DOT to ban phones in cars

[devilof76]

For the good of all of us, IMO.

Which one do you like better?

"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation...

This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture...By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men."

Du bist nichs; dein Volk ist alles.

 

[DinoLast]

It would save a lot of lives if people were forbidden to drink alcohol as well. Far more than would be saved by preventing drunk driving deaths.

So what are we waiting for?

One has nothing to do with the other. People who drink a lot are putting their own health at risk, when they get behind the wheel then they are putting others at risk.

I take it you're in favor of big government control? That's a shame.

Not really, I'm just in favour of having less of chance of my family and I being killed by some idiot driver who thinks they know best.

 

[karamazov80]

Its women drivers that should be banned.

I agree with this

The point is where does it stop? When do they quit telling us when we cam and can't do something as minor as talking on a phone? It's a stepping some to bigger things.

I can't debate this, because you are assuming the absolute worst. If you feel that way, then I don't know what to say. The U.S. is never going to be the ideal place that you would like it to be because the nature of man, and yes, the nature of our system of governance (which is a function of the former), won't allow it. Judgment calls have to be made.

Devil's posts are going in the same direction. If you think that you have two choices--fascism and state of nature, and if your principles won't allow you to compromise, then I'm sorry. But you're just gonna have to move to Antarctica to get the freedom that you crave. Society is not made up of exclusively reasonable, thoughtful, caring people. And so, rules have to be made and enforced to keep others from doing bad things to the rest of us. Compromises must be made.

 

[Darth Cruel]

One has nothing to do with the other. People who drink a lot are putting their own health at risk, when they get behind the wheel then they are putting others at risk.



Not really, I'm just in favour of having less of chance of my family and I being killed by some idiot driver who thinks they know best.

In my opinion, this is your responsibility. Not Uncle Sam's. You chose to have a family, the feds did not force you. It is on you to man up and stand in for them. Do not pawn your responsiblity onto the government because they, in turn, punish everyone else for it in the form of new laws.

Edit - And although I am addressing the issue via your post...I do not mean to single you out. Most people do this in one way or another. If it is not making cell phones illegal, it is wanting welfare, or gun control, or socialized medicine.

 

[darthviper107]

If cell phones were never legal in cars to begin with, then people would just accept it as the law and not complain much about it. If a law does effectively ban cell phones, then eventually, it will be just like the seat belt law, and folks won't even think twice about it.

That's not true--people would definitely figure out it's a bad idea--People already question why you have to turn off electronic devices on planes even though they don't actually do anything to the airplane instruments

 

[Shropt]

You are all wrong.

 

[Darth Cruel]

You are all wrong.

LOL...Thanks for coming in and clearing that up for us!

 

[cr4cx3r]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

ten characters

 

[ProgMatinee]

because cell phone use while in a motorized vehicle is really the end goal of "liberty". in that case, I want my "liberty" to drive a steam roller down the middle of a crowded school yard.

 

[karamazov80]

because cell phone use while in a motorized vehicle is really the end goal of "liberty".

Specifically, an "essential liberty."

To darthviper's post, I think they are different because, as you say, evidence is apparently coming to light that cell phones and laptops don't actually interfere with the plane's operating systems. Texting while driving does, however, interfere with one's ability to focus on the road.

If a rule exists for no real reason anymore, then they should do away with it.

 

[Darth Cruel]

I really think that people can be divided into two catagories. Those who want the government to herd them around like sheep, and those who want to control their own lives.

If I am right, then the question becomes: Which one are you?

Those who want the government to herd them around will support programs like the Socialized Health Care bill and will grudgingly accept some responsibility that the government refuses to accept.

Those who want to run their own lives will support the government being restricted on how much they interfere with day-to-day life and will grudgingly accept infrequent intrusions that can be justified as being inarguably for the greater good.

My belief is that the former is a weak person who has no confidence in themselves and so they dump their responsibilities onto the government then get mad at the government when the government drops the ball on the issues. The exceptions to this are those who support said culture because they want to be one of those doing the herding. My own opinion of those people are that they are no better than any cruel despot the Earth has ever witnessed.

I also believe that the latter are the strong who seek to gain more strength and ability and strive to be self-sufficient and take responsibility for themselves. And I beleive that this latter type is the type of people who started this country and intended this nation to be an example of strong individuals unifying to make a place where everyone can live the lives they want to.

And surrendering liberties...which to me are all rights...not priveledges...works against the very intent of our founding forebearers. Every little liberty...like talking on a cell phone while you are driving...that you give up is one more tiny little tie that you allow the government to attach to you to control you.

And "Where do you draw the line" is one of the most powerful mind games that those who seek to be controlled or do the controlling have to confuse those who strive to take responsibility for themseles.

