Obama's Texting-While-Driving Ban Exempts Law Enforcement, National Security Personnel

Good news, America! President Barack Obama has seen all of your hysterical news reports and grisly British PSAs on texting while driving and has done something about it. Effective immediately and by executive order, federal workers are banned "from texting while driving on official business or while operating a government vehicle." From now on, federal employees will have to wait to find out that Joe Biden has been appointed the Czar of Vice Presidenting until they have parked.

Of course, exceptions to this rule have been made, and naturally, said exceptions shall apply to the same people to whom they always apply:

The ban will also include sending e-mails, using instant messaging programs, and obtaining navigational information while driving. The order will impact nearly three million civilian employees, but some law enforcement and national security workers will be exempt.

So remember: the next time you are involved in a head-on collision with an NSA employee engaged in some vital counter-terrorism sexting, that's on you.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[AgathaX]

08:45 PM on 10/04/2009

I've heard no estimates of number of people this will affect. How many gov't employees have ever texted while driving? After all the median age of driving texters is probably around 20, while the median age of federal gov't employees is probably around 50.

One reason to exempt certain law enforcement personnel is that they have no job security rights. If they are wrongfully accused of texting while driving, they could be gone without management having to actually demonstrate there was a problem or the employee getting to put on a defense.

[ipastor01]

06:42 PM on 10/04/2009

Well, I'm sure that this exemption will add to the list that must include running red light with no reason, park in fire lanes, block alleys, and conduct unwarranted searches and arrests. Yeah, I'm sure that if the exception not been added they would not be doing it... Just kidding cops, don't get all Dick Chenney on my OK.

[KIVPossum]

01:19 PM on 10/04/2009

Heck, law enforcement are already exempt from no sleeping on the job rules

[fredamae]

08:21 AM on 10/04/2009

If "Cops" are Human then they Hold No Special Talent or Gift to Overcome The Claims of Danger in the Use of Cell Ph Communication While Driving....

However If it Is a Matter of Training/Education, then Why Not have "training and education for All?

And..Why do they "need to text" in the course of performing their job duties, They Have All sorts of "Hands Free" communication choices!??!!

[Keith Mayass]

04:35 AM on 10/04/2009

ah ah what a country...

at least the recognize openly that there really is 2 types of citizens

do they plan to bring back as well the old buses and restaurants with the special class for african americans?.

after 200 years , this country did not accomplish anything in terms of moral values. so pathetic

[jb578261]

11:47 PM on 10/04/2009

We're talking about text messages here. Give me a break. You're really over analyzing this.

[Cogs]

09:59 PM on 10/03/2009

Police don't have to buckle up either. The cops enforcing "click it or ticket" don't heed their own warning.

[armadillo]

06:49 AM on 10/04/2009

You don't have the foggiest idea why those exemptions exist. They are not decided upon in a fog. Police officers are exempted because from time to time they enter and exit their vehicles that are not conducive to normal everyday activities.

Most police officers buckle up out of habit before they pull out of the parking lot because most have seen the devastating effects of not wearing them.

[Cogs]

11:38 AM on 10/04/2009

Having worked for many years in city government I am aware of why the exemption exists for officers. However, there were several instances when a squad car was broadsided and the officer seriously injured because he was not wearng a seat belt. A number of safety products are available which are designed to protect drivers that police departments could utilize but do not due to the expense of retrofitting the vehicles.

[brooklyncitizen]

09:20 PM on 10/03/2009

So glad he's dealing with the tough issues.

[TishiJo]

07:15 PM on 10/03/2009

Thank you President Obama! This is a start. I used to drive on the interstate every day to work and back, and people would be talking on thier cell phones while wandering all over the lanes. My son was stopped at a stop sign out on the highway, and a young woman hit him from behind while speeding and texting and completely demolished his car. It was a miracle he and his nine year old were not killed!

[lazercat2008]

06:24 PM on 10/03/2009

In July, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that when drivers of heavy trucks texted, their collision risk was 23 times greater. Dialing a cell phone and using or reaching for an electronic device increased risk of collision about six times in cars and trucks.

[BocaMom]

06:19 PM on 10/03/2009

First no text messaging. Then no cell phones in the cars. What next, we can put on our makeup as we drive, too? It's about time!

[PghDemocrat]

06:07 PM on 10/03/2009

I 100% understand why people want texting while driving banned, but this is one of those slippery slope type deals. People flipping through their iPod are as dangerous as texting - let's ban that. I think parents reprimanding their children from the drivers seat to the back seat is dangerous - should we ban children from cars or at lmaybe ban them from being bad? Make-up? Eating? Drinking? Let's get rid of those cup holders that encourage dashboard dinners.

I believe the driving rule is that you are supposed to have both hands on the wheel unless you are using the stick shift or turn signal. Why do we need to go beyond this?

[mcole]

09:28 AM on 10/04/2009

your argument itself uses slippery slope logic.

using the phone while driving is dangerous. this has been proven scientifically.

how many of your population need to die of preventable causes before you americans accept that laws are good for you??

you want to carry guns everywhere, you want to drive and chat on the phone....do you know what your mortality rate is?

[hamchunk]

11:00 AM on 10/04/2009

He is supporting something called "personal responsibility", a vague notion for those that call for more laws instead of doing the right thing. Quit whining and accept responsibility for your actions instead of having lawmakers do your bidding with useless and knee-jerk legislation.

[RTIII]

01:11 AM on 10/07/2009

The mortality rate has never changed - it's still only one per person.

As for these other hazards, well, it may improve the specie - unfortunately, they might take someone else with them! -frown-
.

[retromega]

05:19 PM on 10/03/2009

Our law enforcement and national security employees are to be exempted from the basic requirement that they act in a reasonable manner performing their duties! Will this make the American people safer? Will this attempt to hold law enforcement personel and National security operatives blameless in all situuations where they must exercise judgement a good idea? That is what govenment wants - carte blanche!

I suggest that this is an attempt to legalize a wanton disregard for the American public by those that are charged with protecting the American public! Why do they need a blanket dispensation for protecting us? Surely the situation where inadvertant accidents occur is covered by the people understanding the rigors of the job.

To simultatiously claim that our guardians need to be protected from us while they protect us is a stretch of the imagination! It is more an attempt to hold blameless those who prey on us not defend us. This is an attempt to claim all rights to government agents and strip the people of their right to be left alone! The system that holds a wanton, reckless, "protector of the people" responsible for actions that destroy the people they defend is not out of line. It is a simple deterent to the abuse and misuse of the power we grant them. In the end they are citizens like the rest of us! Why would we pay them to be above the law? They work for us! It is not the other way

[DFL]

04:32 PM on 10/03/2009

Thank you Barack for trying to make our roads safer.

[GoDogGo]

04:27 PM on 10/03/2009

Having witnessed a cop run a red and strike two cars AND a pedestrian while on his cell phone, I can say with first-hand knowledge that this is a bad idea.

Police are just as susceptible to distraction (if not more) and should NOT be texting.

[Mitch rite]

10:28 PM on 10/03/2009

This has nothing to do with "cops". It's federal employees, not municipal or state. The "law enforcement" are likely FBI, CIA, NSA officers, etc. Even if that exemption was not there, "cops" would still be exempt since they aren't even in the pool of employees that the first statement encompasses.

[RockyMissouri]

04:04 PM on 10/03/2009

This seems to be a misleading article- trying to get more people on the bandwagon to be pissed at Obama, perhaps?