Rep. Stace Nelson (R-19/Fulton) does not like the idea of the state banning minors from using their cell phones while driving. (I'm assuming that Rep. Nelson has had the good sense to tell his daughters not to do it but simply doesn't approve of the state usurping his parental authority.)
In an effort to make his point about Senate Bill 106, Rep. Nelson offered the following amendment on the House floor:
No holder of an instruction permit may engage in premarital sexual relations, obtain an abortion without parental consent, stay out past parental curfews, consume alcoholic beverages, consume illegal drugs or abuse prescription drugs, fail to attend religious services prescribed by parents, fail to do all assigned chores at home, fail to get A's in school, back talk teachers or parents, wear provocative or revealing clothing, use profane language, fail to read a good book a week, bully friends or other students, watch more than one hour of television a day, play violent video games, eat junk food more than twice a week, fail to eat their broccoli, or, any other socially deemed inappropriate activities.
Watching from the gallery, the fortunate Mr. Montgomery reports that numerous legislators got up to take offense with Rep. Nelson, saying his amendment was disrespectful and in bad taste. The amendment failed, and the minor-phoning-while-driving ban passed, perhaps by a larger margin than expected thanks to backlash at the Fulton Fulminator.
But what offense is there to be taken? Rep. Nelson made his point. He contended that his colleagues were engaging in a sort of social engineering and feel-good message sending that shouldn't be clogging up the Legislative arteries when we have a budget to pass. He sent his message in pointed, newsworthy language.
We shouldn't take offense at Rep. Stace Nelson's tactics. We should take offense at the apparently large number of legislators who can't stomach straight talk.
Our job is not to pander to the newspaper editorials who advocate for such things, absent the facts. If legislators truly wanted to keep our youth from texting, we can require the telecommunication providers to electronically hobble these children's phones from being able to be manually manipulated. Instead, proponents chose to ignore the studies that show that such texting bans actually have been observed as causing accident rates to go up in states that enact them. The logical understanding is that in such places, the youth hide their actions so as to avoid detection, which causes them to be even more distracted.
The proponents claim they realize such a law will be near impossible to enforce but they want to change the culture. Many of the items in the amendment impact our youth in even more adverse ways than texting while driving. If we are serious about changing the culture, and that enacting a toothless law, does so, then they should have been supportive of these and other issues.
I regret the Broccoli comment, it was interjected by a colleague who then hid from his own suggestion.
Of those who expressed such outrage and feigned/claimed offense taken at the amendment, all but one engaged in amicable discussions with me shortly thereafter.
Thank you for understanding the point that was being made.
"He contended that his colleagues were engaging in a sort of social engineering and feel-good message sending that shouldn't be clogging up the Legislative arteries when we have a budget to pass."
Cory, great post...I agree with it. But don't you think that the education system is also "clogging up" their "arteries" with similiar, perhaps more blantant, "social engineering"? I would go into further details, but you would probably delete the comment with the same outrage expressed by certain legislators toward Rep. Nelson. Truth that one does not want to accept tends to create such responses.
you two should get a rheum.
Corey - I believe you have confused "straight talk" with cynical snarkiness. Unless, of course, you are simply engaging in satire yourself here.
Texting while driving causes accidents. That is a fact.
"Texting while driving causes accidents. That is a fact."
The fact is that this legislation was banning any kind of cell phone use, not just a ban limited to texting.
Texting while driving bans actually increase the number of accidents. That is a fact.
Smoking cannabis then driving decreases the number of accidents: that's a fact.
Facts are apparently cheap these days.
The problem with Nelson's logic or sarcasm..whatever.. is that texting drivers kill other drivers. It is not just a matter of the seemingly tiny abuse of a tiny new "right", but the right to stay alive on the highways and to expect other drivers to be equally concerned about safety.
Nelson should be concerned about the right to not be killed by idiocy and be aware that the idea of rights we might have in the privacy of our own homes is not the same as the privilege of driving on highways.
There may be senseless nannyism in government, but there is also senseless ideology and partisan mythology. Nelson has them confused.
Does anyone have the links to the studies about texting while driving bans increasing accidents?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2010/09/29/con-texting-ban.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/07/new-study-downplays-distracted-driving-dangers/
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=22657873
Well, it passed the mustard and kids still don't have to eat their broccoli or turn down their insane music when they drive by so that's that.
No, Richard, I'm not satirizing. I think the Legislature needs more obvious snark as a kick in the collective pants.
Sounds like Rep. Nelson is having a bit of wholesome fun up there. Sounds like he has a few folks rattled if they felt the need to take offense to this amendment.
Besides the obvious point Rep. Nelson made here is the more subtle benefit he offers to South Dakotans. He gave the public the chance to see which legislators are infatuated with the sound of their own voice.
Texting should be banned for drivers of all ages. It is not just kids causing death.