LaHood looking for ways to disable cell phones in cars

posted at 3:35 pm on November 16, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Remember, in Hopenchange, everything not expressly permitted will be outlawed.  In an attempt to deal with the supposed epidemic of distracted drivers, especially younger drivers, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that the Obama administration will review its options in blocking cell phone use in cars:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said using a cell phone while driving is so dangerous that devices may soon be installed in cars to forcibly stop drivers — and potentially anyone else in the vehicle — from using them.

“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that,” said LaHood on MSNBC. LaHood said the cellphone scramblers were one way, and also stressed the importance of “personal responsibility.”

The statement came during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, when Joe Scarborough argued that the government should mandate the installation of scrambler transmitters in new automobiles.  LaHood liked the idea:

“I think it will be done,” said LaHood. “I think the technology is there and I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones. We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives.”

This is frightfully dense in a number of different ways.  Let’s count them up, shall we?

  • The scrambler would also affect the passengers in a car that want to use their cell phones, which doesn’t do anything to improve public safety.
  • The presence of multitudinous scramblers in autos driving in a city will likely render cell phones used by pedestrians useless as well, or at least unreliable.
  • Adding more required equipment to cars will make them more expensive, and increase the value of used cars without the scramblers.
  • People who want to make calls from their cars or allow their passengers to do so will likely hold onto current vehicles longer.
  • Anything installed in a car can be disabled by the owner, especially electronics.  Will car owners have to submit to random searches, or annual verification of scrambler functionality?  Will the federal government make that yet another unfunded mandate on the states?
  • People also get distracted by eating, reading printed material, and applying make-up.  Shall we ban drive-through restaurants, newspapers, and cosmetics, too?

And those are just the practical considerations.  There are other problems with this as well, chief among them that it appears to be a solution in search of a problem.  A study released today by the CDC shows that auto-related deaths of younger drivers have dropped 36% annually over a five-year period despite increased use of cell phones:

Motor-vehicle accidents — not drugs or diseases — are the leading cause of death for teens in the United States. Despite alcohol, distraction and lack of experience contributing to the causes of accidents for this age group, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently reported a decline in fatal crashes among these youngest drivers.

As part of its study, the CDC analyzed data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) Fatality Analysis Report System (FARS). Reviewing fatality data for 2004 through 2008, the CDC examined reports of the 9,494 fatal crashes involving drivers aged 16 and 17 to identify trends as well as assess risks. Of the more than 11,000 people who died in these crashes, over 37 percent were drivers aged 16 or 17. The data also revealed that fatal traffic crashes had declined by about 36 percent annually for drivers in this age group.

The CDC thinks the decline in teen traffic statistics can be attributed to several factors. Decreases in travel as a result of rising gasoline prices and adverse economic conditions are two of those major factors. In troubled economic times, youth have limited funds and cut back on travel and/or delay obtaining their driver’s licenses.

While the information seems to indicate that teen drivers are now safer drivers, distracted and impaired driving still remain major safety and public health issues associated with our nation’s younger drivers. Newswires regularly report cases of teen crashes linked to texting or cell-phone use, and recent studies reveal that teens are texting more than ever before. With more than 20 percent of traffic accidents linked to distracted driving, youth texting habits are more concerning.

Allow me to translate that last paragraph.  Despite the anecdotal data we read in the newspapers, we are unable to draw a statistical relationship between cell phone use and vehicular deaths — but we want to talk about it anyway.

Finally, we come to the most basic point, which is that traffic law enforcement is not a federal jurisdiction.  It’s a state and local jurisdiction.   If a state wants to force car buyers to pay for scrambling equipment, they have the authority to do so, as Californians well know from their mandated smog-reduction equipment.  The Obama administration wants to dictate choices to Americans, and this is just another nanny-state intrusion into the lives of citizens from Washington.

Drivers have plenty of distractions.  Part of learning to drive responsibly is to manage them, and local and state law enforcement can handle the failures as they arise.   The only way to eliminate distracted driving is to eliminate driving itself.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Everyone knows the most distracting thing while you’re driving is children. BAN KIDS.

di butler on November 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Associated Press:

The FCC announced today that all new cell phones will be required to take full body scans of the owner every week and transmit them to the TSA in every airport, in case the owner is going to fly anytime in the near future.

percysunshine on November 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Just think of all the Lobbyists, Gllitterati and Sports Agents that have to stop their cars, park and then get out of their cars to stay in contact with their clients!

