Obama bans texting while driving
October 5, 2009 by Valerie HelmbreckPosted in: Communication, Compliance, Special Report, Travel and entertainment, cell phone, smartphones, telecommuting
Every day, millions of people in the United States send text messages while driving. For many, the practice is coming to a screeching halt, because the country’s biggest employer has banned it.
Federal government employees are now prohibited, as per an executive order signed by President Obama, from the controversial practice.
The president’s also encouraging federal contractors to do the same.
Here’s what the new rules means to federal employees:
- No texting while driving a government car, and
- No texting while driving your own car if you’re on government business or using a government-issued phone.
Obama signed the order Wednesday night, after a two-day meeting in D.C. on distracted driving. U.S. Transportation secretary Ray LaHood announced the ban on Thursday.
There’s been a lot of heat recently about texting and driving — as if just making calls and talking on the phone behind the wheel wasn’t enough of a problem.
While the order doesn’t force federal contractors to enact such a ban on their workers, it encourages anyone who does business with the government to bar their employees from texting while driving company vehicles.
Consider that “encouragement” a shot across the proverbial bow of all companies that want to do business with the feds: A law could soon be on its way mandating that to get a government contract, you must have one of these bans in place at your company.
The Transportation Administration is also currently drafting permanent restrictions on use of mobile devices by rail operators, interstate truck and bus operators, and school bus drivers.
The ban won’t have much impact in Obama’s new hometown — D.C. The district and 18 states have already banned texting while driving. Your state may or may not have a ban or restrictions on the activity.
To get a state-by-state overview of cellphone/driving laws and find out what the rules are in the states where your employees work, visit the Governors’ Highway Safety Association.
FinanceTechNews.com delivers the latest Finance news once a week to the inboxes of over 150,000 Finance professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to FinanceTechNews!
Tags: ban, cellphone, driving, employees, Federal, law, President Obama, texting, workers
October 6th, 2009 at 8:22 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CFODailyNews. CFODailyNews said: CFODailyNews – Obama bans texting while driving: Nobody thinks it’s a good idea but, everyd.. http://bit.ly/TsykM [...]
October 6th, 2009 at 8:37 am
This is great, unfortunately it is very easy to get away with it and plenty are doing it.
You get your car windows tinted very dark. So we end up with chatting, texting and reduced vision…
October 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
It’s about time President B.O. does something productive. I’d like to see him go a step further and have it be mandated nationwide for everyone…not just federal employees.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:03 am
This is another example of lawmakers re-inventing the wheel. Every US state has a law against inattentive driving already. Texting is already banned. I guess the economy problems, the war in the Middle East, the energy crisis and the deficit are just not enough to keep our politicians busy…they have to keep finding more ways to waste time and money creating unneccessary laws!
FYI:Inattentive driving is generally the failure to pay proper attention to the road while driving. It includes, among thers, talking, eating, putting on make up and attending to children. Using cell phones and other wireless or electronic units are also considered distractions.
Inattentine driving and penalties are governed by state laws, which vary by state.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I would have liked a different title, like maybe “Obama Bans Texting While Driving for Federal Employees”. The title makes it sound like it is an all-inclusive national ban on texting. While I understand the dangers of driving while texting I also believe that the states should be the ones passing traffic laws.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Should he not be worried about finding jobs for everyone rather then people texting while driving. First he is flying to try and get the Olympics and now he is banning texting. Come on Obama!
October 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I agree that inattentive driving is very dangerous, however, just about any activity in the car other than 100% attention to the road is dangerous. From texting to day dreaming. I will admit as I am sure there are many others out there that I am guilty of daydreaming while driving and suddently not sure were I am. I do find it interesting that laws have to be made to outlaw the obvious.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I’m sorry to say I disagree with Lajeli. Missouri’s law for texting while driving only prohibits texting while driving under the age of 18, which I find ridiculous. I can’t tell you how many people in my office admit to texting and driving at the same time. As this is a ban for Federal employee caught texting I don’t see an issue with the rule and I believe he is well within his rights to issue this for Federal employees.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Another great thing this President is doing. I applaud him! Too bad so many people find fault with every single thing he does, or tries to do.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I agree dritchie! I have seen a few article headlines on this site that I didn’t feel were a dead-on match to the article content! (I feel the same about a few well-known hard copy magazine headlines as well)
October 6th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
dritchie Says:
October 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I agree as well. I, too, thought that our president had actually “DONE” something that wasn’t bad for the people in one manner or the other.
