite obvious that texting and driving is stupid - the enforcement does not need to go past, "You made the decision to do it - I don't care what your boss wants or doesn't want."

Re:'bout time

[D Ninja]

IOW, we're not going after the low hanging fruit first, which bewilders me.

It's because it's not popular and in people's faces right now.

Food is something people have been dealing with in the car since cars first came around. It's something we're familiar with and it's not new. Secondly, going after "food distractions" would most definitely not make a politician popular. As such, no politician would touch that with a 10 foot pole. Texting while driving, however, is something that is pretty obviously stupid, and that has a lot of support from the general public as something that should be stopped. Hence, politicians jump all over it.

Re:'bout time

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also a training thing, pilots must adjust radios and instruments and talk to people via radio and locally, but we are _trained_ to determine which is more important. Most drivers are not.
If you can appropriately and instantly prioritize importance of things like eating, talking, staying in your lane and emergency maneuvers then you should be fine, but most drivers get _really_ into their conversations and if they do need to suddenly maneuver may take the time to say "hold on a minute" while they have a wreck instead of just being rude and shifting concentration- then apologizing when it's all done and over.
If you can drop the cup and stop talking without worrying about a little liquid or social mess and avoid the big bloody messm we'll let you drink and use your cell phone.

Re:'bout time

[Anonymous Coward]

Screaming at children and swinging wildly, petting the dog that's running around loose in the car, or just being engrossed in conversation all seem to cause lane weaving.

I fumble with my phone while driving, but it's usually fighting with the GPS system that only half works. It's illegal here to talk on the phone while driving, so doing anything with one should be suspicious.

Careless driving laws are everywhere, but unless we have a specific law for changing radio stations, lighting cigarettes, removing clothing, talking to a passenger in the front seat (not to be confused with talking with someone in the back seat), texting, placing calls, receiving calls, speaking, listening, plugging in chargers, syncing with email, and every other possible thing, it will always be ambiguous and subject to interpretation. That a car leaves the lane of travel couldn't possibly be enough to cite someone for.

Congress needs to cut their sessions in half, they spend at least that much time debating stupid things they have no business with just to keep busy.

Re:'bout time

[blueZ3]

Plus, when your significant other's eyes get big, she draws in a breath as if to scream, and her knuckles turn white on the door handle, it's a good indicator that you need to look up and pay attention to the fact that you've just crossed the yellow lines.

Re:'bout time

[Anonymous Coward]

There've actually been studies on this and when there's an actual person next to you talking, it's far less dangerous than when you're just talking on a phone/speakerphone.

And yeah, hands free is nearly as dangerous as hands on phones.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=phone%20while%20driving&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

Google scholar gives...quite a bit of results. First one states in its abstract that

It was concluded that neither a hands-free option nor a voice controlled interface removes the safety problems associated with the use of mobile phones in a car.

And later one it states the following.

It is worth noting that conversing on a mobile phone is unlike conversing with a passenger. Passengers normally have the opportunity to perceive the road situation and can vary the demands or timing of their conversation. Of course they may also distract the driver, as suggested by the recent crash data from Doherty et al. (1998) but in their data the risk due to passengers is only increased in young drivers of age 16â"19, possibly due to social interactions with peers; in adult drivers the presence of a passenger even tends to reduce risk.

I'd say the best way to enforce a ban on cell phones while driving government vehicles would be to coat government vehicles with radio wave blocking materials or something along those lines to prevent all phones from working in them, except for emergency vehicles that need radio use or special cases, ie those cars where the driver isn't the government official allowing the official to keep talking to and be in contact with other people.

Insider's view

[Anonymous Coward]

As a hard-working government employee, this sounds like a sensible rule to me. I don't text, but I do (sometimes) use my phone while driving. Hands free or not, I know I shouldn't -- it's the distraction that's the killer, not the physical act of holding the phone. How 'bout some kind of interlock that would prevent phones from working while in a moving vehicle?

Re:Insider's view

[Svartalf]

Hands-free's aren't so much of a distraction. It's no worse than having a conversation with someone in the car while driving when it's on speaker or on hands-free. It's when you have it up to your head that it becomes a problem and you lose quite a bit of ability to pay attention to the road when you do that.

I don't have issues when driving with a hands-free. I know I'm doing something I probably shouldn't be when the phone's up to the head- I can tell that I'm not paying attention to the road like I should the few, few times I've ended up doing that. So, I don't do that one.

Re:Insider's view

[Anonymous Coward]

Studies have found that hands free sets *are* worse than people in the back of the car (suggesting reasons like lower voice quality, and not shutting up during tricky situations - if you are a passenger it is in your interests that the car not crash). But they are better than taking your hand off the wheel, so they are not banned in as many countries as ban hands-on cell-phone use while driving.

Re:Insider's view

[Sebilrazen]

Some studies have said that any phone conversation is a distraction, hands free or not, more so than if there's another occupant in the vehicle, because the second set of eyes are also alert for dangers, whereas the person on the other end of the phone is entirely unaware of the situation on the road in front of you.