SeniorD on November 16, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Roving “Government Groping Squads” will be immediately dispatched to the site of any suspicious scan…especially if 20-30 year old females are involved.

landlines on November 16, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Is that part of the Government benefit package?

Kini on November 16, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Everyone knows the most distracting thing while you’re driving is children. BAN KIDS.

di butler on November 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Democrats have a solution for that too, remember?

Inanemergencydial on November 16, 2010 at 4:10 PM

In 2009, fatalities involving vehicles (pedestrians included) was 33,808. The population in the US is appx. 310,720,852. So the death to population ratio in the US is .01%. Yeah, let’s spend the money quickly we have a crisis!

jeridhill on November 16, 2010 at 4:11 PM

HELLO BIG GOVERNMENT!

Will the liberals, progressives, ACLU’s, etc., start revolting about this as an onslaught of our “civil rights”?

Is this as important to them as giving rights of Habeas Corpus to terrorists?

Hey what’s that sound?

Oh yeah……………CRICKETS.

Opposite Day on November 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

lorien1973 on November 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Why not just ban cars and force everyone onto public transportation? That’s what they really want anyway.

Redneck Woman on November 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM

LaHood… yeah, wasn’t he the bad guy in Pale Rider? Let’s get Clint to kick this guys ass!

Seriously, these democrats really don’t get it.

yubley on November 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Whatever happened to that research into remotely killing an engine during high speed pursuits?? Have they given up on that idea??

Bob in VA on November 16, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Too invasive, and unfairly discriminated against minorities.

BobMbx on November 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM

I once saw a woman flossing her teeth while driving. She was using both hands at once. Ban floss too.

JimP on November 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM

So ban navigation devices as well as I’m sure the scramblers will affect them as well. Since putting your phone in a car dock so you can use it hands free and as a navigational device is just evil I suppose.
Also if Onstar is allowed, wouldn’t that lead to a massive WTO violation if not equal protection violation?

Zaggs on November 16, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Going through the threads today I’ve noticed the resurgence of Jimbo3, GrowFins and other malignant trolls. Has Team 0 decided to reinstate their contracts in response to 11/2/10?

Yeah that’ll work, ad hominem attackscalling everone vviolent-racist-Nazi-extremists has been working so well so far.

GO FOR IT CHUMPS!

Archimedes on November 16, 2010 at 4:13 PM

nally, we come to the most basic point, which is that traffic law enforcement is not a federal jurisdiction. It’s a state and local jurisdiction.

“…state and local jurisdiction…”?

What a quaint notion!

I’m telling ya, if we’re going to declare war on ‘distracted driving’, we’re going to have to ban GPS devices, CD players, radios that allow changing channels (ooh, maybe Dems could force our Government Motors car radios to only tune into a single Government Radio station, aka PBS – in the name of reducing ‘distracted driving’ of course), billboards, fast food, Starbucks, convenience stores that sell anything that the driver might try to use or consume in the car, pretty girls on walking anywhere near the road, in-car conversation with passengers, etc. We’re also going to have to mandate that street signs be printed with letters that are 5 feet high so you can see them at a safe distance and people don’t have to squint to read them.

Heaven save us from the nannies, ffs.

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:13 PM

LaHood needs to be banned from ever holding a government job.

Dasher on November 16, 2010 at 4:14 PM

I’m sorry to have to ask, but wouldn’t this be a law, as in something that only Congress can create? What is it that gives DOT the authority to legislate, and if there is some old arcane provision allowing bureaucrats to make law, shouldn’t the next Congress make it a priority to a) eliminate such broad authority or b) amend it such that no such law can take effect without an affirmative vote by both Houses of Congress?

I think the latter might be the better way to go. Regulations, generally, developed by bureaucrats probably is the best approach, but I’d like an immediate and direct link by which our representatives can be held accountable.

For too long Congress has ceded their authority to bureaucrats so they can avoid responsibility for lots of the crap and overreach, while turning a blind eye to the usurpations of the leviathan and using whatever little oversight they do apply to make it seem as though they are the good cop to the bureaucrat’s bad guy image, when, in fact, they are one and the same person.

Dusty on November 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

I once saw someone on the 405 in LA eating from a bowl of soup with a spoon, while traveling at 65 mph.

Dasher on November 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

lorien1973 on November 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM

C.S. Lewis would appreciate a citation there, methinks.

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

The US federal government: Stuck On Stupid.