Wishful thinking I guess.
God bless.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Sorry pabjc, Missouri law does prohibit texting while driving in those over 18. The law itself is as follows:
304.012. 1. Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the highest degree of care.
2. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, unless an accident is involved then it shall be a class A misdemeanor.
(L. 1996 H.B. 1047)
Effective 3-13-96
*No continuity with § 304.012 as repealed by L. 1987 S.B. 83.
(2002) Riding lawn mower is considered a motor vehicle under section. Stonger ex rel. Stonger v. Riggs, 85 S.W.3d 703 (Mo.App. W.D.).
Documented violations cost a driver either 2 or 4 points depending on the circumstances. Once a driver reaches 12 points, his/her license is supended for one year.
This violation could be grouped with others and result in a loss of license at one traffic stop.
The law doesn’t actually use the word “texting” but it covers texting as well as reading, putting on make-up, talking on a cell phone, reaching for anything in the floorboard or back seat, arguing with a passenger, kissing/hugging a passenger, allowing a dog to sit in your lap…I could go on and on.
Where would this country be if we had to spell out each specific possible distraction in it’s own law??
Poor judges would be dealing with an even bigger bureaucratic nightmare than they already have!!
October 6th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I agree with dritchie that the title of the article is deceptive…
On the topic of banning texting while driving for federal employees, I think this exemplifies the knee-jerk approach that our current executive and his administration have toward everything: Attending ONE SEMINAR does not make you educated on the topic. WHY are federal employees texting while driving? Analyze the problem a little bit, before lobbing a change out there…. the so-called solution might cause a bigger problem.
NOW, scale that argument up to the whole healthcare dilemna, or our new-found national impotence on foreign affairs, and you’ll see what I mean about a lack of proper analysis.
I ALSO agree with Lajeli….
ON THE TOPIC OF NEW (individual state) LEGISLATURE, rather than encroaching my freedoms by trying to legislate common sense (which can’t be done), please penalize the morons who are out there weaving in and out of their lanes because they are too stupid to know they are dangerous. For those of us who operate our vehicles safely, LEAVE US ALONE! If I fail to operate my vehicle in a safe manner, TICKET ME with unsafe or inattentive driving! But here’s the rub: YOU DON’T HAVE TO, because I’M NOT A MORON!!
Every new law has an administrative cost, whether it requires more people to administer the law, clerks to update records, or whether it affects the “curb-side” officer’s ability to navigate and properly enforce an already too-complex maze of existing and sometimes contradictory legislation. Why should we pay for the “stupidity police” to enforce no-texting laws while they could better serve the community by patrolling for violent crime?
I don’t understand, as a society, why we let morons drag us down with them. These were (are) the same folks who 5 and 10 years ago were yacking on their mobile phones, causing accidents while driving, causing a frenzy around PASSING LEGISLATION requiring hands-free devices, or banning talking on mobile phones in the car altogether. These are the same morons who sue McDonalds because coffee is hot. These are the same morons that (DON’T THINK) believe that somehow, society will carry them along, and they are free of responsibility.
OR, how about this, for all of you morons out there who think I’m wrong: How about a “safe driving” tax on all smartphones?? No?? How far are you willing to go in the name of trading liberty for the ambiguous and constantly evolving ideal of “safety”, while giving up personal responsibility in the process? National healthcare, anyone??
How far are the rest of us willing to go before we take a stand against the ever-eroding position that INDIVIDUALS have INDIVIDUAL responsibilities…. including going to work every day to EARN MONEY, used for buying food, taking care of your children, paying for healthcare and other services used BY YOU and YOUR FAMILY, and paying for gasoline??
For those of us that take personal responsibility seriously, we abhor the concept of “bumper-bowling” our way through life, with no aspirations and no consequences.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Healthcare, tanking Economy… its so good to see this president is able to prioritize his responsibilities to the people of this country by directing his attention to matters of such national importance. I guess any “win” is suppose to look good in the paper especially with a press that’ll hype it to the level of national importance. I realize the executive office is responsible for the administration of federal agency’s but come on… does something like this really require a Presidential decree? Are the heads of the federal agency’s unable to set basic guidelines and rules of this nature? The ability to make voters feel warm and fuzzy over routine agency policy decisions does not demonstrate leadership only the ability to micro manage and an effort to paint a false picture that something is getting accomplished. He ignores his top general in Afghanistan and gave away leverage to negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons… but hey he did ban texting while driving for federal employees now thats change!
