Lars Larson: Government looking at disabling cell phones in cars

Are you ready for our “Nanny State” government to not only ban cell phone use in cars, but actually disable them?

I’ve thought that Ray LaHood has been crazy for quite some time. He’s the Transportation Secretary for President Obama. LaHood has actually said, “We’re going to force people to get out of their cars.”

Well, apparently he’s also going to force you to stop using your cell phone.

Simply banning talking on a cell phone behind the wheel is not enough for him. He’s on MSNBC saying, “I think it will be done. Scrambling technology is there and I think you are going to see the technology become adaptable to disable cell phones. We need to do a lot more if we are going to save lives.”

Ready for Nanny State LaHood to be driving behind the wheel with you? He’s not only telling you that you can’t use your cell phone but he’s going to disable it so that it won’t work.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:45 | Posted in Measure 37 | 31 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • tom goltr vdree colre

    tolre gggro iinolre ol

  • Bob Clark

    Rumor has it these scramblers are high in radiation pulses. So, Lahood ends up frying us all but also accomplishing his goal of getting folks out of their cars. No people, No problem.

    Fire Lahood before he fry’s you, grandma, and me!

  • jim karlock

    This is typically progressive proposal, that , as ususal, doesn’t care who gets hurt:

    — Don’t have a medical emergency while driving – you won’t be able to call for help
    — See a drunk driver – you can’t report him.
    — see an accident – you can’t report it.
    — See a crime while driving – you won’t be able to report it.

    How perfectly progressive.

    But much less offensive than some past progressive milestones:
    –The racial segregation of Washington DC.
    — Our entry into the War to end all wars which set the stage for Hitler.

    Thanks
    JK

  • T Solo

    Having trouble believing you aren’tbeing disingenuous here for the sake of stirring up your audience.

    Are you so paranoid that you really believe the federal gov’t would prevent us from using our cell phones in case of emergency?

    What LaHood actually said:
    “There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that. A number of [cell technology innovators] came to our Distracted Driving Summit here in Washington and presented their technology, and that’s ONE way. BUT you have to have good laws, you have to have good enforcement, and you have to have people take personal responsibility. That’s the bottom line.”

    On his blog he added: “But we also recognize the limitations of technology. ”

    If you want to get freaked about about gov’t intervention, where’s you outrage about drug laws, marriage restrictions and other victimless offenses?

    Distracted driving is NOT VICTIMLESS; and when someone yakking on cell phone while driving kills one of yours, you’ll be the first crybabies screaming for a law.

    This is not some abstract govt vs citizens deal; thousands are being killed each year. Educate yourselves; visit distraction.gov/faces and you’ll see what I mean–unless your paranoia runs so deep you think those are fake videos.

    • Howard K.

      It is about goverment inacting laws for the betterment of society. Oregon recently passed a petition that had two resolutions on it. Previous Resolutions were dictated by the Oreg. Supreme Court too be invalid because two individual resolutions were on the ballot. We will see will this will go ??? Oh well , still let us see where this “New Cell Phone Law goes.
      I just happen to have the “Exclusive Use” too use my cell phone while driving under the “Agricultural Use “, because I own farmland, and really most of my phone calls are under that catorgory. Of course , if I am pulled over, I will get a ticket and have to prove to the Judge that , that phone call was really Agiculture. My phone records would prove it , but in the meantime a great cost on me ( the Public) to prove my innocense to the courts.
      What is becomming of our society that we have to prove that we are innocence, to our courts?
      I certainly agree we all have to be responsible for our actions, talking on cell phones, drinking when driving, but enough is enough.
      I believe the next thing will be my coffee intake ? So let us “Mothers Against Whatever”, shut down Starbucks, Mc Donells, Dennys Restraunts, Kentucky “Fried” Chicken and of course every Pizza Place for High Closteral.
      We are way overboard and either Democrats or Replublicans have to stop the reotric. Let us stop the over spending. I will survive but will my siblings or the next generation.

    • jim karlock

      *where’s you outrage about drug laws, marriage restrictions and other victimless offenses?*
      See: http://www.mclp.org

      Thanks
      JK

      • T

        Thanks for the link!

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Are you so paranoid that you really believe the federal gov’t would prevent us from using our cell phones in case of emergency?

      How in the world is this paranoid?