Anything to teach you how to behave, dear children of America over 18… you wanted a Nannystate, now you got it. And your pacifier will cost you your life.

ajacksonian on November 16, 2010 at 4:17 PM

If you like yourcell phone, you can keep your…

anikol on November 16, 2010 at 4:17 PM

It’s not just the Democrats. In Texas, a Republican Senator filed a bill a week ago that would generally prohibit drivers from using their cell phones.

Jimbo3 on November 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Jimbo, the bill you linked allows cellphone use provided a handsfree device is also used. It allows one to use their hands to activate and deactivate a call using the handsfree device. That’s quite different from banning or jamming all cellphone use.

unclesmrgol on November 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Dasher on November 16, 2010 at 4:14 PM

School teacher turned U.S. Congress Critter? He’s known nothing else.

ladyingray on November 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM

I’m not really too worried about this yet.
All this new technology in vehicles has resulted in a lot of problems with these vehicles.
I think all of us can agree that even though vehicles are safer, last longer, & are more fuel efficient, there is an inherent pain in the butt that they are more difficult to work on & more expensive to fix.
I can really attest to that.
Computers in vehicles, along with all the other crap like power windows, air, GPS, DVDS etc add more & more complications to the working of a vehicle.
Even a lot of the mechanics don’t know what the heck the problem is most of the time.
They rely so much on the computer to tell them what’s wrong & when it doesn’t tell them anything, they have no clue on how to proceed in fixing your vehicle.
You want to know why your goods cost so much-it’s bcs of general crap like this in the form of ‘mandates’ like no sulfur diesel.

Badger40 on November 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Heard on the radio this morning, here in Texas, some pol wants to place breath sensors in vehicles – ALL VEHICLES – which a driver will have to breath into before the vehicle can even be turned on, all to cut down on drunk drivers.

Yes. you read that right. Before you can operate your own vehicle, you will have to submit a self-BAC if this person were to get their way.

Heard on WOAI 1200 here in San Antonio, but can’t find a print story for it.

Forget about the technological hurdles this would have not to mention the government expansion to regulate such a thing…

I hate to say it folks, but when we let them in the door when they went for smoking in the late 80′s early 90′s, we opened the door to the nanny staters to think this kind of stuff is OK. As the saying goes, “Given ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile.”

I know we’re the ‘Choir’ here at HA (for the most part), but we did this to ourselves by allowing this type of behavior to begin with.

catmman on November 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM

They don’t need a bunch of scramblers. Just tell the phone companies not to allow calls to jump from one tower to the next. When talking in a moving car means your call will only last a few minutes, people will stop.

Of course, they could still text so there’s that.

Aside from that, WTF, LAHOOD! WHO THE HELL DIED AND MADE YOU EMPEROR? GTFO OF MY LIFE YOU TYRANT!

Kafir on November 16, 2010 at 4:19 PM

C.S. Lewis would appreciate a citation there, methinks.

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

By now, everyone knows where it comes from. It’s repeated often enough these days. ;)

lorien1973 on November 16, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Associated Press:

The Environmental Protection Agency announced today that they would ban all use of any cell phone while in a boat under authority of the Clean Waters Act. The EPA says studies show that cell phone radiation sterilizes fish and whales.

percysunshine on November 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM

I once saw someone on the 405 in LA eating from a bowl of soup with a spoon, while traveling at 65 mph.

Dasher on November 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Yup. I once looked over at the car in the next lane and saw the guy in the lane next to me reading a book perched on the steering wheel; as I watched, at 65MPH, he turned a page. As I was on a motorcycle at the time, I decided to drop behind him.

unclesmrgol on November 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM

People also get distracted by eating, reading printed material, and applying make-up. Shall we ban drive-through restaurants, newspapers, and cosmetics, too?

Get ready for mandatory “enforcement robots” to be installed in all vehicles, armed with laser guns, ready to blast anyone who engages in distracting behavior while driving. As a bonus, the robots can be programmed with your mother’s voice, and will shout “Do you want me to stop this car?” as they blast you.

mbs on November 16, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Amtrak begins to look better.

etaoinshrdlu on November 16, 2010 at 4:22 PM

“I think it will be done,” said LaHood. “I think the technology is there and I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones. We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives.”

So if my car breaks down on an interstate, I have to get out of my vehicle to use my cellphone. Or if I have to answer an important call, I have to suddenly pull over and get out of my vehicle. Or if I have an accident, I have to get out of car to call 9/11.

