Huron Enacting Ban On Texting While Driving


#1
  • Huron is the latest city in South Dakota to ban texting while driving.

The ordinance approved by the City Commission on Monday night also encompasses distracted driving. Mayor Dave McGirr says that includes everything from eating pizza to reading a newspaper while driving. The ordinance also bars drivers with learners’ permits from talking on a phone while driving.

KELOLAND.com | Huron Enacting Ban On Texting While Driving

While it is a familiar sight anymore to see people using the cell phone while driving, it now has surpassed accidents over drunkenness . When asked people will say it is their right and they can handle driving while talking on the phone.

Yesterday while driving I noticed a young man who was texting behind me and I thought I better be sure to keep an eye on him so he would not run into me.


#2

I was reading somewhere that the laws about texting and such haven’t really done anything to stop the behavior, but it is a revenue driver for the police. It is a real problem though, so I wonder if employing technical measures to disable the phones while the car is moving would be a better way to stop this.


#3

The problem with that is what about passengers.


#4

What about them? Obviously whatever would be designed would need to be location sensitive so that only the driver is affected.


#5

Just saying it would have to be very localized and allow 911 calls. What of talk to text and hands free models? There are a lot of questions if you try and limit this with mechanical devices.


#6

This is all too stupid for words. Just like all those new firearms laws, all this is going to achieve is taking away liberty from those responsible enough to handle it, and nothing to stop the behavior of those too stupid or irresponsible to handle it.

We already HAVE laws covering stupid driving; especially if one causes and accident: It’s called “reckless driving,” or “reckless endangerment,” and carries a very serious penalty in most states. And if one is caught simply driving irresponsibly, there are already laws to cover that: Such as, “impaired,” or "distracted."
No, I don’t text, nor put on make-up, nor shave my chin going down the road. But I’m not so uncoordinated that I can’t talk and drive at the same time. Or eat a slice of pizza, for pity’s sake. I’m also not so STUPID to let either distract me if the traffic situation dictates that I give driving my undivided attention.

Bottom line - I’m MORE THAN TIRED of giving up my liberty because some people are too stupid to handle it. Charge the people who have actually committed a crime with a crime, and leave the rest of us alone!

(Ben Franklin must be rolling in his grave to hear you people speak.:mad: :sad:)


#7

FROM RET- as he gave me permission to do so:

The reason for all these scams is the public’s acceptance of using the force of law to punish citizens whose actions could have violated the Rights of others instead of for violating the Rights of others.


#8

Texas tried to pass a texting while driving ban, thankfully Perry vetoed it


#9

What is with trying to ban every possible distraction in detail? Whether it’s yacking on a cell phone, texting, reading a newspaper, farding, fiddling with a CD or whatever, it’s a stupidly dangerous distraction. Write a simple law penalizing inattentive driving - without listing every possible distraction - let police enforce it, and be done with it.

Teaching children in school that stupidity has consequences would be nice, but too many parents and “parents” undermine that message at home, and too many activists and other elements in our culture attack messages about personal responsibility. So that isn’t likely to happen, in PSs, anyway.


#10

Oh, but we must make sure that there is nothing out there that can harm us in any way, no matter what we do.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/SusannaHarriff/Smilies/sarcasm.gif


#11

People doing stupid careless stuff while driving happens. Mrs. S and I see several such peeople in mid-stupidity every week. But it’s an equally stupid act of futility to try to place a ban on every possible discrete form that stupidity can take.


#12

No way, vague laws are just asking for abuse.


#13

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:12, topic:37371”]
No way, vague laws are just asking for abuse.
[/quote]Lawyers love vague laws that is how they get nonsense done.


#14

I know this sounds pessimistic but the reason is revenue.

California has always had a distracted driving law that applied whenever an officer observed erratic driving, the reason for all the behavior specific laws is so they can write tickets to all the people who ARE NOT displaying any erratic tendencies.