Re:Insider's view

[ShadowRangerRIT]

They've done numerous studies that say you're wrong. Holding the phone is an additional distraction, but there is still a significant difference between talking on a cell (hands free or otherwise) and talking to a passenger. For one, your passenger can say "watch out!" if you lose focus and start to drift; your phone cannot. For another, people need to focus more on phone calls; the fidelity isn't as good on either end so they need to focus on hearing and being heard more than in an in person conversation. You know all those people who talk 20 decibels louder than normal on a cell, even though no recent cell phone benefits significantly from the additional volume? They've focused on the call (and being heard) so much that they forget to self-regulate. If they can't regulate the volume of their voice (a task related to the conversation), why do you think they'll be able to drive effectively?

Re:Insider's view

[bws111]

Hands-free is not the same as an in-car conversation. If you are having an in-car conversation and some potentially dangerous driving situation arises, you can do something that takes no attention or time at all: shut up. Except for very young children, it will be immediately obvious to all in the car why you are no longer talking, and that perhaps it is in their best interest to also shut up. If you are on the phone and shut up, you will be barraged by incessant 'can you hear me', 'are you there', 'is everything ok' type questions, increasing your frustration and making the situation even more dangerous. If you hang up (which is itself a distraction), the other person will think the call dropped, and call back - also not helpful.

Really?

[david@ecsd.com]

I find it absolutely amazing that you have to have the president of the United States tell adults that texting while driving is a bad idea. It's bad enough that even in the small city where I live every day is another near crash with some jackass with their effing phone glued to their ear, blithely unaware of their surroundings.

I wish it were just teenagers, but these are adults who should know better. If you get in your car, turn the bitch off. Full stop. What really gets me is the douche bags who rationalize what they're doing because, "it's just for a couple of seconds," or, "I'm good at multitasking." Sure, whatever, you bet. Learn how to use your damn voice mail because nothing is that important.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've wondered how this got to be such a large problem to begin with. 10-15 years ago cell phones weren't so prevalent. Yet you didn't see 1/4 of the cars pulled over at rest stops making phone calls. Somehow people got on with their life without constant communication.

Sure, having instant access can be useful at times.

But what has changed that so many people's lives would seemingly fall apart if they had to put down the phone for 10 minutes? It is as if there's an emergency every half hour that can't go unanswered right then and there. Do people really live their lives like that?

Re:Really?

[OrangeMonkey11]

I agree, just the other night some fat bastard and his cow were both texting while on the road and the SOB swerved back and forth from one lane to the other and then ended up driving in the middle of both lanes.

Re:Really?

[schwanerhill]

Learn how to use your damn voice mail because nothing is that important.

And if it is that damn important, pull over to the side of the road.

On a serious note, this order really does have some practical benefit because if a federal employee has something that is important enough that it has to be dealt with while driving, the employee can pull over, make the phone call, and the employee's boss will have no justification to complain about the employee being 5 minutes late for whatever appointment s/he was driving to. If the boss complains, the employee has a written policy to cite.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it absolutely amazing that you have to have the president of the United States tell adults that texting while driving is a bad idea. It's bad enough that even in the small city where I live every day is another near crash with some jackass with their effing phone glued to their ear, blithely unaware of their surroundings.

I wish it were just teenagers, but these are adults who should know better. If you get in your car, turn the bitch off. Full stop. What really gets me is the douche bags who rationalize what they're doing because, "it's just for a couple of seconds," or, "I'm good at multitasking." Sure, whatever, you bet. Learn how to use your damn voice mail because nothing is that important.

I find it absolutely amazing that most of you find driving to be all that hard or thought consuming.

Not looking at the road is bad. Not looking at the road for 1/2 a second after you've checked to make sure there are no cars that could possibly break and hit you within half a second is not that dangerous.

Stop making laws to criminalize something that I can do just fine.

Learn to realize that different people have different abilities.

Re:Really?

[Quiet_Desperation]

But what has changed that so many people's lives would seemingly fall apart if they had to put down the phone for 10 minutes?

Egos.

Re:Really?

[SleazyRidr]

I'll hold you up as the example to all the people who question that we need rules like this. When you're driving on your own roads do whatever you like, but when you're on the same roads as me PAY ATTENTION!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it absolutely amazing that you have to have the president of the United States tell adults that texting while driving is a bad idea.

I fail to see how anyone could be surprised at this. After all, we have to have legislative bodies tell adults that driving while drunk is a bad idea, that stealing private property is a bad idea, that murdering people is a bad idea...

Most adults don't need to be "told" any of those things, whether by the president or legislation. But some adults do need the extra guidance (and threat of consequences).

- T

Why isn't this prohibited already?

[netpixie]

WTF?

What's next, an executive order prohibiting sleeping whilst driving?

Re:Why isn't this prohibited already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming from a country where it is banned already, I'd say its generally because americans seem to go up in arms when the government tries to ban anything, no matter how sensible.

