«

It has been long established that the United States federal government does
not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while driving a
vehicle.

Until now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a3nTM_b0Aicw

The popularity of the cellphone has now become the mainstay of
communication with friends and family throughout the world. As technology
changed, so did the cellphones. My first cellphone I had to carry like a
briefcase. Now, they fit in your shirt pocket with room to spare.
As the popularity increased, states became more aware and began imposing
restrictions on their use while driving.

The next step was to include a keyboard so you could send short messages
and thus cut down on your airtime. This feature became known as "texting".

In 1992 the US federal government mandated that every truck driver in the
US have a special "Commercial Drivers License" (CDL), which would show that
they passed a knowledge test and a skills test. But the license would be
issued by the states. Enforcement of the new laws would also be handled
through the states as well the fines.

But that has now changed.

As far as I know, as I was a commercial truck driver, for 10 year, this is
the first instance where the US government has declared exactly what the
fine is going to be. A whopping $2,750 per instance. Ouch!

In my puny little opinion, this sucks. As there is a clause in the United
States Constitution which forbids the posting of excessive fines. This fine
meets that clause. As practically no state has ever imposed such an
outrageous fine for a minor misdemeanor traffic offense.

Is the federal government now going to push for more outrageous fines like
this against CDL owners and perhaps other drivers? I can only hope that
someone will kick the government's high and mighty ass hard with a lawsuit
and show that this kind of law enforcement should remain with the states.

richard wrote:
> It has been long established that the United States federal government does
> not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while driving a
> vehicle.
>
> Until now.
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a3nTM_b0Aicw
>
> The popularity of the cellphone has now become the mainstay of
> communication with friends and family throughout the world. As technology
> changed, so did the cellphones. My first cellphone I had to carry like a
> briefcase. Now, they fit in your shirt pocket with room to spare.
> As the popularity increased, states became more aware and began imposing
> restrictions on their use while driving.
>
> The next step was to include a keyboard so you could send short messages
> and thus cut down on your airtime. This feature became known as "texting".
>
> In 1992 the US federal government mandated that every truck driver in the
> US have a special "Commercial Drivers License" (CDL), which would show that
> they passed a knowledge test and a skills test. But the license would be
> issued by the states. Enforcement of the new laws would also be handled
> through the states as well the fines.
>
> But that has now changed.
>
> As far as I know, as I was a commercial truck driver, for 10 year, this is
> the first instance where the US government has declared exactly what the
> fine is going to be. A whopping $2,750 per instance. Ouch!
>
> In my puny little opinion, this sucks. As there is a clause in the United
> States Constitution which forbids the posting of excessive fines. This fine
> meets that clause. As practically no state has ever imposed such an
> outrageous fine for a minor misdemeanor traffic offense.

The fine meets that clause, only in your puny little opinion.

> Is the federal government now going to push for more outrageous fines like
> this against CDL owners and perhaps other drivers? I can only hope that
> someone will kick the government's high and mighty ass hard with a lawsuit
> and show that this kind of law enforcement should remain with the states.

You, are an idiot. You can't see that texting while piloting
40 tons down public roads can easily lead to the same outcome
as driving while intoxicated while piloting 40 tons down public
roads?

I say make the fine higher and yank their CDL!

--
Jordon

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:39:11 -0800, Evan Platt wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:01:12 -0700, richard <>
> wrote:
>
>>The next step was to include a keyboard so you could send short messages
>>and thus cut down on your airtime. This feature became known as "texting".
>
> Wow, thanks for your history on cell phones. I'm sure that was very
> informative... to someone who's been living in a cave or been in a
> coma for the past 30 years.
>
>>In 1992 the US federal government mandated that every truck driver in the
>>US have a special "Commercial Drivers License" (CDL), which would show that
>>they passed a knowledge test and a skills test. But the license would be
>>issued by the states. Enforcement of the new laws would also be handled
>>through the states as well the fines.
>>
>>But that has now changed.
>>
>>As far as I know, as I was a commercial truck driver, for 10 year, this is
>>the first instance where the US government has declared exactly what the
>>fine is going to be. A whopping $2,750 per instance. Ouch!
>
> Grammar, fail.
>
>>In my puny little opinion,
>
> Indeed.
>
>>this sucks. As there is a clause in the United States Constitution which forbids the posting of excessive fines. This fine
>>meets that clause.
>
> Define "Excessive".
>
> There's a difference between commercial drivers and 'regular' drivers.
> Commercial drivers are held to a higher standard. They are required to
> take more difficult tests. To take physicals. As such, they have
> greater responsibilities than the person driving the 2 door coupe.
>
> And, think about it. That person at the 2 door coupe texts while
> driving, how much damage can he do?
> Now, think of the guy driving the - what, 25 ton semi? How much damage
> can HE do?
>
> Or the guy driving the train.
>
> I'd say the fine is far from "excessive".
>
>>As practically no state has ever imposed such an
>>outrageous fine for a minor misdemeanor traffic offense.
>
> "minor misdemeanor traffic offense" ?
>
> That "minor misdemeanor traffic offense" can easily turn into a
> accident costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and potentially
> cause multiple fatalities.

"Excessive fine" has been defined by the courts.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

In other words, fines shall be imposed to fit the severity of the crime.
While many states have rather stiff penalties for such mundane infractions
as no seatbelt, the federal government has never before stated precisely
what a fine should be for any law it imposes on vehicles or drivers.

