'Small-Government Conservative' Scarborough Favors Federal Intervention On Distracted Driving, Raising Driving Age to 18
The co-hosts of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" pleaded with the Secretary of Transportation Tuesday for federally mandated devices in cars that would scramble cell phone reception, as well as for raising the driving age nationwide to 18.
Calling himself a "small-government conservative," Scarborough said that he nevertheless supports a device in cars that would scramble cell phone reception while the car is in operation. Co-host Mika Brzezinski added that such a device was the only way to stop distracted-driving accidents.
"I can hear the battle coming, because we've got Chris Licht who's our E.P....when Mika was talking about disabling devices, said 'Yeah, well great, that's all we need, the federal government telling us when we can use our phones in cars'," Scarborough quipped, calling out his executive producer live on the set.
"Well I-I do actually want the federal government...I don't want my kids run over by a distracted driver. It seems to me that if the technology is there, we should – stop the texting, scramble it," Scarborough asserted.
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a guest on Tuesday morning's show, believed the technology is indeed coming to cars. "I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles," he stated. "I love it," Scarborough replied.
Columnist and "Morning Joe" regular Mike Barnicle pressed LaHood about raising the driving age to 18. "Oh please do that," pleaded Brzezinski. "Do it," Scarborough chimed in. LaHood responded that the issue is decided by states, to which Brzezinski continued asking him to intervene.
Bill Press, host of a nationally-syndicated talk show, posed a different scenario. Affirming that he is in favor of banning cell phone use in cars, he nonetheless asked how conversations inside the vehicle are not just as distracting than cell phone conversations. "But what about the argument that if you've got somebody sitting along side of you, driving down the road, you guys are having a great conversation – it's more distracting than talking on the cell phone," he offered.
Scarborough and Brzezinski dismissed that argument as ludicrous.
A transcript of the segment, which aired on November 16 at 7:39 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Alright, so, uh, Secretary – that's true. Everything you just said is true. Everybody does it. Everybody is on their phone, if you look around in my neighborhood all the moms are trying to pick up kids, they're on the phones, they're trying to pick up other kids – it happens. Isn't the only way to stop this is to have a device in the car – when that car is on, the slammer, literally, the phone slammer starts, and phones don't work – isn't that the only way to really stop it?
Sec. RAY LAHOOD, Secretary of Transportation: Well, look, there's a lot of technology out there now where they can disable phones, and we're looking at that. A number of those people came to our distracted driving meeting 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. But you have to have people take personal responsibility, that's the bottom line. If-If you – If you're texting for four seconds, your car goes the length of a football field – a 5,000 pound car going the length of a football field when you're not watching out the windshield, and you don't have both hands on the wheel. The reason we put up this video – these are the faces. We can talk about statistics, but when you hear the heartbreaking stories from people who've lost parents or children, you get it. And that's what we're really –
JOE SCARBOROUGH: My problem is that 17 year-old girls are probably not looking at that video, and I can hear the battle coming, because we've got Chris Licht who's our E.P. when you – when Mika was talking about disabling devices, said "Yeah, well great, that's all we need, the federal government telling us when we can use our phones in cars." Well I-I actually do want the federal government – I don't want my 17 – I don't want my kids run over by a distracted driver. It seems to me if the technology is there, we should –
BRZEZINSKI: We should do it.
SCARBOROUGH: – at least stop the texting, scramble it.
(...)
SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Secretary, might we do that at some point? Could we do that at some point?
LAHOOD: I think it will be done. I mean, I think the technology is there, and I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles --
BRZEZINSKI: I need it at my house.
LAHOOD: – and disable these cell phones –
SCARBOROUGH: I love it.
LAHOOD: We need to – we need to do a lot more, if we're going to save lives, and so –
BRZEZINSKI: If they make us wear a seat belt, you can make us not use our phone.