More stuff that misses the point

[dirk]

I don't think anyone is going to say that texting while driving is a good idea, but it is already against the law. There are laws against reckless driving, and these would include things like texting while driving. Why do we need more rules against something that is already against the rules? If someone is doing this, use the existing rules. Since this is specifically pointed out, does that mean eating lunch while driving is okay, since there isn't a rule specifically against it? What about reading a book? Or changing clothes?

The whole idea behind rules and laws is to make them broad enough to cover various situations, which the current rules are. Once you get into specifically naming things that are not allowed, you get into the argument that "well, it doesn't specifically say that it isn't allowed" because some things are specially outlawed and some aren't. You can't list every situation that is covered by a law, so it's better to not list any and just apply the law.

Re:More stuff that misses the point

[TheRaven64]

The problem, as was pointed out in the last article, is twofold:

1. These laws are not well enforced. It is much easier to prosecute someone for speeding, for example, than dangerous driving because one has objective evidence while the other relies on subjective judgement.
2. Potentially dangerous driving is not an offence. You can not be pulled over for doing something that might be dangerous (or, if you can, you are almost certain not to be convicted).

The second of these is a major problem. Things like texting distract you, reduce your road awareness and control over the vehicle, and increase your reaction time. They do not make you drive in a way that appears dangerous until the road conditions change suddenly. The driver who is texting can look like he is completely in control of the vehicle until right before he has an accident. This makes them difficult to enforce without a specific law.

Re:More stuff that misses the point

[bws111]

The problem with using reckless driving types laws is that they are too late. Once you are exhibiting a behavior which is reckless (lane changes, etc) the only thing that separates that from a accident is that no-one else had the misfortune of being there at the time. The purpose of texting bans, etc is to stop a behavior which is likely to be a problem BEFORE it is actually a problem.

Broad laws are OK after the fact - you crashed, so it is reasonable to say you were reckless. Broad laws to prevent behavior are horrible, they put way to much discretion into the hands of the police. Some cops may think texting is reckless, some may think talking with a passenger is reckless, some may think driving with head-pounding music blasting is reckless, etc. That is why it is important the specific behaviors are specified.

Re:More stuff that misses the point

[Attila Dimedici]

The problem with using reckless driving types laws is that they are too late. Once you are exhibiting a behavior which is reckless (lane changes, etc) the only thing that separates that from a accident is that no-one else had the misfortune of being there at the time. The purpose of texting bans, etc is to stop a behavior which is likely to be a problem BEFORE it is actually a problem.

How is a texting while driving law any different than a reckless driving law? The odds of a police officer being able to see that I am texting while driving is rather slim. All he can see is that I am looking down more than is safe (if that) or that my driving is erratic. So a texting while driving law is either, also, "too late", or no different than a reckless driving law enforced on behavior. do you really think that with these laws in place people will have their cellphones out by the time the officer gets to the door of the car?

Re:More stuff that misses the point

[bws111]

That is true only if you only look at the enforcement side. However, the basic expectation of law is that people obey it, even if no-one is watching. If people are obeying the no-texting law, then they are not texting, and we are safer.

Re:More stuff that misses the point

[Attila Dimedici]

If people are texting while driving, they are not obeying the no reckless driving law. How will having another law change this?
If you are correct, than what is needed is an education campaign, not another law. Texting while driving is already illegal under current law, it is reckless driving.
As a side note: I kept wanting to write "reckless" as "wreckless". That would be a completely different meaning and I hope the day never comes when wreckless driving is illegal.

Re:More stuff that misses the point

[bws111]

Reckless driving (in NY) is defined as 'unreasonably endangering' others. And it is serious - a misdemeanor, not just a traffic violation. Do you have a crystal-clear definition of 'unreasonably endangering'? Does texting fall into that definition? The combination of the vague wording and the seriousness of the offence practically guarantees a jury trial. Reckless driving laws are best applied to really egregious cases, not something endlessly debatable like the safety of texting.

I agree that an education campaign is all that SHOULD be necessary, but there are a lot of idiots who think 'I can do it safely'. A potential hit to the wallet in terms of fines and insurance rates has a big effect on many people.

Re:More stuff that misses the point

[Attila Dimedici]

Reckless driving (in NY) is defined as 'unreasonably endangering' others. And it is serious - a misdemeanor, not just a traffic violation. Do you have a crystal-clear definition of 'unreasonably endangering'? Does texting fall into that definition? The combination of the vague wording and the seriousness of the offence practically guarantees a jury trial. Reckless driving laws are best applied to really egregious cases, not something endlessly debatable like the safety of texting.

I agree that an education campaign is all that SHOULD be necessary, but there are a lot of idiots who think 'I can do it safely'. A potential hit to the wallet in terms of fines and insurance rates has a big effect on many people.

I do not believe that a jury trial would get you off of a reckless driving charge for texting while driving.
When I look at the laws of several states that define reckless driving, I conclude that texting while driving meets these definitions.
Several states have a violation called careless driving, which is not as severe as reckless driving but which also carries a significant penalty. When I consider the number of tickets for careless/reckless driving I have seen handed out by police for subjective behaviors, I fail to see how a careless/reckless driving ticket for texting while driving would not hold up just as well (if not better).