October 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Another classic example of symbolism over substance. So what? Is there anywhere that details just *how* they’re going to catch you doing this if you’re a federal employee? Nothing is free; by the time that an executive order is issued, hundreds of thousands of YOUR tax dollars (at a minimum) have gone into legal research, draft interpretations, etc. For each executive order.
It’s your tax dollars at work, folks. Now … is it worth it?
October 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I swear if the guy invented a way to turn lead into gold or invented the perpetual motion engine, someone would find fault with it. Probably the owners of gold mines or energy companies. I guess its all in your point of view or lack of it. Me, I know someone (a young girl) that died in a traffic accident because she was texting while driving. Maybe she’d be alive if it had been against the law at the time. I think if it saves one life its worth infringing on someone else’s “right” to be a dumbass. It could just as well be you or a family member killed by an inattentive driver.
October 6th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
JParr…I loudly applaud you and thought you might like this quote:
“When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.”
–Thomas Paine
Why, why, why are we all standing around waiting for a law-maker to restate the obvious? If the current law isn’t enforced, the new one won’t be. We already have a law and yet we still have the texting problem. PARENTS are causing this problem by not teaching responsibility and government is reinforcing it by protecting everyone from their own mistakes and calling it being socially responsible. It’s ridiculous.
I saw a woman the other day who had a lit cigarette between the fingers of her left hand which was also holding a cup of coffee and was driving with her right forearm while that hand was applying mascara to her EYES! I pray to God that I never get as dumb as this woman…
Do we really think the government has to pass a law to stop us from driving 50-60 mph with our hands full and a semi-sharp stick just millimeters from our eye in rush hour traffic, because we need to be told this was a bad idea??? Please.
Anyone who won’t get off their backsides and make a strong, daily effort to protect themselves and their children from harm will find suffering no matter how hard we try to stop them…laws or no laws.
October 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Can somebody explain, please, just how this got to be a federal issue?
Personally, I agree that texting while driving should be illegal, but I take offense when the President starts legislating issues that should be settled at the state level.
Leave the states to handle their own mandates and start worrying about how we’re going to pay for everything being done at the federal level!
October 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
With apologies to you JParr, I disagree about the McDonalds coffee case and feel the facts of that case have been grossly misrepresented.
Some facts that make it seem less ridiculous:
Over 700 complaints for hot coffee were received by McDonalds in the 10 years prior to Stella Liebeck’s claim.
She suffered 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body (and remember this is her LAP)and had multiple skin grafting surgeries to repair the damage. (some of those 700 previous complaints had also suffered 3rd degree burns)
McDonalds at the time served their coffee at over 180 degrees farenheit (about 60 degrees hotter than a typical home coffee maker brews)
Coffee served at 155 degrees would have been safe and still hotter than what you make at home.
McDonalds admitted that their coffee was brewed hotter because it was intended to be consumed at home and not while driving
The woman’s settlement amount (including punitive damage) was less than half of McDonald’s typical coffee sales in one week
I think poor Stella got some bad press…
October 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Gordon, it was already against the law when she had the accident…that is the whole point
October 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Aren’t there more important things he could be working on besides bringing the Olympics to this country, for which he’s already spent a fortune on, and texting while driving?
I agree with Terrie when she inquired about when this became a Federal issue. This seems to be another step at complete control. Our states can handle their own regulations without Federal interference. An example of this is that Texas recently (within the last month or so) signed into law that you cannot be using a cellphone in a school zone, unless you are stopped or using hands-free. Also part of this is that persons under 18 cannot be texting while driving, period. That was a step in the right direction.
Can we please get the Federal Government working on issues that really need their attention? Maybe someone can look at putting them on a budget to control all of this spending they are doing to enact these laws that should not be Federal.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Lajeli: On the coffee issue, we agree to disagree, but I respect your point of view
Gordon: I’m sincerely sorry for your loss, but Lajeli’s right: Distracted driving is ALREADY against the law. What moron sat that child down in a car, handed her a cell phone and DID NOT say: “DON’T EVER USE THIS UNLESS THE CAR IS STOPPED. NOT NOW, NOT EVER, OR YOU MIGHT DIE OR KILL SOMEONE!” …And if they DID have that talk with her, the “legal status” of texting CERTAINLY would not have been a deterrent.
Case in point: Speeding. Exceeding the speed limit is illegal. Teen drivers (and adult drivers, for that matter) do it anyway. Speeding (arguably) kills people, speeding is illegal, and people speed in contempt of the law. Speeders are really easy to catch in a variety of ways, including radar and pacing.