SCARBOROUGH: And Mike, you know, I'm a – Ray will tell you I'm crazy. I'm a small-government conservative, I distrust the federal government, but in this case –
BRZEZINSKI: Could care less.
SCARBOROUGH: – lives will be saved, insurance policy rates will go down, so many good things will happen if we scramble the signal of cell phones in cars.
LAHOOD: We have to get people to take personal responsibility, though too Joe.
MIKE BARNICLE: It's not just cell phones, Joe. ...I'm telling you, the touch-screen radio, changing the radio signals on the cars is a huge distraction. Mr Secretary, what about enforcing – what about raising the age to get a license to 18 across the country?
BRZEZINSKI: Oh please do that. Yes, we want that.
SCARBOROUGH: Do it.
LAHOOD: Well look, that's decided by states.
(Crosstalk)
BRZEZINSKI: Please Ray?
SCARBOROUGH: (Laughing) Come on, Ray, start a nanny state. We're pushing you.
BRZEZINSKI: I've got a 14 year-old, two years away. Please, please, please.
LAHOOD: If we start doing that, we'll have Scarborough blaming me for trying to pass all kinds of bad laws.
BRZEZINSKI: I'll take care of him.
BILL PRESS, Host, The Bill Press Show: ...Look, I'm all for you, no cell phones period. But what about the argument that if you've got somebody sitting along side of you, driving down the road, you guys are having a great conversation – it's more distracting than talking on the cell phone.
BRZEZINSKI: What are you talking about?
SCARBOROUGH: Nah, come on.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Soon to be ex Sec of Transportation
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:27pm.
Sec. of Transportation, Ray Lahood, said states have the authority to set the legal driving age within the state. I'm looking for this far right, "States Rights" bigot to lose his job, and pronto!
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Half right?
Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:34pm.
I could go along with the 18 years old to drive idea, I always felt that 16 was not ready in MOST cases.
But then I also think 18 should be the drinking age as well, if your old enough to die for your country, you should be able to hoist a Sam Adams or two.....
Feel free to disagree, just my opinion.
States should set the drinking age
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:44pm.
Back when the country had more freedom, states set the drinking age.
Regarding your point about the military and drinking age, I agree entirely, but only if that person is actually in the military. Same thing about voting, otherwise raise that back to 21.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Not Necessarily
Submitted by Joe W. on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 9:13pm.
Your argument had validity when there was a draft system for the military. My generation argued that if you could be drafted to fight and die for your country, you should be allowed to drink, vote, and enjoy all of the other rights of an adult. With the all volunteer military, this argument is no longer valid. Studies have proven that the human brain is not fully developed until the age of 25, let alone 21. And certainly NOT at 18. Just look who 18-21 year olds voted for overwhelmingly in 2008. I rest my case.
No clue as to your point
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 9:27pm.
So if a young man is forced into the military at age 18 to "fight for his country", he shoud be able to have a beer. But if a young man joins up voluntarily, then he should have to wait until he is 21? What part about being forced into the army, as opposed to volunteering, changes anything? What if we had the draft again? Would it make any sense to use your argument that people drafted can enjoy a beer, but people who volunteer would not, unles they were 21?
And I don't have a problem with raising the voting age to 25, (our government says your still a child and can be covered by Mommy and Daddy's insurance until your 26 for that matter!). But if someone freely joins the military I don't see a problem with giving them the vote. After all, they have more "skin-in-the-game" then virtually anybody.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Only the Argument
Submitted by Joe W. on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:03pm.
Drinking on a military base would be perfectly O.K. in my book. But not out with the public. "Enjoying a beer" is not something most young people use alcohol for. "Skin in the game" does not make one more mentally competent or mature. While I definitely admire and respect those young people who join our military, I do not believe that it is wise to abandon sound reasons for restricting the use of alcohol. I have no argument with allowing them to vote either. See, that's not so hard, is it??
Draft vs Volunteer
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 11:46pm.