Talk about draconian leadership

[will_die]

I am all for states passing laws for punishing the use of hands-on devices while driving, but this new rule set they want to push on states for commercial drivers is just draconian.

Under current rules if you are convicted of one of the major offenses you loose your commerical license for 1 year. Such offenses include:Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or drugs, Hit and Run, Refusing to submit to a breath or blood test to determine the presence of drugs or an alcohol concentration.
If you have two convictions you lose it for life.
Under this you now lose your commerical license for life after just conviction.

Re:Talk about draconian leadership

[Anonymous Coward]

And rightly so. I don't want no one that has been convicted of "Hit and Run" or "DUI" driving my kids to school, thank you very much. Why give this scum a second chance at all? Anyone that drinks and drives deserves to be in jail for a very VERY long time. Anyone that hits and runs shows a complete and utter lack of character and responsability. People like that have no business being comercial drivers of any sort, sorry. You fuck up, you pay the price. It's about time people start to take responsability for their actions.

Re:Talk about draconian leadership

[Lunoria]

And rightly so. I don't want no one that has been convicted of "Hit and Run" or "DUI" driving my kids to school, thank you very much. Why give this scum a second chance at all?

Everyone deserves a second chance. People change over their lives. If they make a mistake when they were 20, and then 30 years later, they are not allowed to participate in what they enjoy, you are punishing them unfairly. I'd admit that some people don't change. Reading about people with 17+ drunk driving convictions, and they still don't get jail time while drinking and driving boggles my mind.

Re:Talk about draconian leadership

[Joce640k]

So? It's hardly the sort of thing you do by accident...and if you're the sort of person who can't understand how stupid/dangerous it is then you don't deserve a license.

Nice Study from Car and Driver

[gizmonic]

Car and Driver published a study in which they compared reading and writing text messages with drunk driving. They only tested reaction times, not vehicle control. But, in general, reading and writing texts led to worse reaction times than being intoxicated. Decent and short read.

http://tinyurl.com/candtextingwhiledriving

As another posted mentioned though, enforcement will be the real issue. Sounds like it will be more post crash cell phone log analysis to see if you were texting than anything they can pull you over for. Because unless you're doing it in a very obvious manner, there's no real way to tell you're doing it until you crash.

Baby... Bath Water

[DrgnDancer]

[US Transportation Secretary Ray] LaHood also announced that his department would ban text messaging altogether

Oh! Look! There was a baby in that thar water after all! Seriously, texting is a useful mean of asynchronous communication between workers who are not at their computers. Why ban it entirely? I totally agree with the driving ban, but a blanket ban just seem like someone trying to brown-nose to his boss without really understanding the purpose of the boss' new policy. I can see it now:

President Obama and his senior staff are in a meeting:

President: So on our latest driving while distract push, did everyone implement the "no eating while driving a government vehicle" rule?
*General noises of consent come from the various secretaries and czars*
Secretary of Transportation: Not only that sir, We've completely banned eating at the DoT! I myself haven't had a meal in... ew.. I don't... feel
*Secretary of Transportation collapses on the floor*

Too much of a good idea is no longer a good idea.

Re:Baby... Bath Water

[TheRaven64]

It's part of Obama's Blackberry agenda; ban texting and make everyone get a Blackberry and send emails instead.

But the UK should have banned hands-free too

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's illegal in the UK, and quite right too.

Well, saying it's illegal is reasonable enough, but one could argue that it should be covered by general laws about driving without paying proper attention.

The problem with making a specific law against using hand-held phones is that it led to a wave of advertising about how you should buy a hands-free kit to stay safe while you're driving. Some large advertising used literally those words.

Unfortunately, statistically, using a hands-free kit is almost as dangerous as using a handheld kit, and the new law was used by advertisers to condone it.

Final note to those who are about to reply and say that I'm wrong and you're much safer using a hands-free kit: please spare us. You are wrong, and the evidence is overwhelming. For a start, the same data that the British government used to justify the law banning handheld phones would support a ban on hands-free kit as well. Google is your friend. Please let's not have another ill-informed "I am a better driver than you" subthread. Thank you.

Re:But the UK should have banned hands-free too

[TheRaven64]

Unfortunately, statistically, using a hands-free kit is almost as dangerous as using a handheld kit, and the new law was used by advertisers to condone it.

Do you have a citation for that? The study I saw showed that using a hands free kit had the same effect on your reaction time, which is not the same thing. Someone with one hand on their phone has a greater response time for anything that they need to do with that hand and someone holding the phone with their shoulder has reduced visibility (because they can't turn their head so much). Neither of these was addressed by the study.

Re:But the UK should have banned hands-free too

[blueg3]

Unfortunately, statistically, using a hands-free kit is almost as dangerous as using a handheld kit, and the new law was used by advertisers to condone it.

The real question is, how do you send text messages with a hands-free kit?

Re:But the UK should have banned hands-free too

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Do you have a citation for that?

Sorry, I'm not clear which part you meant.

If you mean the danger of using hands-free, then I agree that a similar change in reaction time is not necessarily the same as as similar change in the overall danger, and clearly the physical limitation of a hand-held device does make the latter worse. This is why I only wrote "almost as dangerous".

