Big “brudda”, in the form of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), is suggesting a mandate that ALL telecommunications be banned from the interior of an automobile. NO phone. NO text. NO nothing. They hope this ban will prevent crashes and more highway mayhem caused by stupid people with their heads stuck up their rear-ends before they rear-end somebody else.

In some ways I agree with the Chair (man/person/lady – whatever!) Deborah Heisman. I agree that NTSB isn’t in the business of being popular. This stupid power-play will flip-off a whole nation addicted to instant communications. So, I ask: will you reject telecommunications, while in a car, whether limousine or not? Will you cherish the idea your child may be taken to a hospital and you are incommunicado by Federal Governmental edict? Will you accept the ticket and fine handed you because you decide your needs supersede the needs of others on the highway, but more importantly, in life?

Oh, one last thing because I know you have so much experience with the actual, hard-core, real-life enforcement of laws on the street: how are you going to enforce it, dumb bass?

It’s really easy to mandate this and require that and demand compliance with intrusive, ill-advised and occasionally (like this one) unenforceable laws. They’re press-fit onto numerous pages of other such adjectively described missives by people with no idea what they’re asking for.

Let me clarify what exactly we’ll be commanded to do with this mandate: stop communicating in a society noted for its mobility and dynamic pursuit of personal growth and economic development.

So, let’s go back and ask the question again. How do you plan to enforce it? There’s an old story of an officer being indignantly asked by the person he was writing a citation to: “why’d you stop me and not all these other people?” The officer never looked up from the citation as he wrote: “do you go fishing’?” The answer was yes. The officer responded, “Did you catch them all?”

It’s true you can only catch one at a time and it’s estimated 99% escape scrutiny and observation as you’re busy with the last violator you caught. But what good is it to cite if somebody in an elected position makes points by “taking care” of the ticket or administratively breaking it down to a “lesser included offense” reflecting nothing of the actual dangers you created with your lousy driving habits. How do you learn from your mistakes? There’s NO accountability.

Most of the states already have laws against driving and texting. Anybody caught texting while driving should have their thumbs removed at the elbow. This activity is so dangerous it boggles the mind.

There the jerk goes; eyes averted to the text screen, thumbs hammering away on a subject no doubt of such major importance as to require the intervention of the NTSB for seconds in heavy traffic. NOBODY can react well if you can’t see the car in front of you as it slams on its brakes to avoid hitting somebody else.

But my big question is: why can’t you use a “hand-free” unit and actually speak to the person you’re texting? I know: you want to communicate in places where you’re not supposed to speak: like business meetings, school, and traffic court (got to pay that last ticket, don’t you?); church? This means you’re doing something you’re not supposed to be doing.

Why don’t cellphone manufacturers include a hands-free unit in the box? It costs about ten cents to make them and they’ll charge ten dollars for the unit but it takes the phone out of your hand and makes it available to hold the steering wheel again. Your eyes can be back observing road conditions.  So: back we go to the question – how will you enforce a law when you can’t develop proper and acceptable evidence to be entered into court? Fact is; you can’t.

All you can do is make requirements showing the federal agency’s power over the states. All you can do is make another law allowing you to look as though you’re doing something valuable.

You aren’t; so go away.

Thanks for listening.