I still don't get the draft vs volunteer difference. Otherwise I don't see a problem with any of your logic and could easiy support any of those positions.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
The 18 year-old drinking age pre-dates and post-dates
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:30pm.
. . . the Draft. But it varied state by state, even county by county.
I turned 18 in New York in 1972, and became old enough to drink all alcohol. Even after the Draft ended in Feburary 1973, the drinking age in NY remained 18 until the nationwide push to raise it to 21 came about.
The drinking age in NY was 18 before the Draft was reinstituted in 1940 after a 21 year absence.
In Virginia in 1972, the drinking age was 21 for all alcohol except 3.2%-slcohol beer. A college friend from Alabama came from a dry county -- no alcohol sales period. When I returned to Virginia in '76, the drinking age was 18 for all alcohol, raised later to 21.
My point is that I don't think anyone ever tied drinking at 18 to the draft or military service in general.
The advantage to the driving
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:47pm.
The advantage to the driving age being 16 is that kids have two years to improve while they are still under their parents guidance. It gave me plenty of opportunities to be with them as they drove. Once they are 18 they are working or at college and will be driving without supervision.
In Pennsylvania you get a "junior" license at 16, which has certain restrictions on it. I like our system.
If I'm not mistaken the
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 9:17pm.
If I'm not mistaken the drinking age was dropped to 18 at one point. Turned out it caused a lot of problems and was raised again.
I agree with you that if people are actually IN the military under 21, I would say let them drink- on base.
Regarding "distracted driving," a couple of years ago, I passed a guy on I-95 (not a country road) who was reading a newspaper folded on his steering wheel!
We already have laws to cover all those distractions; it's called "reckless driving." If someone has a crash while driving distracted for any reason, there should be extra consequences.
After states changed their drinking age to 21 . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:28pm.
. . . military bases continued to serve and sell alcohol to 18 years olds. But the states complained, and the Department of Defense directed that the drinking age on a miitary base would be the same as that of the state it is located in.
Don't these idiots have
Submitted by Kekela Ward on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 9:53pm.
Don't these idiots have friends or family? Do they live such a lonely existence that no one rides along with them every so often? Some vehicles carry more people than just the driver. Why shouldn't a passenger be able to text or talk on a phone?
Looks like Joe's Idea of Smaller Government
Submitted by donabernathy on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:19pm.
is to do away with the courts, legislatures and governors of all 57 States
Bwahahahahahahaha
If you have to preface a
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:29pm.
If you have to preface a comment with "I'm a small government conservative but..." then you probably really aren't.
MIKA
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 11:40pm.
"BRZEZINSKI: I've got a 14 year-old, two years away. Please, please, please." Funny how you have to go through hell to adopt/foster, but any irresponsible idiot can have kids!Ronald Reagan
Well, OK, let's do it. But,
Submitted by jdhawk on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 1:30am.
Well, OK, let's do it. But, first let's disable, the cell phone, the CB, the laptop computer and all the buttons and switches that make those sirens and lights go on in those police cars across America. After all, its the police that make the driving records of 16 years old Jimmy and Sally look terrific . . .
Talk about distractions while driving. Have you looked in a typical police car today?
Point taken but....
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:19am.
I get what you are saying but LEO's go through alot more training to be able to use all those bells and whistles. Its different for a cop to be looking at a computer telling him where the next emergency is as opposed to Jimmy or Sally texting "OMG...LOL...LIKE NO WAY".
Constitution?
Submitted by Cowboy on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 1:41am.
Where is this authority in the Connstitution, Scaborough?
Control
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 9:01am.
Is there any danger they do not want to control, who is responsible for the scramler will their be a new agency to monitor scrambler use, will fine s and taxes be levied. Please Please Pleaase
stop the control of the people for our own good.
Scarborough is a 'small
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 9:04am.
Scarborough is a 'small government conservative' like Nancy Pelousi is a 'small government liberal'.