The main thing I'm going on in writing "almost" was an experiment (conducted IIRC by the RAC, for a TV documentary around the time the law was passed here) where people were driving in a simulator under various conditions, and there was little difference in ability to avoid an accident or reduce its severity between the hand-held and hands-free cases. The reaction time was clearly the dominant factor. Again IIRC, the effective impediment was compared to driving well over the legal alcohol limit or after taking strong drugs. I'm afraid I don't have a formal citation for that, because it wasn't an academic paper and I've long since deleted the recording of the programme, but FWIW it was consistent with the research the government itself was citing at the time. Surely if that research, whatever specifics it considered, was sufficient to justify a ban on using hand-held phones while driving, then the same evidence was sufficient to justify a ban on using hands-free kits as well.

If you meant a citation for advertisers using the new laws as a way of condoning driving with a hands-free kit, then all I can say is that the practice was widespread. For example, walking into my local Tesco around the time the law came into effect, I was confronted by a big display above some hands-free kits claiming unambiguously that using those kits while driving was safe. Likewise, suppliers of hands-free kits ran aggressive advertising campaigns on our local commercial radio stations. Even if I'm completely misremembering the results above and safety with hands-free is a significant improvement on hand-held, it's still clearly untrue to claim that using a hands-free and slowing your reactions to those of a drunk driver is safe as these advertisers were doing.

Re:But the UK should have banned hands-free too

[KC7JHO]

DialToDo.com

I don't text and drive

[JohnHegarty]

I don't text and drive any more, now that I have my Blackberry it's emailing and driving from now on.

Executive Order?

[aquatone282]

Wow - what an AWESOME display of Obama's presidential powers!

...kill themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

And me...

Re:My Flying Car

[WED Fan]

As a Federal Employee, I am glad to say that we have flying cars, we just aren't allowed to tell anyone about...

Uhmmm, on a separate note, in the CS we haven't been allowed to use cell phones period while driving a government vehicle. So, this order is kind of superfulous. If you check out the old government vehicle and return it dirty, low on fluids, with a scratch, you can count on a lot of hassle. Get in an accident? You're CS career is toast. And don't get a ticket or have someone call the GSA to complain about your driving in a government vehicle. They track those things.

Car and Driver obviously funded by ACORN

[Anonymous Coward]

the democrats suffered another major blow today as it was revealed that ACORN child prostitution rings are behind the ban on cellphones while driving government vehicles. Investigators for World Net Daily video taped ACORN officials offering to sell them children in exchange for their cellphones.

Simple mnemonic

[Anonymous Coward]

'^' looks sort of like an 'A' for "And".

Distractions

[TapeCutter]

I used to work the night shift and when driving home one summers night under a bright moon a spider leapt from the visor on a single silk thread. It paused for maybe a second in front of my face, just long enough for me to focus and regognise what it was. I could swear I saw a tiny smirk before it abruptly absailed down through my open overalls and into the croutch region.

I spent my youth working in the Aussie bush, spiders don't bother me. However the surprise factor of seeing it hover and then dive into my jocks brought me very close to my own distracted driver pile up.

Speaking of the bush, seeing a cow rolling over the roof of the car in front that's doing 100+km/hr is a whole different level of distraction!

Re:Distractions

[ColdWetDog]

Speaking of the bush, seeing a cow rolling over the roof of the car in front that's doing 100+km/hr is a whole different level of distraction!

Backwards aussies. First, you drive on the wrong side of the road. Then you let cows on the frikken' highway. I suppose it comes from being upside down all of the time, but you will never achieve world domination this way.

Wow, I am shocked, and awed.

[redwraith94]

No one else finds this unhealthy? Why are we discussing this as if enforcement is the problem? Giving the government the ability, and the excuse..."Well you have a cell phone out, I have probable cause to suspect that you were texting, or talking while driving." - Pardon me, but gtfo officer. You have no right to invade the privacy of my vehicle over this. I don't care if it is 'safer'. SCREW SAFE. How many of you eat while driving? With one knee on the wheel...in the rain? We should outlaw knees, lets chop everyone's legs off! We don't need them to sit in a cubicle! Alot of people who drive on the weekends are on drugs: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/07/16-of-weekend-drivers-test-positive-for-drugs.html - 16% of all the people that you passed were doing drugs. Yep, that means we need to make driving on the weekends a felony. Lets keep our economy healthy here, we will only allow the proliteriat to drive on days where they are going to work, to make the economy strong. We don't want to be like those pot heads. You want to tell me that denying an applicant the right to work (a person applying for a Commercial Drivers License) because they were TEXTING? How does this help anyone? Drug users are people like you and me: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004001227_bus08m.html This woman not only knows that the current drug law is wholly against the spirit of the constitution, but she carries a gun! I love her...Did you notice the part about her saving 22 kids? Thank god for this new law, it would keep people like her from driving our precious, precious cargo, you know the ones we are too busy to spend time with. I wonder if she texts too? If you are all really so scared that a bus driver texted once, then I put forth that you shouldn't let someone else drive your kids to school. You should transport them every morning by armored car. Obama shouldn't be using executive orders for this, no president should. May a court overturn it. You want to legislate? Do it properly!