      Government at all levels routinely takes steps to prevent citizens from taking action in an emergency that would be beneficial.

      Are you unaware that the Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagen, during Katrina illegally and unconstitutionally confiscated citizens firearms leaving them totally defenseless in the situation where they needed them most?

      Get real – the thought that the Federal government would do this is hardly paranoid.

    • John in Oregon

      > *Are you so paranoid that you really believe the federal gov’t would prevent us from using our cell phones in case of emergency?*

      Yes. The Government has done worse in the past, why expect otherwise now?

      > *What LaHood actually said:*

      Yes I heard his dissembling. The point is it’s a patently stupid idea that in any conversation should not have gone beyond someone simply saying “that’s stupid”. But not LaHood, he wants to research it.

      > * If you want to get freaked about about (sic) gov’t intervention, where’s you outrage about drug laws, marriage restrictions and other victimless offenses?*

      The problem with your straw man here is that your examples are for things people have actually done. LaHood’s solution is to punish for something a person might do in the future. The term of art is “Prior Restraint” and there was a quite famous court case based on that principal.

      > *Distracted driving is NOT VICTIMLESS; … This is not some abstract govt vs citizens deal; thousands are being killed each year.*

      With the auto death rate falling I doubt that your statistic holds water. In fact I would guess that more are killed by the plastic cars built to comply with government auto fuel mileage standards.

      • T Solo

        You are absolutely free to doubt any statistics that challenge your way of thinking, but I hope you don’t make important decisions based on your gut or your intuition or something like that. I like to use rational, logical thought.
        But, if you do want to let your emotions do your thinking for you, here’s a good video for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vB22cW1ZMY
        Sure, it was produced by the US DOT, so you will probably dismiss it, but if that were your daughter trapped on the floor of a burning school bus, you’d be begging for a law.

    • Anonymous

      Taking one sentence out of a whole paragraph or a few words out of a sentence to make it sound like a liberal said something totally insane is a favorite tactic of the right wing.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >“I think it will be done. Scrambling technology is there and I think you are going to see the technology become adaptable to disable cell phones. We need to do a lot more if we are going to save lives.”

    Someone might want to inform the Transportation secretary that what he is suggesting is totally illegal.

    From his comments Mr LaHood apparently thinks this is a question of technology.

    Contrary to Mr. LaHoods assertion, cell phone jamming equipment doesn’t need to be adapted from anything. It exists, is available, and has been for years. Why is this boob in charge of anything more than a Hot Wheels set?

    So the answer is no Mr. LaHood – the issue is not if the technology is available, the issue is it is simply illegal for you to disable communications just because you feel like it.

    When a man is as obviously ignorant both of technology, FCC restrictions and basic first amendment issues, as LaHood clearly is, one begins to understand some of the basic issues more and more of the public seems to be having with the current administration.

  • John in Oregon

    As usual a well thought through example of Government knows best. Put aside the fact that the bus or car passenger is punished in the name of preventing some perceived future potential driver violation of an arcane standard of we the government knows best. Consider the technical issues involved.

    One could turn the entire vehicle into a full metal shielded container of potential law violating people. The windows would be a problem requiring imbedded metal shielding. The driver and passengers of course could not be allowed to open a window to defeat the government demand.

    The alternate technology is off the shelf cell phone jammers in every vehicle. Working just like the Soviet radio jammers they broadcast a signal that interferes with the cell phone. Better still that solution can be forced as a retrofit even on a Model T.

    With a jammer the phone wont work within 50 feet of a vehicle, but oh well. That pedestrian really didn’t need to dial 911 now did they?

    Even better news, the jamers are a first step in the battle against distracted walkers.

    The typical well thought through demands of a bureaucrat like Robbing LeHood snd his plan to impose Government Control and punishment of anyone who might violate government dictates some time in the future.

    Rupert, you are correct about the use of unlicensed jamming transmitters. But then you forgot rule number 472,929 P14, Rules, Laws, and the Constitution don’t apply to bureaucrats and politicians.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Rupert, you are correct about the use of unlicensed jamming transmitters. But then you forgot rule number 472,929 P14, Rules, Laws, and the Constitution don’t apply to bureaucrats and politicians.

      True.

      And look at what a great example this is of the totalitarian impulse of leftists. Here we have a clown suggesting breaking the law an jamming cell phones. DOes it bother any of the lefties? Nope, not a bit.

