Slashdot Mirror


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."

18 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. Employer Responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Employer Responsibility by noidentity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Just federal employees? by salmacis2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Just federal employees? by clickety6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

       

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    2. Re:Just federal employees? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Just federal employees? by c · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > 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.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    4. Re:Just federal employees? by corbettw · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:Just federal employees? by schwanerhill · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Just federal employees? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  3. 'bout time by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  4. Really? by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  5. Re:Lame headline? by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative

    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).

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  6. Re:Maybe it's a start by BESTouff · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  7. Re:Lame headline? by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Funny
    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);
    }

  8. Re:Maybe it's a start by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  9. Re:Insider's view by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  10. Re:Lame headline? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    But other than that, you are quite right.

  11. Re:Lame headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.