Miss the point?

[argStyopa]

"...The executive order 'shows the federal government is leading by example' and 'sends a signal that distracted driving is dangerous,' LaHood said."

What a load of nonsense. I'm not arguing at all with the (relatively trivial) point about texting-while-driving being irresponsible and stupid.

But what this shows is that the FEDERAL government is bogged down in stupid minutiae, and is essentially worthless. What's next, an executive order to make sure you don't run with scissors? Don't drink your coffee before it's cooled sufficiently? Button up your overcoat?

Don't people understand the perniciousness of allowing our government to order the small details of our daily lives? Aren't we grownups anymore? Because how is a DEMOCRACY supposed to work where the idiocracy (apparently) can't be trusted to keep their own LIVES safe? In short, you can't legislate away stupidity, and the simple act of trying suggests either a pathetic abandonment of the essential nature of our way of life, or a malicious road to the circumscription of the powers of the people.

We're spending $trilions$ more than we have.
We're entangled in a much-needed examination in how Health Care will be delivered in this country.
We're engaged in two overseas conflicts where US soldiers are fighting and dying.
We have the worst financial crisis in perhaps 50 years.

Good thing to know the president is making sure we get the Olympics* and that Fed employees aren't texting while driving !!

* just disregard that the $billions spent to build the new Olympic facilities would be paid to his slumlord friend who is now a White House advisor. That's probably just a coincidence.

Re:Miss the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

we've been slaves for a long time expect more of this

Re:Miss the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry about the Olympics. The IOC (much like the American public on health care and the "stimulus") wasn't impressed by his sales pitch and Chicago went down in the first round. This is either a stunning rejection of America's first "celebrity" president, or else all those nasty Euros are racist.

Re:Miss the point?

[argStyopa]

"This is either a stunning rejection of America's first "celebrity" president, or else all those nasty Euros are racist."

Been to Europe lately?

I'd say C) Both.

It should bar everyone

[TechnologyResource]

Statistics show that texting while driving causes more accidents than driving under the influence of alcohol. It's my personal belief that this law should apply to everyone. I am a multi tasker and previously had a job in which it was necessary to type on my in-car MDT and/or talk on a cell phone or radio among other things while driving. With that said, I find it very distracting if I try to text while driving.

over-specificity

[Sloppy]

disqualify school bus drivers from receiving commercial driver's licenses if they have been convicted of texting while driving

Why not just ban commercial license to people convicted of Careless Driving? What is so special about texting?

This reminds me of the kind of bullshit, where convicted "sex offenders" after they get out of jail, have special tracking restrictions (must register, wear a GPS anklet, whatever) -- but murderers and thieves don't. You can look at such a policy as being pro-protect-thing-children-from-rapists (who could be against that?), but you can also look at it as pro-murder-and-theft.

Uniform fairness washes this kind of bullshit. If you deny commercial licenses to texting drivers but still give licenses to people who drove while masterbating, watching TV, turning around to shout at the kids in the back seat, etc. then you're pro-driving-while-masterbating. Ok, not really but do you see the problem?

Singling out texting-while-driving is as stupid as outlawing crack while still allowing people to drink Drain-O. There are so many ways to fuck up and you'll never enumerate them all, so just cover the general case, dammit. The most this kind of crap can do, is create loopholes: show me the order's definition of "texting" and I'll put on my rules-lawyer-D&D-player cap and show you a way to pervert it and get around it, while doing something horrifically unsafe.

Let Freedom Ring!

[pmaljr]

All your freedoms are belong to us!

Backseat Driving

[omb]

Passengers going Uh Agg Look OUT are downright dangerous, and I have been to put out of the car passengers who would not stop doing that when told to,

clearly texting, and using a GPS, _that_is_not_in_the_line_of_sight_ are dangerous, which is why fighter aircraft have HUDs and passenger plane a co-pilot, but,

both drivers, on advanced driving courses, and pilots are tought to continuously scan the instruments and mirrors as well as looking out the front window, and once such a reflex is mastered it becomes automatic, whether you are talking on a hands free phone or headset.

Now more to the point is not 'multi-tasking' although that can be tought and most women do it quite well anyway, but the simple ability to prioritise what you are doing, if you are driving, and in-motion, you cannot stop driving until you stop the car, you can say "I am driving in heavy traffic and I will call you later".

The point is that people use texting and mobiles as social entertainment devices, not as communicators, In my case my average mobile call length is under 60 seconds, and has been so for 15 years. You do not need endless drivel.

Re:Backseat Driving

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Yes. Just like everyone else, you're a better than average driver, better than average multitasker, etc. No matter how many studies are conducted clearly indicating that reaction time is slowed and attention impaired (in some cases to levels worse than driving with a moderate level of alcohol in the system), you are somehow the exception.