      Remember that the next time these clowns start yammering. I guess only GITMO detainees, and only when they are detained by Repubublicanp presidents count for the left getting fired up about government overstepping.

    • T Solo

      Again, the paranoia clouds your logic.
      Whatever you think about Ray LaHood, there is not a single person in that US DOT–including Mr. Lahood–who would propose requiring a technology that prevented passengers from using their devices. And there is not a single Congressperson who would vote for such a law.
      That would be anti-safety, and as much as you and Rush would like to think the gov’t wants to keep citizens from communicating with each other, I suspect your fantasy-leftist-totalitarians know better that to take you seriously.

  • valley p

    You guys need to take the tin foil off your heads once in a while.

  • John in Oregon

    Can’t to that VP. Tin foil makes the cell phone stop working. Aluminum foil is ok I think.

    So you think I am paranoid? Then tell me about the national guard personnel returning from Afghanistan on a military charter.

    The TSA makes them all get off the plane at a drop off stop over. The soldiers each carrying an M4 Carbine, the gunners with M-240B machine guns and the officers also with M9 pistols. The soldiers must be searched to be sure they didn’t have nail clippers or anything they would use to take over the plane.

    So as the officer said, “This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.”

    But then as we learned in the Karate Kid an old rag is a weapon. I can’t wait until the TSA makes everyone fly nude.

    • valley p

      “So you think I am paranoid? ”

      Yes. You and many of the other posters here take small matters and blow them up into gigantic conspiracies on a regular basis. Its a form of paranoia, mostly harmless to others fortunately.

      Your side is the same one that encouraged and supported the government torturing suspects. The same that supported the Patriot Act. The same that supports having more people in prison per capita than any other nation on earth. Had George Bush still been president you would have supported the TSA in this case. Your side accused Obama of negligence when the underpants bomber nearly succeeded. And if a plane goes down on his watch you will be all over his case.

      So it is a strangely selective paranoia. You trust and support government overreach when one of yours is in the White house, and freak out when the other guys are in charge.

      As for me, I am a somewhat frequent flier. I hate the whole security routine, the long lines, the shoe and belt removal, the no water bottles or even shampoo over 3 ounces, and now this latest indignity. (As someone who looks Middle eastern, I’m also not a big fan of profiling as an alternative.) I think things have probably gone 2 steps farther than is warranted, and I hope we start dialing it back. But having said that, I do think we have to balance risk versus inconvenience. If we dial back, or even if we don’t, sooner or later some nut is going to manage to blow up a plane, and I might be on it. Its one of the costs of our empire.

      • Anonymous

        “You trust and support government overreach when one of yours is in the White house, and freak out when the other guys are in charge.”

        During the Clinton administration I used to see bumper stickers that said: “I Love My Country But Fear My Government.” During the Bush administration those bumper stickers oddly disappeared (even though that was a government that we all really needed to fear).

        Now that we have a Democrat in the White House again, the bumper stickers have reappeared. An uncanny coincidence, eh?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Now that we have a Democrat in the White House again, the bumper stickers have reappeared. An uncanny coincidence, eh?

          So in other words you are suggesting that the fear of government is partisan based rather than reality based?

          Nice try, but you probably wont get to far with that one.

          With Clinton I don’t think anyone would argue the need for fear was justified – the guy had a pretty clearly out of control justice department and openly contemplated scouring all electronic communication regardless of having a warrant under the Carnivore program. Lets face it, when you use M1 tanks and military over flights against civilians, it gets real hard to tell people that maybe there isn’t a bit to worry about.

          With Bush – sure there was concern over some of his wiretapping of overseas phone calls, but other than that probably not a lot to get worked up about. Not much else really there domestically so hard to see why you felt there was some huge need to fear the Bush administration.

          Obama? Well, lets see, he pretty much continued all the Bush policies as far as the wire tapping goes. Right there you pretty much invalidate any claim to think fear of the Bush admin was more justified than the current one.

          Obama jumping in and taking control over auto companies? Forcing Obama care on everyone clearly against the publics wishes?

          You have a pretty big hurdle to overcome there and say somehow the fear of the current administration is partisan based. Especially if you are going to claim the Bush administration should have been more feared.

          Maybe you could give your reasoning, because frankly your comments sound more partisan based than reality based.