On the contrary, you’re telling me that if we just “band together to ban texting while driving”, teens will spontaneously gain an appreciation and deeper understanding of risk and risk avoidance, teens will obey the law against texting, and the law against texting (but NOT a law against fiddling with the radio) will significantly reduce injuries and accidents due to distracted driving.
Now, on top of that, how are YOU going to know if I’m texting while driving? Erratic driving? There could be a thousand reasons for that, including intoxication and fiddling with the radio. How do you propose that the law enforcement community effectively police against texting while driving?
How about this: How about writing a citation when the officer observes a lane departure? Which…. is what they SHOULD BE doing today? Correct? The ticket is called: “Distracted driving” (unless, of course, you’re stupid enough to be intoxicated while driving).
Back to the parents…. where is their culpability? Did she learn to drive at school or at home? Who sat with her in the car while she practiced for her license? Who were her role models? Did THEY text while driving? Who grounded her from driving after the FIRST time she got a ticket or caused a fender-bender? Who sat her down and told her: “A car is dangerous: it’s capable smashing you, your friends, and innocent bystanders in to little bits. So before you accept responsibility for driving a car, make sure you know what could happen if you fail in that responsibility”.
So YOU’RE TELLING ME that passing a law fixes all of those issues? And now I have to put up with having to deal with this law and all of its ramifications because it COULD have saved 1 life. I argue that NO LAW could have saved that life, and her death was part of a societal, systemic failure to accept personal responsibility.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Oh, and Gordon, please let me respond to your initial point:
If “the guy” did invent alchemy or perpetual motion, he would be the hero of this century. The problem is that neither of those is practically possible with today’s science, and are therefore considered fiction.
But when “the guy” makes equally-laughable claims like “solving healthcare” (without tort reform) or “restoring our status in the world community”, he can always find a bunch of morons who believe his fictions, and turn out in masses to support him.
People are always ready, and quick with an emotional decision to support what sounds good because it makes them feel good, whether there exists a factual basis or not.
So, although that I think the spirit of your argument was: “If he performs miracles, he will be criticized”, the root of my criticism is: “He claims he CAN perform miracles that a rational person knows is not possible”.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
JParr: Sorry that trying to save lives could inconvenience someone as self important as you. It wasn’t my family member, I am just considerate of it, unlike you. I realize that it could be someone close to me that dies even if it was some other inconsiderate moron that is doing the texting. And if an executive order by the President brings more awareness to the dangers of inattentive driving, I’m all for it. The “moron” you keep refering to is in YOUR mirror.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
If we lived in a perfect world, then everyone would be accountable for themselves and children but unfortunately we don’t so we need laws to act as a deterrent.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
JParr: If I follow your line of reasoning, we shouldn’t bother to pass a law against murder because people do it despite the fact that there’s a law against it.
We have laws so that we can build in consequences for breaking them. If a driver is texting while operating a motor vehicle and has an accident, the law will have a built in penalty for that behavior. Kind of like telling your kid, if you break curfew, you forfeit your allowance this week. The kid may think twice about breaking curfew, maybe not. But for the times the rule and its consequences are observed, there are fewer chances of some unhappy events.
We make many rules in this country that are not obeyed. But after we created strict penalties for drinking and driving, the number of deaths resulting from drunken drivers diminished significantly. The law wasn’t able to completely eradicate the problem, but for the folks lived because a drunk got a designated driver, that law was well worth the time and effort of those who put it in place.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Hi, Valerie —
The question is not whether to pass a law against murder, the question is whether texting lives up to the community’s standards. In your extreme example, murder does NOT. Speeding does…. most people speed. Texting does, but the problem is that the community’s standards must reflect that texting while driving is dangerous and therefore unacceptable.
If you look at the law semantically, you can always find a loophole, a word game if you will, that justifies what you’re doing. Such as you’re example, semantically justifying murder. But the reality is that you can’t completely codify any system of ethics, and interpretation of gray areas should be left to the community.
Applying this back to the original topic…. where is the law against playing with the radio? Heck, why not ban radios from cars? Why not ban cell phones? Why not pass a law requiring cell phones must be locked in the trunk? Why have vanity mirrors above the visor? Why not ban them? Why not require all cars be the same color, so as not to distract other drivers?
