Thursday, July 30, 2009

Nanny Goes Federal to Ban Text Messaging While Driving

The Democrat nannies are on the loose, run amok, busting out the time-worn federal funds withholding extortion to hammer the states into compliance with their latest federal fetish to control our daily habits and activities.

Is there no end to the mass control freak mentality of this ilk? What's next? Mandating cars have ignition shutoff sensors triggered by use of a mobile device inside the vehicle?

Hell, why all makes sense in service to sating nanny's whims, so nanny can make use all feel safe and happy (and nanny's helpers nicely bloated with traffic fine revenues, btw).

Lawmakers want ban on texting while driving

The Associated Press - Wed., July 29, 2009

WASHINGTON - Democratic lawmakers called for states to ban texting while driving or face cuts in highway funds, citing the need to reduce driver distraction and potential highway deaths and injuries.

"When drivers have their eyes on their cell phones instead of the road, the results can be dangerous and even deadly," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who unveiled the legislation Wednesday with Democrats Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws making texting while driving illegal.

Some critics have questioned whether the laws could be enforced, whether there is enough data to warrant such bans, or if reckless driving statutes already cover texting behind the wheel.

Steve Largent, a former Oklahoma congressman who leads CTIA — The Wireless Association, said his organization supports "state legislative remedies to solve this issue. But simply passing a law will not change behavior. We also need to educate new and experienced drivers on the dangers of taking their eyes off the road and hands off the wheel."

The Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety agencies, said it does not doubt the dangers of texting and driving but does not support a ban because it would be difficult to enforce.

"Highway safety laws are only effective if they can be enforced and if the public believes they will be ticketed for not complying. To date, that has not been the case with many cell phone restrictions," said Vernon Betkey, the highway safety association's chairman.

The sheer irresponsibility of these people is breathtaking...threatening to endanger potentially 1,000,000's of motorists by denying traffic infrastructure funds (taken from the states in the first place to be doled back out by federal overseers) to maintain roads (interstate highways for starters), in order to punish the "states" (i.e. endanger every motorist using roads in those states) that dare refuse to have their traffic safety laws dictated from on-high by the likes of Chuckie Schumer (AH-NY)...

I guess the integrity of the nation's transportation infrastructure (that they argue is so neglected) isn't as important to nanny Schumer et al as asserting ham-fisted nit-picky control over the actions of every last motorist in the United States, based on little more than the extremely-rare exceptions, with little or no conclusive proof that the "problem" prompting such control is even an actual problem.

But alas, THINK OF THE CHILDREN! (All 300 million of us).


Mike W. said...

Why is the "solution" always to BAN whatever object or behavior those currently in power decide they don't like?

Frankly I'm disgusted they did a government study to conclude that texting while driving was dangerous. Like we really needed a government study to tell us that.

Ombudsman RSmitty said...

Hmm...tough issue. I certainly do not want to condone texting-while-driving by any means whatsoever and really don't have issue of it being illegal. That said, this federal bill is a bunch of crap. Taking away highway funds? Bull-freaking-crap.

Delaware Watch said...

I read that texting while driving is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated. If the Feds said to states who had no laws against drunk driving "No bucks until you pass such laws," then I'd say Amen because those states are acting against the public interest. Therefore, if texting is just as dangerous as drving drunk, then I think the Feds making this condition is a great idea.

Steve Newton said...

Let's unpack the consequences of your position, Dana.

Federal highway funds pay for multiple safety-related issues on State roadways, from improved crash barriers to sobriety check points.

It is therefore your position that if a State disagrees with the Federal government over the propriety of safety measure X that an enlightened response is to refuse to fund all other safety measures?

Yep. That's enlightened paternalism from the progressive state, all right: government by blackmail.

Delaware Watch said...

"It is therefore your position that if a State disagrees with the Federal government over the propriety of safety measure X that an enlightened response is to refuse to fund all other safety measures?"

States disagree w/ an established fact? Your use of "disagree" is a monument to liberal hermeneutics. They might as well disagree that jumping off tall buildings is bad for your health.

That's just two examples found in less than a minute.

Tyler Nixon said...

They might as well disagree that jumping off tall buildings is bad for your health.

So should we expect federal anti-tall-building legislation, coming soon from a jackass near you?