No matter how many /.ers post their own "I'm good enough to do it" screeds, because so far they've been lucky, the fact remains: The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

That said, I'm not perfect. While I have not talked on a cell phone (hands free or otherwise) in 15 months, this has more to do with living in Manhattan and not owning a car than anything else. Prior to that, I did use the Bluetooth integration in my car to make and receive occasional phone calls. And I know it was dangerous, but like virtually everyone else, I tended to ignore the danger in favor of convenience.

I am 100% innocent of texting (sending or receiving) while driving though, and I never dialed a call while driving that wasn't a one button speed dial (done by touch). That takes mind-numbing amounts of stupidity.

Re:Backseat Driving

[SleazyRidr]

I remember when I first started driving, my Dad had me give rides to one of his friends who didn't have a car. Obviously, as I hadn't been driving long, this friend didn't have too much faith in my driving, so anytime another car was even close he'd yell. Of course, this startled me, so I looked at him, which of course made me come even closer to the other car, reinforcing his lack of faith. (Never actually hit one, but there were a couple of hairy moments.)

WRT mobiles, are you ever in such a hurry that you can't pull over for 60 seconds?

It's already illegal, stupid

[kimvette]

Hey Politicians, stuff like this is already illegal. Bear with me now:

If you cross the center line and plow into another car head on because you just *had* to reply to your friend's incoming text message, you could wind up killing people other than yourself.

Driving left of center is illegal (unless legally passing) in the United States. it is a citable offense. Why not enforce existing laws on the books? It will generate a lot of revenue and save lives, and people will learn on their second, third, etc. offenses that driving unsafely is not a good thing, regardless of the cause. The problem is not texting (or smoking or drinking or talking or gawking at that hot chick on the sidewalk); the problem is lousy driving. Here is what goes unenforced:

  * Stopping at traffic signals ("california stops" are the norm)
  * failure to yield (merging, changing lanes, breakdown lane travel, yield signs, roundabouts/rotaries, left turns, etc.)
  * improper lane changes / using the highways as one's personal slalom course
  * driving >10mph UNDER the limit
  * failure to maintain control of the vehicle
  * driving left of center
  * running red lights (hint to massholes: if you're approaching a light and it has been red for two seconds, it means you might want to stop. Really! a red light doesn't mean stop after it has been red more than three seconds already. The amber/yellow signal already gave you a four-second warning)

There are countless charges which can be applied and stick in these cases, and if revenue clerks, er, I mean, traffic officers actually enforce safety laws, then crashes due to texting, smoking, reading books, applying makeup, cooking, getting a bj, or any other cockamamie nonsense people do while driving will be reduced because people will learn after getting fined hundreds for seemingly "minor" infractions and incurring huge insurance surcharges that maybe, maybe they might want to consider focusing on driving?

But no, that would entail officers doing their jobs and following the spirit of the law, not just acting as revenue clerks.

No texting-specific laws are required. Existing laws already cover the problem. Those laws are just going unenforced.

Re:It's already illegal, stupid

[Lemmy Caution]

No, they don't cover the problem. Because by the time someone is plowing through the center lane, killing other motorists and passengers, a citation no longer acts as a disincentive.

People, left to their own devices, are poor estimators of risk. Too often, they think that they can drink and drive and be alright, or that they aren't really that distracted when texting. I agree that enforcement of some of the existing driving regulations is lax and inconsistent, but that isn't a problem of the laws; it is a problem of enforcement budgets, etc. (Your complaint has a contradiction in it: if traffic police are just being "revenue clerks," all those existing infractions would be ticketed all the more.) That makes it all the more important to create restrictions against risk-increasing behaviors for when you *do* see them.

Use GPS Motion detection

[ubergeek65536]

Don't many phones now have GPS devices built in? Couldn't someone change the firmware of the phone to limit calls to anyone moving under a certain speed? If you patent the idea be sure to send me a cheque or two.

Re:Use GPS Motion detection

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

So passengers are banned from phone use too?

Don't plan on cashing that cheque any time soon...

Yo, Barry!

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have signed an Executive Order ordering the IOC to award the 2016 summer games to Chicago!

Executive Order

[NVW55V]