OR…. you can single out the one or two morons who cause the problem, using existing “distracted driver” laws, and save everyone else the time, effort, and inconvenience.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
This article is about Obama writing “company policy” for federal employees and that policy rightly supports existing laws. The title suggests that the President is trying to pass motor vehicle statutes which would not only be ridiculous but unconstitutional.
On the topic of a state or local law that bans texting while driving:
Ami K: We do live in a world where people are accountable for themselves and their children!! Where on earth would you get the idea otherwise?? Being accountable does not mean that we prevent all bad decisions; it means that we accept the responsibility for the consequences of all our decisions. If we cannot be accountable for ourselves and our children in the first place, then how the heck can we be accountable for each other? It just doesn’t work that way which is why socialism always fails.
Valerie Helmbreck: We should not pass any law that is unenforceable (by nature or by choice) and that would include laws against murder. You can pass all the laws you want but unless they are enforced, they are worthless. The current laws against driving while distracted (and every state has one) are already in place but we still have a problem with texting while driving. How would a law that is specifically against texting be any different? Does using the word “texting” make it easier to enforce? If the law is there already, enforce it instead of wasting time and money making a redundant law that is just as likely to fail.
Gordon: Please explain how Obama’s law against texting would be any different than the ones already in place? If there is no difference, it is a waste to pursue it. Why not spend the time and money promoting and enforcing the existing laws?
The point is that no one wants to enforce anything because it means holding people accoutnable for their own actions and we are a country obsessed with making excuses for why that is impossible. We want to believe that we should all be held to the lowest possible standard just in case having a higher one ever comes back to bite us in the a**.
We want to have our cake and eat it too…
Interesting historical thought:
Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
“A republic, if you can keep it.” :
October 6th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Lajeli: SPOT ON!
And to further your point, and in rebuttal of Valerie’s point about drunk driving: Most states already had laws on the books about drunk or intoxicated driving. What reduced drunk driving was not MORE laws nor STIFFER penalties, it was a nationwide ad blitz, creating awareness that drunk driving results in death or injury and will ruin your life.
The penalties today are much stiffer, but people continue to do it. And they aren’t unaware, they just make a (barely) conscious decision that somehow the law doesn’t apply to them.
Similarly, I WOULD like to see a nationwide ad blitz about how “texting while driving can kill a friendship” (remember THOSE ads? great stuff)
Unfortunately, there is a segment of society that will continue to disregard the law, common sense, penalties, risk of bodily injury, and all other negative consequences simply for their own enjoyment or convenience. Pass any law you want, but it won’t “fix” them. The only way to fix them is to consistently and uniformly reinforce that their behavior is not acceptable, and that there are consequences. If text-driving had the same negative stigma as drunk driving, people would be ostricized for doing it, and the police could focus on the remaining exceptions using existing laws.
EDUCATE, don’t LEGISLATE
October 6th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Ah, Gordon:
At the end of the day, people ruled by emotion resort to an emotional attack, because they lack the logical or verbal skills to openly debate a topic.
You’re very clever… by displacing the argument and making me the enemy, you’re hoping to shift focus from the fact that you lost the argument. This is known as misdirection, and Obama used it quite artfully to virtually steal the presidency.
But… misdirection is a lie. And lies are hollow. So, at the end of the day, you feel bad. You feel bad about the little girl. You feel bad about your own inadequacies and perceived disparities in your life, and you lie awake at night thinking of new lies to justify controlling other people to make yourself feel good again.
All I ask of you is that you leave me alone, but you can’t do it. You can’t leave ME ALONE because then you can’t BLAME ME. And if you can’t blame me, you’ll feel bad again.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
It’s funny but most of what we (as a nation) are doing to “fix” the problem is what is making it worse. When we (again, the national ‘we’) say that we ‘need’ laws and ‘need’ government to make things right, it is the same as saying that the individual is capable of making a a decision and facing the consequences. Since maybe the late 1930’s or so, our country has been going down this road of ‘forcing’ people to make the ‘right’ decisions. Our country was not designed to run that way. That in fact is exactly the thinking that drove our forefathers here to start a new country in the first place. This is a republic where soveriegnty resides in the rule of law and the rights of the individual to sink or swim on his own accord. This is not a democracy where the soviergnty is found in the group as a whole. We are not a nation of greater good but a nation of individual opportunity. Anyone who tells you different is selling the latest, greatest brand of socialism.
We need very, very few laws especially at a federal level.
There was an old drinking and driving poster I remember from the eighties that showed a body bag (closed but obviously full) and a picture of a car that had smashed into a tree. In big letters, it said “If you drink and drive, you better hope it’s a cop that stops you”. I think that about sums it up…God forbid that a law scares you more than your own mortality!!