That is sheer craziness. There will be more accidents because of laws enacted by the nanny Democrats than there will be by people using their cellphones while driving: Law of Unintended Consequences.

Gabe on November 16, 2010 at 4:22 PM

If this makes you mad, just wait until they start issuing the waivers.

Sharke on November 16, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Amtrak begins to look better.

etaoinshrdlu on November 16, 2010 at 4:22 PM

That is the leftist’s goal.

They hate the automobile and the cell phone. Both are symbols of freedom.

Inanemergencydial on November 16, 2010 at 4:25 PM

I dont agree with disabling phones. but for those who “i have a right to use my phone anytime i want” Just sayin

Greed on November 16, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Snowstorms
Witnessing an accident and calling for help
Checking on the safety of a loved one
Someone calling you enroute to tell you about a detour etc
Emergency room visits and your the parent coming from work

There are lots of good reasons to have a phone ENABLED in a car. Just be smart about it.

journeyintothewhirlwind on November 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM

They are our lords and masters, and they know what is best for us even when what they think is not best for us. All we have to do is knuckle our foreheads and genuflect as they pass by. They are our lords and masters. They know what is best for us.

SilentWatcher on November 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM

…when Joe Scarborough argued that the government should mandate the installation of scrambler transmitters in new automobiles.

Why did you paraphrase that rather than quote it? Either way, you are lifting from the article, but you are mischaracterizing what the article says:

The hosts of Morning Joe pushed the secretary about the possibility of requiring scrambling technology
installed in vehicles.

It doesn’t say that Scarborough argued that there should be a mandate. Did you actually see the segment?

Sorry, I’m not sure why I’m so annoyed about this… it just rubs me the wrong way that you chose to paraphrase something that you could have just quoted.

DaveS on November 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

You people are debating this from the wrong vantage points. You need to look at this the way the Obama Administration does.

Their approach to stopping drivers from using cell phones in cars is a tad more invasive than what any of you are envisioning.

Here, let me show you what Obama and LaHood really have in mind — just click on this You Tube link for a demonstration of the prototype.

FlameWarrior on November 16, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Legislators have far too much time on their hands. Let’s cut the legislative session to 3 months max. Let them spend the rest of the year in their home districts, where they belong.

petefrt on November 16, 2010 at 4:30 PM

It’s not just the Democrats. In Texas, a Republican Senator filed a bill a week ago that would generally prohibit drivers from using their cell phones.

Jimbo3 on November 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM
At the STATE LEVEL???? In a REPUBLIC???

Inanemergencydial on November 16, 2010 at 3:53 PM

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?K2DocKey=odbc%3a%2f%2fTLO%2fTLO.dbo.vwCurrBillDocs%2f82%2fR%2fS%2fB%2f00138%2f1%2fB%40TloCurrBillDocs&QueryText=138&HighlightType=1.

Wentworth is a Republican (hope the link works).

Jimbo3 on November 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Well, you didn’t read it, I suppose. It doesn’t seek to “generally prohibit drivers from using their cell phones”, it seeks to make sure that folks are using hands-free connectivity to their cell phone. This would prevent the texting/surfing while driving, etc, without getting in the way of emergency calls, normal communications, interfering with other vehicles/passengers/radio signals by way of mandating every car to include scrambling equipment, etc.

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM

“…state and local jurisdiction…”?

What a quaint notion!

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Yup, that’s so “10th amendment”. Get with the new living, breathing Constitution people!

jnelchef on November 16, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM

That is (to be clear), it does *not* call for mandating that every car include scramblers, etc.

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:32 PM

So if my car breaks down on an interstate, I have to get out of my vehicle to use my cellphone. Or if I have to answer an important call, I have to suddenly pull over and get out of my vehicle. Or if I have an accident, I have to get out of car to call 9/11.
Gabe on November 16, 2010 at 4:22 PM

You just nailed it Gabe – and I won’t even get into the issues of those of us living out here in far west Texas where there’s often 80 or 90 miles between towns on two lane roads.

2nd Ammendment Mother on November 16, 2010 at 4:32 PM

and I forgot to add, what happens to a woman being followed in a parking lot by someone wanting to grab her purse – can’t get in your car, lock your door and call a cop anymore.

2nd Ammendment Mother on November 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Well, you didn’t read it, I suppose. It doesn’t seek to “generally prohibit drivers from using their cell phones”, it seeks to make sure that folks are using hands-free connectivity to their cell phone. This would prevent the texting/surfing while driving, etc, without getting in the way of emergency calls, normal communications, interfering with other vehicles/passengers/radio signals by way of mandating every car to include scrambling equipment, etc.