October 1, 2009 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - FEDERAL LEADERSHIP ON REDUCING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7902(c) of title 5, United States Code, and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to demonstrate Federal leadership in improving safety on our roads and highways and to enhance the efficiency of Federal contracting, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. With nearly 3 million civilian employees, the Federal Government can and should demonstrate leadership in reducing the dangers of text messaging while driving. Recent deadly crashes involving drivers distracted by text messaging while behind the wheel highlight a growing danger on our roads. Text messaging causes drivers to take their eyes off the road and at least one hand off the steering wheel, endangering both themselves and others. Every day, Federal employees drive Government-owned, Government-leased, or Government-rented vehicles (collectively, GOV) or privately-owned vehicles (POV) on official Government business, and some Federal employees use Government-supplied electronic devices to text or e-mail while driving. A Federal Government-wide prohibition on the use of text messaging while driving on official business or while using Government-supplied equipment will help save lives, reduce injuries, and set an example for State and local governments, private employers, and individual drivers. Extending this policy to cover Federal contractors is designed to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement. Federal contractors and contractor employees who refrain from the unsafe practice of text messaging while driving in connection with Government business are less likely to experience disruptions to their operations that would adversely impact Federal procurement. Sec. 2. Text Messaging While Driving by Federal Employees. Federal employees shall not engage in text messaging (a) when driving GOV, or when driving POV while on official Government business, or (b) when using electronic equipment supplied by the Government while driving. Sec. 3. Scope of Order. (a) All agencies of the executive branch are directed to take appropriate action within the scope of their existing programs to further the policies of this order and to implement section 2 of this order. This includes, but is not limited to, considering new rules and programs, and reevaluating existing programs to prohibit text messaging while driving, and conducting education, awareness, and other outreach for Federal employees about the safety risks associated with texting while driving. These initiatives should encourage voluntary compliance with the agency's text messaging policy while off duty. (b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, each agency is directed, consistent with all applicable laws and regulations: (i) to take appropriate measures to implement this order, (ii) to adopt measures to ensure compliance with section 2 of this order, including through appropriate disciplinary actions, and (iii) to notify the Secretary of Transportation of the measures it undertakes hereunder. (c) Agency heads may exempt from the requirements of this order, in whole or in part, certain employees, devices, or vehicles in their respective agencies that are engaged in or used for protective, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities or on the basis of other emergency conditions. Sec. 4. Text Messaging While Driving by Government Contractors, Subcontractors, and Recipients and Subrecipients. Each Federal agency, in procurement contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, and other grants to the extent authorized by applicable statutory authority, entered into after the date of this order, shall encourage contractors, subcontractors, and recipients and subrecipients to adopt and enforce policies that ban text messaging while driving company-owned or -rented vehicles or GOV, or w

Legislating common sense

[nexttech]

Have people become so stupid that we need to legislate common sense.

This explains why there are warning labels about sticking your hand in a running lawn mower, or warning labels on a box of Q-tips. Man I hope survival of the fittest kicks in soon so we can get rid of the idiots

Re:Legislating common sense

[Shados]

If everyone shared the same common sense, there wouldn't be a need for the legal system at all in the first place, except maybe for complex corporate matters.

But not only do most people not have any kind of common sense, those that do don't agree with each other. Whats obvious to you and I, is perfectly normal and acceptable to your neighbor.

So society makes an half assed attempt at a middle ground between the fucking idiots, and the people with different opinions, and thats called "the law". Unfortunately, it doesn't always work :)

thanks a lot, bin laden

[Anonymous Coward]

so driving naked is still okay right? whew, close one

waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Banning texting while driving is like pointing out that everyone is a moron and needs to be treated like one. This is just a waste of money and time in my opinion. Instead of a making a general law about being distracted while driving which probably already is a law in some states you have to waste an entire law to stop people from doing something very specific. So basically I can still read a book, eat a salad and shave while driving but it's a crime to text? If you run over someone while texting that has already been established as a crime long ago and it's called manslaughter in most states. Should it now be illegal to walk around with untied shoes because you may trip and die?

My theory for the actual reason for this law is because they can more easily fine people for getting into accidents which are typically not criminal issues. And they can actually prove that you were texting after the fact if you had sent a message prior to the crash. Making texting while driving a crime will do very little to prevent it from happening and will only create revenue for the state with the fines. How about working on the more abundant crimes before you try to save a dozen people with a mulimillion dollar law.

Over broad bureaucratize

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I can't look down at the radio or clock in a government car without a quick firing. Hopefully my government car has an analog mechanical speed display....

Sec. 6. Definitions. ..snip..
(b) "Texting" or "Text Messaging" means reading from or entering data into any handheld or other electronic device, including for the purpose of SMS texting, e-mailing, instant messaging, obtaining navigational information, or engaging in any other form of electronic data retrieval or electronic data communication.
(c) "Driving" means operating a motor vehicle on an active roadway with the motor running, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic light or stop sign, or otherwise. It does not include operating a motor vehicle with or without the motor running when one has pulled over to the side of, or off, an active roadway and has halted in a location where one can safely remain stationary.

Re:Over broad bureaucratize

[pixelpusher220]

Indeed quite a broad swath there.

I love the legalese that basically comes down to

"'Texting'... means ... texting ... or ... any other form of electronic data [usage]"

A = A + whatever we want to claim

Which as AC correctly states is damn near everything these days.

If I have a digital speedometer, I'm not allowed to read how fast I'm going? Are digital cell phones transmitting a 'digital' signal? In which case they just ruled out cellphone usage entirely.

Re:Over broad bureaucratize

[Anonymous Coward]

"... obtaining navigational information ..."

So no glancing at Tom Tom / Garmin while driving? Sort of defeats the purpose of the device, no?

Define Texting, Police Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of police (Most/All?) use MDT's of some kind- in my town they have full fledged laptops mounted on a moveable arm from the passenger side. Now I realize local police aren't federal employees, but the FBI, DEA, and other federal law enforcement must have similar setups. So, define texting- have they just outlawed their law enforcement from doing their jobs?