          Hint, if you list any of bush’s war on terror stuff as reasons why that administration should have been feared more than the current one, you lose, Obama continued just about all of the bush policies, yet you give him a pass apparently.

          Good luck!

          • valley p

            “With Bush – sure there was concern over some of his wiretapping of overseas phone calls, but other than that probably not a lot to get worked up about. ”

            So official sanction of physically torturing combatants and suspected terrorists, something the US once executed Japanese military leaders for, is not worth getting worked up over?

            Rupert, you are a daily living, breathing, example of selective outrage.

            “Obama jumping in and taking control over auto companies?”

            Right. Only the auto companies came to the government and asked for money, and that was while Bush was president, and he gave them the money. And when they couldn’t pay it back and asked for more, only THEN did Obama “jump in” and take equity in exchange for more loans. And you turn that into “taking control of” as if this was some sort of socialist dream run amok? And how do you explain the fact we just sold our majority ownership of GM? Don’t bother.

            This is the…I can only say it your way….blithering idiocy of the right. You guys are in charge, the entire economy collapses, Obama puts 10 fingers in the dike and you blame him for rescuing capitalists. Its beyond nonsensical.

            “Forcing Obama care on everyone clearly against the publics wishes?”

            How about forcing Americans to sustain a war against their wishes? That was your dude. And now, Obama is doing the same in Afghanistan. Should he pull out tomorrow because the polls say this is what the American people want? Or on that one should he ignore the polls? Should Republicans accept the reality of global warming because the majority of Americans do? Should you accept the Americans happen to like socialism in the form of alms for old people, as most Americans do? Are you saying that the only bills that can pass are those that poll over 50%? Is that really what you want?

            Then say goodbye to your tax breaks for millionaires and a whole lot else dear to you. If the polls rule, you are in deep trouble.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >So official sanction of physically torturing combatants and suspected terrorists

            Not really, lets face it, everyone approved of the procedure from Pelosi on down. Been done plenty of times before by both Democrats and Republicans. Not a lot new here.

            Please – in the future can you stop with your false moral outrage about torture and rights and all this nonsense. We all know you wouldn’t have a problem with it if it was Obama doing it.

            How do we know this? Well, because you defend Pelosi, who approved of the torture, and because you don’t complain about Obama, who continued just about every Bush policy towards Iraq one can name.

            Hey – here is an old chestnut for ya – Remember when you were all apoplectic about Bush supposedly abrogating peoples rights with the “warrantless wiretapping”? Wow, you sure shut up when Obama continued it.

            Oh and this oldie but goodie – Remember when you went nuts over GITMO? Remember when you calmed down and didn’t say thing one when Obama didn’t do a thing about it after running specifically on closing GITMO?

            Please, lets be adults, you were outraged at Bush because he was a Republican, you accept it from Obama because he is a Democrat.

            I at least have the intellectual honesty not to condemn Obama for continuing the Bush policies regarding Iraq. I accept them from Obama just as I did from Bush.

            Your excuse of that which you once condemned is an utter indictment of your selective outrage.

          • valley p

            “Not really, lets face it, everyone approved of the procedure from Pelosi on down. ”

            BS. But even if you were close to being right, so what? “Everyone” of substance thought the TARP bailout was the right thing to do. Same for GM. Every economist of note favored a larger stimulus.

            “Please – in the future can you stop with your false moral outrage”

            There is nothing false about my feelings about officially sanctioned torture as being the most un-American and un-human policy we have seen out of Washington in a long long time.

            “We all know you wouldn’t have a problem with it if it was Obama doing it.”

            You don’t know any such thing.

            “Well, because you defend Pelosi, who approved of the torture”

            a) I did not defend Pelosi and b) she did not “approve” of torture. You are batting 1000 here.

            “and because you don’t complain about Obama, who continued just about every Bush policy towards Iraq one can name.”

            Obama has done in Iraq what he proposed during the election and what I supported and still do. A gradual drawdown on a fixed timetable. The very thing you, Bush, and Cheney and McCain and Rush all argued against, saying that a fixed timetable would favor the insurgents. And now he finally appears to have a fixed timetable for Afghanistan. Its about time.

            “Remember when you went nuts over GITMO?”