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Are you saying that jimbo3, respected analytical thinker and persuasive ninja, wasn’t totally forthcoming in his response?
hmmmm.

Inanemergencydial on November 16, 2010 at 4:35 PM

I just don’t understand all of this hatred towards our superior who only has the little people’s best interests at heart.

Certainly, that mom and three kids in the minivan crushed under 30 tons of a fully-loaded 18-wheeler would be just peachy keen to wait patiently while I exit the interstate and search out a pay phone. Since they are the little people, their lives are but a small price to pay for the greater good of highway safety.

Tongueboy on November 16, 2010 at 4:38 PM

DaveS on November 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Okay, since you’re a stickler for quotes, how about this one from the article:

LaHood has called distracted driving an “epidemic” and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says about 5,000 people a year, or about 1 percent of the U.S. population, die as a result of it.

5,000 people is about 1 percent of the U.S. population eh? Is this the Daily Caller being boneheaded, or the NHTSA, I wonder…

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Well, you didn’t read it, I suppose. It doesn’t seek to “generally prohibit drivers from using their cell phones”, it seeks to make sure that folks are using hands-free connectivity to their cell phone. This would prevent the texting/surfing while driving, etc, without getting in the way of emergency calls, normal communications, interfering with other vehicles/passengers/radio signals by way of mandating every car to include scrambling equipment, etc.

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM
Are you saying that jimbo3, respected analytical thinker and persuasive ninja, wasn’t totally forthcoming in his response?
hmmmm.

Inanemergencydial on November 16, 2010 at 4:35 PM

I did read it. That’s why I wrote “generally” prohibit. It would disallow use except in some emergencies and except for hands-free use (which, I assume, would require hands-free dialing).

Jimbo3 on November 16, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Are you saying that jimbo3, respected analytical thinker and persuasive ninja, wasn’t totally forthcoming in his response?
hmmmm.

Inanemergencydial on November 16, 2010 at 4:35 PM

And it was such a long document, too – a whole page, and I had to read several sentences of it before coming across that bit.

Midas on November 16, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Why, next thing you know, they’ll want everyone to have an energy efficient house where the energy use can be centrally monitored and ajusted, you know, Big Brother turns down your thermostat. Oh, wait..

Wethal on November 16, 2010 at 4:42 PM

The only way to eliminate distracted driving is to eliminate driving itself.

Great, did you really have to let that chicken out of the bag!

New Patriot on November 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Why not just ban cars and force everyone onto public transportation? That’s what they really want anyway.

Redneck Woman on November 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM

We have a winner! Give back the freeways to Mother Gaia. Make all those racists move back from the suburbs (and wipe out their congressional districts while we’re at it).

Wethal on November 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM

I once saw someone on the 405 in LA eating from a bowl of soup with a spoon, while traveling at 65 mph.

Dasher on November 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Uh-oh, I’m busted. Hold on. I wasn’t eating soup with a spoon, it was a organic-laden, almond-milk, soy-yogurt…

jbh45 on November 16, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Touch my cell phone and I’ll have you arrested…heh

d1carter on November 16, 2010 at 4:45 PM

You just nailed it Gabe – and I won’t even get into the issues of those of us living out here in far west Texas where there’s often 80 or 90 miles between towns on two lane roads.

2nd Ammendment Mother on November 16, 2010 at 4:32 PM

I remember on the news a guy getting killed on the Fairfax County Parkway here in Northern Virginia because his car broke down and he got out of the car. The parkway is so dark at night, another car accidentally hit him. And another accident like that happened on I-95 that was reported around the same time. The police were saying on the news if it is at night to stay in your car if it breaks down and call the police.

Hmm, that will kind of hard to do if the Democratic Nanny State has its way and you can’t use your cellphone from the car.

Gabe on November 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM

And what if the person who is using the cell phone is a passenger? Government really stuck on stupid.

Dasher on November 16, 2010 at 4:50 PM

If my car gets a flat tire some winter night, I’d like to use my cell phone to call AAA from the safety of my car. If somebody spots a crime being committed and wants to report it fast (think Amber Alert), a cell phone might make the difference between catching the guilty party or not.

Jill1066 on November 16, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Extensive research carried out in the US and Australia has demonstrated time and again that using a cell phone while driving is the equivalent of driving drunk.

