Government Wants to Restrict In-Vehicle Communications
Too Much Government
This is yet another thing government does not need to be involved with. They do too many things already, which are incredibly invasive and cost money we do not have. I say, no further!
Yeah, I agree with you, but you are using that kind of Logic based on a safety issue?
Look, if you were operating your own vehicle on a private roadway with no other citizens around, and no possibility of causing harm while you are distracted, the...
(continues)
Look, if you were operating your own vehicle on a private roadway with no other citizens around, and no possibility of causing harm while you are distracted, the...
(continues)
...
not to sure about this
i mean this is a good thing and a bad thing. i think would definitely reduce car accidents. do i think it would reduce it enough for people to notice? No not at all. people are still goin to do it.
It's nothing but a bad thing. It's government overstepping once again. What's next? A cell phone scrambling device on every car? Stupid regulations by a stupid government given far too much power.
...
No, its all bad. Its called Big Brother. Government telling you want you can and can't do. Laws already exist to discourage inattentive driving. Obama the Communist on the loose.
...
Bad Form by the Gov
With the speed of tech development the Gov should work with tech integration not ban it... in very near future you'll see this as an inevitability... but why do I feel like explaining tech to Gov officials would be like a Droid tutorial with a 70 year old
I have to disagree on this one. I live in California where it is already illegal to be on the phone without a handsfree. I support this because it keeps me safe. It's simply a safety enforcement such as a speed limit. And come on let's be honest we al...
(continues)
(continues)
...
@bearofpanda:
You support this because it keeps you safe? The government could mandate wearing a helmet 24 hours a day using that good. The fact is that this is invasive and not what the federal government is for. That you are a California residen...
(continues)
You support this because it keeps you safe? The government could mandate wearing a helmet 24 hours a day using that good. The fact is that this is invasive and not what the federal government is for. That you are a California residen...
(continues)
...
Guidelines-not legislation
Come on people, read the whole article with the supplied link to Reuters:
These are proposed GUIDELINES for automakers the administration is outlining, and not legislation. At least that is what the supplied link in the article is stating.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/us-usa-aut ... »
So you have the Obama administration that wants to restrict certain practices, Congress which has shown no interest in restricting them and automakers...well I am sure everyone knows their position.
This is going nowhere at least for the moment...
These are proposed GUIDELINES for automakers the administration is outlining, and not legislation. At least that is what the supplied link in the article is stating.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/us-usa-aut ... »
So you have the Obama administration that wants to restrict certain practices, Congress which has shown no interest in restricting them and automakers...well I am sure everyone knows their position.
This is going nowhere at least for the moment...