For instance, it is a federal requirement for every vehicle produced to
have seatbelts. Yet, no fine has been imposed by the federal government.
Stating what the fine shall be has always been given to the states.

Truckers, are not allowed to have radar detectors. Yet, the federal
government does not impose a mandatory fine. Truckers are required to wear
seat belts, again, no mandatory fine.

AFAIK, it is still legal for truckers to talk on cell phones while driving
in states that allow it. So why all of a sudden has the federal government
insist on such a ban and fine? Lobbyists. Somebody just got a nice fat
paycheck for having the law passed for sure.

So are you going to sit by and let the federal government slowly take your
rights as a person in a free democratic society? Or are you going to get
off your lazy high and mighty ass and do something about it?

richard wrote:
> "Excessive fine" has been defined by the courts.
>
> "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

That in no way defines excessive bail or excessive fines
or cruel and unusual punishment. In order to define what
those things, are you need limits. The word excessive, by
itself, is only an opinion. And yours sucks.

> In other words, fines shall be imposed to fit the severity of the crime.

Right! And doing something that foolish can kill people
just like driving under the influence and the penalty for
that is usually a lot more.

> So are you going to sit by and let the federal government slowly take your
> rights as a person in a free democratic society? Or are you going to get
> off your lazy high and mighty ass and do something about it?

You really want the right to be able to endanger the lives
of other motorists?

--
Jordon

richard <> wrote in
news:18n8btk11wjqe.1sjf2pbjdfru9$.:

> It has been long established that the United States federal government
> does not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while
> driving a vehicle.
>
> Until now.
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a3nTM_b0Aicw
>
> The popularity of the cellphone has now become the mainstay of
> communication with friends and family throughout the world. As
> technology changed, so did the cellphones. My first cellphone I had to
> carry like a briefcase. Now, they fit in your shirt pocket with room
> to spare. As the popularity increased, states became more aware and
> began imposing restrictions on their use while driving.
>


Interstate traffic. Exactly what *is* covered by the Federal Government.
As for people who cell phones and esp. texting while driving - screw
them to the wall. Doubly so for 18+ wheelers. I'd have no problems with them
permanently losing their licence on the first offence with the later - texting.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

richard wrote:

> It has been long established that the United States federal government
> does not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while
> driving a vehicle.

You are too tightly focused with that statement. *Speeding* is an
"infraction of the law while driving a vehicle."

U.S. federal officers have been issuing speeding tickets and fines in
national parks for years. Next time you switch motels, go through a
national park and disobey the speed limit. You will pay your fine to a
federal authority.

> Until now.

Until decades ago.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:07:54 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> richard wrote:
>
>> It has been long established that the United States federal government
>> does not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while
>> driving a vehicle.
>
> You are too tightly focused with that statement. *Speeding* is an
> "infraction of the law while driving a vehicle."
>
> U.S. federal officers have been issuing speeding tickets and fines in
> national parks for years. Next time you switch motels, go through a
> national park and disobey the speed limit. You will pay your fine to a
> federal authority.
>
>> Until now.
>
> Until decades ago.

FYI, smartboy, the NP police are actually authorized by the state within
which they are assigned.
A few years back I asked the NP director that very question. What authority
do the officers have outside of a national park?
His response was the same authority any state trooper has. So you could be
on I-5 in California speeding down at 90mph, pass an NP car and get pulled
over and cited.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:39:11 -0800, Evan Platt wrote:

> That "minor misdemeanor traffic offense" can easily turn into a accident
> costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and potentially cause multiple
> fatalities.

Using a mobile phone while driving increases the chance of the driver
having an accident by a factor of four. About the same as someone who's
over the alcohol limit for driving.

Nothing 'minor' about it.



--
Algy met a bear
The bear was bulgy
The bulge was Algy

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:30:33 -0700, richard wrote:

> AFAIK, it is still legal for truckers to talk on cell phones while
> driving in states that allow it. So why all of a sudden has the federal
> government insist on such a ban and fine? Lobbyists. Somebody just got a
> nice fat paycheck for having the law passed for sure.
>

Talking on a cell phone while driving is no different from drinking and
driving. They put other road users and pedestrians in exactly the same
danger.

> So are you going to sit by and let the federal government slowly take
> your rights as a person in a free democratic society?

So, you're saying that you have the constitutional right to behave in away
that is reckless and likely to put others in lethal danger?

****ing strange constitution you've got there.

> Or are you going
> to get off your lazy high and mighty ass and do something about it?


I'd certainly support that law.

In this country using a mobile phone while driving gets you a £60 fine. I
reckon that it should carry the same penalty as drink-driving, which is a
minimum of one year's driving ban and whatever fine the court wishes to
throw at you.


--
Algy met a bear
The bear was bulgy
The bulge was Algy

Evan Platt wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:17:58 -0700, richard <>
> wrote:
>
>> FYI, smartboy, the NP police are actually authorized by the state
>> within which they are assigned.
>> A few years back I asked the NP director that very question. What
>> authority do the officers have outside of a national park?
>> His response was the same authority any state trooper has. So you
>> could be on I-5 in California speeding down at 90mph, pass an NP car
>> and get pulled over and cited.
>
> So could a Amtrak cop. Or a BART Police officer.
>
> You just basically insulted BtS while at the same time told him he's
> right.
>
> I'm going to register a complaint with your high school. If you did
> indeed get a diploma, someone there REALLY ****ed up.

Why am I suddenly put in mind of the Monyt Python "dead parrot" sketch?