Do you want to drive drunk? Do you want your children killed by a “drunk” driver?

Many major companies have a ‘engine on, phone off’ policy for that very reason.

It’s very sad that a government would need to take the steps of dampening cell phone signals in cars because people are too selfish to do the right thing.

This is not a ‘solution in search of a problem’, road trauma is a very real but very preventable danger. Extensive research demonstrates cell phone use is completely different to holding conversations with passengers in the car. Research also clearly shows drivers are significantly distracted by the cell phone conversations of passengers. These are FACTS.

Do an experiment. Switch your cell phone off for a month before you drive. You will notice a few things:

You will not be as distracted as usual.

You will not miss anything important.

You will find that you actually enjoy the drive.

You might actually have a warm and meaningful conversation with your passengers.

You will actually be ‘present in the moment’ and not off with the fairies.

You will actually be a safer driver.

– Nick and Nora Charles

The Thin Man Returns on November 16, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Hmm, that will kind of hard to do if the Democratic Nanny State has its way and you can’t use your cellphone from the car.

Gabe on November 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM

My guess is that the scramblers only work when the car’s engine in on.

Jimbo3 on November 16, 2010 at 5:03 PM

I am so sick of these people and their reaching fingers. When will this end?

jawkneemusic on November 16, 2010 at 5:04 PM

What LaHood won’t tell you is that distracted driving isn’t the top cause of crashes. Or even the top preventable cause. Nope, traffic control is listed at the top. That means poor signage.

hawksruleva on November 16, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Do you want to drive drunk? Do you want your children killed by a “drunk” driver?

surrender freedom, you know, for the kids.

It’s very sad that a government would need to take the steps of dampening cell phone signals in cars because people are too selfish to do the right thing.

No bad laws could ever be justified using this rhetoric.

Inanemergencydial on November 16, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Did this guy miss the election a few weeks ago? I think the new House needs to disable his idea.

flyoverland on November 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM

LaHood’s a dip. This and any number of other matters.

JEM on November 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM

What LaHood won’t tell you is that distracted driving isn’t the top cause of crashes. Or even the top preventable cause. Nope, traffic control is listed at the top. That means poor signage.

hawksruleva on November 16, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Maybe LaHood should travel to Europe.

European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs

A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.

The utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads “Verkeersbordvrij” — “free of traffic signs.” Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen. There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There aren’t even any lines painted on the streets.

Note the use of the word ‘utopia’
silly leftists…

Inanemergencydial on November 16, 2010 at 5:09 PM

OnStar system of Government Motors is essentially a cell phone built into the car. It uses cell phone technology and cell sites. Let’s scramble it!

And don’t try to use your cell phone if you wreck and get stuck in your car – it might be dangerous ya know.

The cell phone industry is one of the few that is still thriving in this country, so naturally it must be attacked. They pay billions upon billions of dollars to the State for their frequency licenses, and their extraordinarily expensive networks are built around what? Yup, roads, because customers are concentrated either on or near roads and highways.

“We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives.”

Yeah, let’s require drivers and passengers to wear helmets and fire suits like NASCAR. It’ll save more lives than any ridiculous cell phone scrambler.

Come to think of it, we should just ban horseless carriages altogether. They are too dangerous.

forest on November 16, 2010 at 5:13 PM

There are two simultaneous progressive impulses at work here. First, government cannot stand by while anything bad happens in the world. If they can take action to prevent some harm, they should do so. Even potential accidental harm must be prevented. Second, people can’t control their actions on their own, so the government needs to take steps to prevent them from doing bad things, under penalty of law.

The first impulse, taken to its logical conclusion, ends up with people in cages. The second impulse, taken to its logical conclusion, also leads to people in cages.

Thus the results we see in all Leftist nations.

hawksruleva on November 16, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Not sure if anyone else mentioned this, but wouldn’t a cell phone ban logically migrate laterally into a ban on all communications between the driver and person(s) outside the vehicle? Even if they determined radio was not an issue because it doesn’t require the driver to respond, what about dispatch?

Cab drivers, delivery drivers, POLICE, Fire and Rescue…?

BKeyser on November 16, 2010 at 5:15 PM

As usual the government gets it backwards and focuses on the object people are using in an irresponsible manner rather than the irresponsible people themselves. Guess it makes too much sense to make causing an accident while using a cell phone a criminal offense à la a DUI.

infidel4life on November 16, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Future Headline in Obamerica: “Kidnapped woman tried to call police from trunk of car, found dead.”