There is no line to be drawn. It must come down to a hair-pulling, eye-gouging, ear-biting mudhole brawl between the politicians and the free people of the nation in order for them to enact even the most obviously needed regulation. It should be virtually impossible to pass trivial legislation like restricting cell phone useage while driving.

 

[Darth Cruel]

because cell phone use while in a motorized vehicle is really the end goal of "liberty". in that case, I want my "liberty" to drive a steam roller down the middle of a crowded school yard.

Although I see your point, I think it is important not to muddy the waters by comparing trivial liberties with extreme acts that the common sense of a good person would dictate against.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Although I see your point, I think it is important not to muddy the waters by comparing trivial liberties with extreme acts that the common sense of a good person would dictate against.

I think you need to take your own advice here, considering your previous post.

Saying that there are "2 kinds of people" and generalizing everyone is very extreme.

I happen to hate socialized health care. I also think that preventing needless accidents is appropriate.

Like I said before, only a fool will group every rule or regulation with every other one. Generalizing someone that thinks people shouldn't be allowed to use cell phones in a vehicle as wanting the government to think for them is ridiculous.

Clear thinking people look at individual decisions from both the big picture and the small picture. Not every rule is a statement on the government controlling you.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I'm one of the smart ones in the world that doesn't use a phone when I'm driving

 

[ProgMatinee]

also, i'm not saying that i support imbedding some device in a car that would prevent the car from moving.

IMO, the device should be imbedded in the phone and prevent the phone from operating.

 

[Darth Cruel]

I think you need to take your own advice here, considering your previous post.

Saying that there are "2 kinds of people" and generalizing everyone is very extreme.

I happen to hate socialized health care. I also think that preventing needless accidents is appropriate.

Like I said before, only a fool will group every rule or regulation with every other one. Generalizing someone that thinks people shouldn't be allowed to use cell phones in a vehicle as wanting the government to think for them is ridiculous. You are simply reading too much in to it.

Clear thinking people look at individual decisions from both the big picture and the small picture. Not every rule is a statement on the government controlling you.

I do not see the grouping of people in to these catagories as extreme at all. It simply removes all of the grey area. I believe that grey are is for people who want a safety net when they are wrong. There is nothing extreme nor incorrect about my post.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

also, i'm not saying that i support imbedding some device in a car that would prevent the car from moving.

IMO, the device should be imbedded in the phone and prevent the phone from operating.

The article states that the device disables the phone when the car is in motion. Not the other way around. I definitely agree with what you just said. So far I've seen a lot of overgeneralizations in this thread that are the extreme of what they fear is going to happen.

 

[karamazov80]

I think. . .that that is a ridiculously simplistic view of things

And talking about the founding fathers. Have you read the writings of those guys? Despite their differences, those guys understood very well that compromise in the face of a plurality of interests was at the very foundation of how this country can function. That's how the entire system is set up--to allow a reasonably fair, institutional means for diverse perspectives to voice grievances. They weren't advocating some simplistic, absolutist perspective to take government out of all our daily affairs. If people really hate the idea of taking cell phones away, then they can lobby their elected representatives and try to do away with the idea. If they really like the idea, then it can be put in place. People have the "right" to do that in this country. But lumping people into "weak" and "strong" categories like that is possibly the most laughable thing I've ever seen on this forum.

Folks who can't understand the idea of compromise and nuance are the ones I fear, not the government. Because they are the ones who go off into the woods and start militias, or join cults.

Yeah, be wary of governmental intrusion, but consider that government ensures that your food is reasonably safe to eat and that the air is safe to breathe, provides for your security, has provided public education and roads that allow for economic development, and done innumerable other things that have promoted the public good and well being in ways that a society without such a government could never do. Government may be an evil, but a necessary one so long as a peaceful, effective society can't exist without it.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I do not see the grouping of people in to these catagories as extreme at all. It simply removes all of the grey area. I believe that grey are is for people who want a safety net when they are wrong. There is nothing extreme nor incorrect about my post.

Aside from the fact that no human being on Earth is represented by it?

People ARE grey areas. People ARE a set of hypocritical scenarios. As a simple example, I know you dislike Big Ben's actions. Yet you still support the Steelers. There are contradictions there which may seem hypocritical or a misdirection of loyalties, but its you being a human being operating in the grey area and not behaving like a machine.

I'm against certain regulations, and for others. There is no person on the planet that believes in deregulating everything to the point of chaos.

Even a person who believes in chaos would not support a string of chaotic actions that would render that person dead, for example.

 

[floppy hat jon]

In my opinion, this is your responsibility. Not Uncle Sam's. You chose to have a family, the feds did not force you. It is on you to man up and stand in for them. Do not pawn your responsiblity onto the government because they, in turn, punish everyone else for it in the form of new laws.

Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, we should therefore get rid of police, no?