#15

The word “Vague” is an enormous realm of un-clarity and misunderstand-ability … seriously, I understand and agree with your concern. But listing and banning every form human stupidity can take is a fools errand, with its own hazards. Human stupidity is more creative than legislators’ capability to anticipate and legislate. I think it’s better, on the whole, to describe the characteristics of distracted driving (swerving, veering, inappropriate speed) so cops can select the more egregious offenders. Listing stuff can have cops so occupied with looking for cell phones, seatbelts, etc. that they themselves become distracted drivers. And for the less obvious offenders, specify distractions (in general terms, not a list) as evidence for determining liability in accidents (i.e. an economic incentive not to be stupid).


#16

While I refrain from using the cell phone while driving, I see that manhy don’t. They are usually the ones plowing through traffic and not paying attention. That said, I have no problem with a distracted driving violation. However, where do you draw the line. Distracted driving could simply be having your mind on something with no physical items involved.

How far do they take these laws? As a ham operator, I operate my mobile station almost daily. I make contacts all over the world and use the audio recorder in my cellphone to capture the contact info for my logbook. It is not uncommon for me to be storm spotting for the National Weather Service when the spotters are activated. THis involves driving and talking/listening on the radio. If they take these types of laws far enough, I could be given a violation while volunteering a public service. I don’t drive erratically while doing so. In fact, the rule is “drive first”. It is incumbent upon the non-mobile stations to facilitate the contact in a manner that allows for safe driving.


#17

Really. That’s all we need; distracted cops. Gov’t’s answer would probably be to start a new force to keep an eye on the LE officers. lol

Seriously, though… It’s called “dangerous (and/or) imprudent driving”; a ticket for which should be issued at the time of a driving OFFENSE, not when an offense MIGHT happen.
I can hear it now. A cop sees a lady w/her toddlers safely buckled in their appropriate car seats, waving their little hands about. His reaction: "Oh m’gosh, I just know those kids are acting up, and she’s gonna turn her head to yell at them any minute now! Best pull her over BEFORE that happens, and issue a ticket! We can’t risk that happening!"
Meanwhile, Mom and kids were merrily singing Christmas Carols.

Folks, where’s everybody’s common sense? In order to get a ticket for ‘distracted’, or ‘dangerous’, or ‘imprudent’ driving, it takes, or should take, driving irradically.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought those were three different offenses, the discretion of which, left to the cop issuing the ticket. I also thought that the seriousness of the charge went UP through the chain of distracted/dangerous/imprudent, depending on the seriousness of the offense.
No?

Anyway, the laws aren’t all that vague, and it really shouldn’t take pretzel binding of the brain to set proper charges and fines according to the height of the offense.
But a person really ought to have to actually commited an offense first.

Busting someone for simply having a phone to his ear is like busting someone for simply being in possession of a firearm.


#18

The cops are there to enforce laws not interpret them thats why it takes a GED to be a cop and an advanced degree to be a lawyer. In the end there are too many things that can be distracting (including things not visible or enforceable like being tired) and it should be left to the person not to do them while driving, just make the punishments serve if the actions cause harm to others, more traffic tickets is just a money grab.


#19

Are speed limits a bad idea? Should we enforce no crossing the yellow lines or just provide them as guidelines? How about traffic signals?


#20

I pretty well stick to speed limits, although sometimes they don’t seem to make rhyme nor reason.
Heard a cop say he wouldn’t pull somebody over for 5 mph over, but would for 6. Another cop said not until 7 over.
Then there’s times I’m pushing 5 over, and people fly by like I’m sitting still. Not a cop in sight.
Point being, are there speed limits now? Seems they’re only enforced in working zones where they can really nail a driver for big bucks.

Maybe you aleady know this, but cops far prefer stop signs to street lights because drivers tend to trust street lights too much.

{Oh good lord, I was telling my very straight-laced M-in-L that, and response was, “That’s right. Stop signs don’t change.” :howler:
If you don’t get why it was so hard not to fall out laughing, well, ask somebody.}