Bruce MacMahon on November 16, 2010 at 5:18 PM

The Thin Man Returns on November 16, 2010 at 4:57 PM

I know using a phone while driving is dangerous, so I don’t do it. It’s the same reason I don’t eat Whoppers while I drive.

If states want to give people citations for doing these things while driving, that’s fine with me. But singling out cell phones for an absurdly draconian and expensive big brotherish measure as mandating a scrambler in each car is absolutely ridiculous. It’s disturbing to me that any thinking person could even consider this as a reasonable idea.

forest on November 16, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Real problem…bad solution.

Cell phones in the car are a 100% optional distraction, and it would be nice if manufacturers voluntarily made cell phones deactivate in moving cars, but I don’t see the need for a federal ban.

Although the responses I’m seeing make me wonder how on earth humanity survived and communicated until cell phones were invented.

Dark-Star on November 16, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Between this and the TSA considering allowing muslim women off the hook with genital pat downs I’m beginning to think obama is just trying to drive us all insane.

ctmom on November 16, 2010 at 5:24 PM

This idiocy must stop! No one except pedestrians are in danger from drivers on their cell phones anymore than they are in danger from 18 wheeler tractor trailers in the next lane. The fear of a problem is being used here to justify more government work doing absolutely nothing. Just buy blindfolds for everyone not driving and all will be forgotten.

jimw on November 16, 2010 at 5:31 PM

NEWS FLASH FOR LIBS:

Everyone dies.

People get sick… sometimes, as a result of doing things they know they shouldn’t be doing anyway (smoking, drinking to excess, not wearing sun block, not wearing a bike helmet, using dirty needles to inject themselves with heroin, having unprotected sex, etc.)

Americans eat more than they should… and they eat stuff that isn’t always good for them. Like Happy Meals.

And sometime, accidents — including car accidents — just happen.

Stop trying to create an all-protective utopian cocoon through legislation. Stop smothering us with silly laws, fines, and State-sponsored plundering our our rights. Live your own lives in a manner that you won’t be afraid of dying, because you know you being going to Heaven.

If you are so damn worried about protecting human life… outlaw abortion. And get rid of the stupid ROE that put our soldiers’ lives at risk.

VastRightWingConspirator on November 16, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Interestingly cell phone towers are concentrated along freeway corridors. Maybe LaHood can just get all the cell phone towers along freeways taken down. We don’t need those da#n cell phones. They can just reinstall the call boxes. /s

Dasher on November 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM

When they take joltin joe’s motorcades off the road I might think driving will be safer.My phone from my cold dead fingers.

Col.John Wm. Reed on November 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM

So, if I’m driving and witness an accident, I can’t call 911 to report it. Genius!

College Prof on November 16, 2010 at 5:35 PM

So, if I’m driving and witness an accident, I can’t call 911 to report it. Genius!

College Prof on November 16, 2010 at 5:35 PM

You wouldn’t be able to help anyway…assuming you aren’t a scientologist. Only scientologists can help after a car accident, according to Tom Cruise. FF to 1:08

Inanemergencydial on November 16, 2010 at 5:43 PM

We don’t need a way to disable cell phones, we need a way to disable government.

leereyno on November 16, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Let me guess who will have major stakes in the companies that will produce the units.

esnap on November 16, 2010 at 5:49 PM

The Thin Man Returns on November 16, 2010 at 4:57 PM

I cannot begin to count the hours I have spent talking on the phone while driving, and have never had an accident. It is not anywhere near the same as being drunk.

WisCon on November 16, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Ban driving by everyone but me.

Problem solved.

skatz51 on November 16, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Because since the existance of cell phone technolgy, there has not been one single instance in which the passenger has used the cell phone!! You have a better chance of winning powerball while simultaneously being hit by lightening and a meteor falling on you than having a passenger use a cell phone! Did brainiac in charge think of that one? The uter idiocy that comes out of these peoples mouth is truly frightening. How have they not electrocuted themselves before this using the hair dryer while taking a bath?

There’s stupid and then there is “LaHood”. This guy is negative on the IQ meter.

Niteowl45 on November 16, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Welcome to the not so brave world. The idiocy will never end.

CWforFreedom on November 16, 2010 at 6:03 PM

If they disable cell phones in cars, they will start to disable them everywhere. This isn’t about safety, it’s about people being able to communicate easily to each other.