            No, I never went nuts about anything. But to your point, Bush ran Gitmo as a torture chamber and warehouse. Obama has tried to close it but was stopped by the weenies in congress and you weenie Republicans who don’t seem to think a federal max prison can hold these guys. He would have closed it a long time ago but for the likes of you. I don’t blame him for failing. At least he tried. And at least he is trying to clear the cases.

            “Please, lets be adults, you were outraged at Bush because he was a Republican,”

            Again…I don’t do outrage. That is your juvenile emotion, and precludes the adult part. I save outrage for serious and immediate matters. My opposition to Bush was based on policies. Blew the surplus, blew the economy, blew the Katrina response, tried to kill social security, and most importantly started a war for no good reason. I don’t care if he was a Republican or a Socialist. He was the worst president the US has had in 80 plus years, and he has a record that does not lie.

            “I at least have the intellectual honesty …”

            Stop yourself right there. This is a trait you would not even recognize, let alone possess. You don’t seem to have an intellectually honest bone in your body. But maybe if you went through one of those airport scans they would uncover one. A pinkie metatarsal perhaps.

  • Mort

    My cell phone is my only way to update my Facebook stuff, so I have to use it when I drive. People want to know all about me and what I think all the time. I can not and will not let them down.

    • Anonymous

      LOL! Yes indeed, how did the human species survive in that long-ago primitive age before we were able to chat, twitter, tweet and chirp to each other constantly, usually about nothing?

  • John in Oregon

    VP on the subject of paranoia you feel that > *You and many of the other posters here take small matters and blow them up into gigantic conspiracies on a regular basis.*

    Aside from the possibility that you are projecting your feelings upon others, you utterly failed to address the issue of institutionalized paranoia I raised.

    Notice I did not raise that security needlessly forced 233 solders going to the next stop to get off the aircraft. Nor did I raise that security intended to break the US Customs security seals on the baggage. I didn’t even raise that after being held in a secure holding area they were force do go through security screening yet again.

    I simply raised the paranoia of the TSA security agent confiscating a pair of nail clippers from a soldier carrying his service issue carbine. Why? Because the soldier would use the nail clippers as a weapon to overpower 232 other soldiers and commander the aircraft.

    VP you are mistaking resistance to government overreach as paranoia. Just remember it isnt paranoia when government bureaucrats actions causes people actual real harm. With only 1,000 new laws in each state that’s 50,000 new state laws a year. When each law results in dozens of pages of regulations compliance becomes impossible.

    Don’t believe it? Just ask Krister Evertson an experimenter in new technology fuel cells. He was jailed for using the incorrect label on a UPS package. Or you could ask George Norris.

    Better still the Lacey Act is an example of dangerous all inclusive of federal criminal law. Congress has made it a federal crime to violate any fish or wildlife law or regulation of any nation on earth. God help us if Upper Eastporchbucket declares the termite or bed bug an endangered species.

    • valley p

      “Aside from the possibility that you are projecting your feelings upon others…”

      Since I’m not the one expressing paranoia, there is no evidence that I am projecting the feeling of it.

      “VP you are mistaking resistance to government overreach as paranoia.”

      No. I’m pointing out that much of this so called “resistance” is based on believing every rumor one reads on the internet. Assuming you are correct about the total number of laws being passed, it is a sort of paranoia to assume that some or many of those laws are unconstitutionally restricting your freedoms. Legislators pass laws. These laws tend to accumulate. So what? Were you complaining about the number of laws passed when Republicans were in charge? Did they pass fewer laws? Is the number of laws important, or the content of those laws?

      I live in the same state and nation as you. I have not noticed the government oppressing me lately.

      “He was jailed for using the incorrect label on a UPS package.”

      Why do I think there is something more to this story?

      “declares the termite or bed bug an endangered species. ”

      If we ever get down to the last handful of termites or bed bugs, then they would certainly be eligible for endangered species status. Until then, you are merely expressing more paranoia.

      And don’t knock termites. They are way important insects in tropical and semi-tropical forests. They add a lot of organic matter to otherwise depauperate soils, and that organic matter allows the rest of the forest to grow.

      Bed bugs may prove to be an important economic stimulator in prodding people to buy new mattresses. And GDP being what it is, any economic activity is good right?

  • Pingback: prediksi bola akurat()

  • Pingback: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFj84RERMLY()

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster()

  • Pingback: tickled()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)