Definitely not likely to get cheap enough. Perhaps it is possible to build something half-assed that would be just good enough to offset south-east by 500 miles or something.

I don't know how the timing and tracking works on GPS, if you couldn't tell. ;-) I thought it had to do with knowing the expected positions and an exact time. If there isn't encryption, it would certainly be easier.

The better question is "How much will they cost if this nightmare were to become law?"

Actually health care is NYS' largest item, then education, then the STAR program.

Health care = Medicaid and public health ($3.5b)
Education ($2.0b)
STAR = exemptions from school tax ($1.7b)

What they *actually* are trying to do is increase their tax revenue by $3.1b this year. They're doing the typical lying about what they'll cut if you don't give them more money.

As a former local government employee that dealt with budgets, let me tell you that there isn't a year that goes by that your government doesn't lie to you about what they'll actually cut if you turn down the budget. They might do something stupid just to scare the hell out of you into paying, but they'll always find somewhere to cut that they didn't tell you before. For example, you can guarantee that sports will always somehow find its way back, even when they claim that they'll have to fire dozens of teachers.

They'll claim to have to cut the most visible and scary programs every time. If you don't agree to pay more, then "you must be a terrorist, after all".

Mostly because we have enough arbitrary laws, and we should be working to get rid of them instead of adding more.

So we ban cellular phones in the car. What do you do if people then start using ham radio or CB? Do you ban that, too? What if people then start using data channel voice chat? If you ban things like that, then you also risk banning voice activated functions and systems like OnStar. Then maybe we ban communicating with someone outside the vehicle. Well, what if your passenger is on the phone and puts it on speaker? Does that count? Or do we ban having a phone in the car?

We already have laws about "endangering those around". We don't need "endangering those around [when using a mobile telephone]" any more than "beating someone [who happens to be gay]". We shouldn't even have "endangering those around [while driving a car]". Laws written like these are not just unnecessary, but they are almost guaranteed to be abused, and are simply wrong. You make the behavior have legal repercussions and apply it uniformly and fairly.

FWIW, I also am very strongly opposed to sentencing restrictions (mandatory minimums), three-strikes laws, and "zero tolerance". We have judges for a reason, and they should be able to do their jobs. Instead if these stupid minimums aren't warranted by what the crime really is, then any sane person has to acquit rather than convict, even when guilt is assured.

The same is true with doing this with cell phones. If your only "crime" was being unfortunate enough to be noticed talking on the phone by some guy in a police car, how does that warrant taking away your license? The punishment does not fit the crime. Driving already has enough lunacy in its punishments and laws, I certainly don't want even more.

I think we might get better results from vastly improved driver training.

Telling people they aren't allowed to drive because they were on the phone isn't the right way. Part of my point is that there is always going to be another distraction. For example, speed traps don't really make people drive slower, it just makes them slow down rapidly when they see a cruiser, and then speed right back up again when they pass it.

I agree with you on this, the phone is a distraction, and it's one of many. People need to learn to deal with them, rather than pushing to have a nearly sound proofed box around the driver's seat, with no comforts or conveniences inside.

A big reason that drivers are better in other countries is that they are forced to have much more training and strict testing. This is my preference for where we should start in the US. Education comes first, and prohibitions to follow.

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/960439

It costs money, though the brief is still useful.

Basically the leading cause of accidents would seem to be bad road design. Additionally most accidents happen on roads with lower-than-highway limits. Also, the German autobahns, with no speed limits, have consistently been safer than US low limit roads.

"Speed limits were found to have minimal effect on the traffic accidents. "

Looks like you were being humorous, but seriously, pulling licenses doesn't ever work. Driving is essential to function in the United States, and no amount of complaining is going to make it different. This means that to start taking away licenses for even more reasons than today is not likely to be a good move.

People require a way to travel. Putting infrastructure in place to make it otherwise would take a huge investment and many years. Look at how poorly the existing infrastructure is maintained in many places, and then tell me seriously that full scale public transit would be a good idea, without sweeping changing in other places.

The result is that if a person isn't in a place where there is good public transit, and they don't have friends that can cart them around for months on end, then you force them to drive anyway.

Taking away people's licenses just means that they are now an uninsured/unlicensed driver.

Hopefully some day people will learn that you don't punish people for things you don't like. You already have a system in place to deal with driving to endanger, and you already have a system to fine irresponsible drivers. What you advocate can be just as easily applied to talking in the car, the radio, GPS, trip computers, and on and on.