October 6th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I meant that the individual is not capable…jeez…I hate it when I forget to proof-read!!
Sorry!
October 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
100% exact on personal responsibility that needs to be taught by parents. But…. I also know a young lady that was killed while talking on the phone and pulled out from a stop sign into the path of an oncoming dump truck. Mother should have been the one to teach her ~ and she did. The mother was the one who was on the other end of the phone. I refuse to ride with people who do anything but drive. It is ridiculous that more parents don’t DO THEIR PRIMARY JOB
God forgive us all for our faults and may we all strive to make the world a better place.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Lajeli:
I completely agree with you: too many rules has the undesired effect of unintended consequences.
Here is a link to Michael Crichton’s speech on complexity theory…. If the link below does not make it, google for it.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-complexity.html
Skip to the part about Yellowstone National Park.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Thanks JParr…I look forward to reading that.
Since this is a business magazine article, I thought I would just toss one more thought out there for the managers and hr professionals…What all of this means is that the more you mandate, the less you will get.
Yes, Lisa, I agree with you all the way.
Way back before cell phones I knew a girl who was driving and listening to the radio. She had stopped at a red ligth and waited and when it turned green, she proceeded to make a left turn into the intersection…totally legal driving move and WHAM! She was hit by a fire truck who was running the red light with sirens, lights and all. Because it was daylight, the lights were not that visible to her and because of the radio being so loud, she didn’t hear the siren. She died at the scene. Car radios are even louder now despite laws to regulate them.
I can find a thousand ways for a teenager to die in today’s world and do not think laws will make much of a difference. I do believe (like Lisa, if I am interpreting her post correctly) that until we teach children, teens and each other that there is no safety net and every decision has real and sometimes drastic consequences, not much will change. A ban on texting is just another way to say “Sorry people, we know you can be smart and make good decisions. It’s ok, we wil hold your hand through life and make each step as easy as pie…oh and when you have trouble, that is ok, there will always be the safety net of big government entitlements or (even better) someone to sue to make it all better.” And then we sit back and wonder why people make bad decisions.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Finally had the chance to read the speech…had to read all of it actually, couldn’t skip (it’s not in my nature). That was fascinating stuff! I always wondered about the simplistic approach and the ego that seemed to go along with it. As if a couple of guys could spend a couple of years in one place and have all the possible answers to the universe ready to write up in a paper. If that were true, there would be no problems, no war, famine, illness, drought, extinction…etc
October 7th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I agree that texting should be outlawed, however, I thought Congress made the laws not the President.
Maybe he should tend to what he should be doing.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
It’s about time someone in the government got the guts to ban texting while driving. There is no way you can look a those little buttons and drive at the same time. Your mind is on your message not your driving. The next thing is banning talking on the phone too. It is too distracting too. Our city recently pass a law about talking on the phone in school zones. A little step in the right direction. In Mexico they aleady got the guts to ban cell phones in the cars. You won’t see every other driver with a phone hangin off their ear in Mexico,
October 7th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I agree with Lajeli’s initial post. Why do lawmakers feel the need to make new laws for things we already have laws about? What a waste of time.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
This is a great start. As a federal employee and knowing that many of our employees with federal Blackberries use them WHILE DRIVING on their long commutes. SO, say what you want, but at least the message was sent, maybe it should have been my text…
October 8th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Lajeli Says:
October 6th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
You totally understood what I was saying. Unfortunately we are having to see a lot of reprobates anymore as parents make parenting less than their #1 ambition. Too bad they cannot see how poorly that reflects on them when their child is so …………………
and to
Bob W Says:
October 7th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I can only say this president is going to do what he wants and what he can get away with. He has a larger agenda than anyone realizes.
God bless
October 8th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
THIS president? Shouldn’t that be rephrased to say ALL presidents or even better….ALL politicians?
January 9th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Where is a good place to sale my old wrecked car? Please help me by sugesting some sites or companies.
January 11th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
None of the people here realized that the Federal Govt is liable if one of their employee’s gets in an accident while texting. This law protects others on the road, while helping reduce expensive ligitigation and payouts by the Feds. Wake up, it doen’t hurt to have an abundance of caution when it comes to saving money. And why all the Obama whiners? Its not like he himself came up with this, it was his Administation. Good policy that makes it very crystal clear to all Fed employees not to text while behind the wheel of a vehicle bought and paid for my us taxpayers!