I’m throwing out a question here… any college age people having problems with cell phone reception on college campuses in certain buildings? Just curious.
There are buildings on Penn Tech campus that you cannot get reception in at all. I was working a Bloomsburg University job awhile back. This campus sits high on top of a hill. The one building we worked in got zero reception. You had to step outside the door to make a cell call. Anywhere within the building (4 floors) you could not get reception. Step outside the building, right outside the door, you got reception. Strangest thing in the world. Hey, I don’t know, maybe it’s not that abnormal at all. This was a building undergoing renovations and is a filled with classrooms.

Along with that (just to add to the paranoia/conspiracy thing) while working there I overheard a supervisor tell several electricians they were not allowed in a particular room, that it was completely off limits. That the University had it’s own “special” electricians to do the electrical work in that particular room. I only even remember the conversation because off the attitude of the supervisor talking. It was like he thought it was crazy.

JellyToast on November 16, 2010 at 6:04 PM

I think we’re missing a big damned point for having a mobile phone in a car: safety. Let’s say you get in an accident, and the #&%^%((##@ scrambler won’t let you call emergency services. Someone is trying to carjack you, and you surreptitiously dial 911. Oops! Won’t go through.

But, a person or two had an accident, so, Big Daddy Government has to jump in.

How much you want to bet LaHood uses his phone will driving and being driven around?

William Teach on November 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM

It’s very sad that a government would need to take the steps of dampening cell phone signals in cars because people are too selfish to do the right thing.

The Thin Man Returns on November 16, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Number one, I’m just not going to let you call everyone working their ass off to keep their jobs in this economy so they can keep a roof over their kids’ heads “selfish.” So screw off on that count. And don’t give me any crap about my attitude if you’re going to OPEN with “everyone who disagrees with me is selfish,” or you’ll just be a hypocrite as well as rude.

Number two, no, you can’t enforce everything you think is a good idea, WHETHER IT IS OR NOT, on everyone. I don’t care whether it’s brushing your teeth after every meal or crash helmets for all drivers. There is NO END to “good ideas.” You have to do better than that.

Number three, the best way to REALLY reduce car crashes would be SERIOUS driver training and vehicle maintenance schedules enforced. The former is expensive and time consuming, the latter expensive and intrusive, but at least neither one deactivates a basic safety device like a cellphone.

Merovign on November 16, 2010 at 6:20 PM

“How much you want to bet LaHood uses his phone will driving and being driven around?” William Teach on November 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM

Rules are not for the annointed, i.e., bureaucrats. Silly! Rules, like taxes, are for the little people, especially those who vote incorrectly.

Next, enhanced security screening in voting places!

etaoinshrdlu on November 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Nanny state, nanny state, oh, nanny, nanny state.

Nanny state.

It’s a wonder we can even breathe.

“In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, ‘Make us your slaves, but feed us” – Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881)

locomotivebreath1901 on November 16, 2010 at 6:29 PM

The only way to eliminate distracted driving is to eliminate driving itself.

Sounds like a plan to me! If we can kept from driving, we’re just that much easier to control. Dis-arm your populace, don’t let them move around as they wish, just keep them controlled.

oldleprechaun on November 16, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Yeah, nothing says “safety” like stopping in a ghetto neighborhood to make an emergency call because the government says you can’t make it from your car.

Vera on November 16, 2010 at 6:45 PM

The is the stupidest idea of all the stupidest ideas coming from this stupidest administration and the worst part is that it is coming from a stupid faux republican.

So, you have an accident in the middle of the winter up here in AK, miles from anytown in the middle of the night. Are we supposed to wait to see if someone comes along or do we die out in the cold?
Oops, don’t want to give them any ideas

ConservativePartyNow on November 16, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Nexus of two stupid ideas:

TSA conducts a full body pat-down to make sure you do not have a cell phone before entering your car.

kurtzz3 on November 16, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Ban putting on makeup in cars? Ban smoking in cars? Ban smoking in cars?

Jackassian!!!

PappyD61 on November 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM

This law, if it ever becomes one should only apply to the person driving in front of me.

tommer74 on November 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Sorry I was typing the previous post while driving!!

:-)

PappyD61 on November 16, 2010 at 6:55 PM

As long as we are being protected from ourselves how can it be wrong? While they are at it… I believe a volume limiter should be installed in every car to make sure that we don’t increase our health care costs by playing music too loud when anyone is in the car. We must be protected from ourselves and it only makes sense to force our youths to take care of their hearing…

tomlw on November 16, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3