Have we killed the "Republicans support local control" lie yet? If not, see House Bill 1177, in which a herd of Republican legislators attempt to stamp their casual attitude toward highway safety on every local government in South Dakota.
HB 1177, sponsored by Speaker of the House Brian Gosch himself, would deny any local government the ability to adopt any ordinances pertaining to distracted driving that deviate one iota from state law. Here's the new section HB 1177 would add to statute:
No local government or local authority, except as expressly authorized by law, may adopt or enforce any ordinance or other measure regulating or restricting distracted or inattentive driving by a person who is operating a motor vehicle on a highway if the ordinance or measure is contrary to or at variance with any provision of state law relating to such activity or if no state law relating to such activity has been enacted or is in effect.
For purposes of this section, the term, distracted or inattentive driving, includes operating a motor vehicle while using electronic communications devices or electronic messaging, consuming food or beverages, interacting with passengers, watching television or other electronic or printed visual media, or engaging in other activity that may interfere with the ability to focus on driving tasks.
HB 1177 looks like another bit of Republican grandstanding that belies the GOP's misunderstanding of the concept of personal liberty. These legislators seem to think that liberty means being able to do whatever they please in their automobiles. They ignore the fact that their behavior in their vehicles, as they chat away, engrossed in their telephone conversations as they make the long drive each weekend to and from Pierre, has impacts (possibly literally!) on others.
They also ignore their own purported fealty to the principle of letting local governments decide what's best for their own communities. When Republicans want to give school districts the liberty to hand out firearms to teachers, they're all about unchecked local authority. But if some mayor or county commission dares tell a legislator to hang up and drive or lock up his pit bull, it's time for central control.
The Republican Party is not terribly concerned about public safety. They definitely aren't concerned about local control.
If passed, wouldn't this bill nullify the texting while driving bans that have already been enacted by several South Dakota cities?
Dave, they would only nullify the ban on state highways that pass through towns (like HWYs 14 & 37 going through Huron). It wouldn't eliminate bans on non-state roads
I don't know if I see the steaming pile of hypocrisy you claim, Cory. The state highways are under the purview of the state. It's in the state's interest to ensure the rules surrounding the use of those highways is consistent. For instance, a trucker traveling through South Dakota shouldn't need to know whether each town she passes through has a no-texting, no eating while driving, or no-whatever else ordinance; she should just need to know what the state laws are regarding transportation.
I'm as passionate as the next guy that we ought to put down our cell phones (to talk on or text with!) while we're driving. I see far too many people doing it every day in Sioux Falls, despite the ban.
But I have to ask how SDCL 32-24 doesn't capture and apply to those who are engaging in reckless behavior of gabbing on their cell phone or texting while driving? 32-24 is a primary offence - officers can pull people over for doing it. Why can't we acknowledge mixing a motor vehicle and a mobile device is de facto reckless?
Local control to protect citizens in their communities? Bulls@#t! Not as long as the idealogue dictators run the show in Pierre. What happened to the conservatives out there? More to the point, what the hell are doing wasting time on crap like this?
Solve real problems or get your dumb asses home!
If our officers in Vermillion couldn't enforce our texting ban on Cherry St/Hwy 50, we might as well not have it. We certainly would've rather the legislature did the right thing and passed a statewide texting ban, but that didn't happen last session and obviously won't happen anytime soon. In the meantime, our citizens prefer not to be run over.
The retrograde obstructionists in Pierre are really working hard to make South Dakota the laughingstock of the world. The idiots there won't do anything about distracted driving until one of their own relatives is killed by someone dreamily watching a phone instead of the highway. Statistics and common sense don't seem to influence the yokels and are viewed as some kind of commie plot for central planning.
Wayne B, It would seem that it would also nullify the "No Exhaust Brake Use" that many towns have. Notice to truckers is done by a sign at the entrance to the covered area. The legislators may have stirred up more than the bargined for. How about no train horns. I'm not sure any South Dakota town has an agreement with a railroad but is has been done in other states by the local government working with the railroad.
How would it, Old Guy? The bill is targeted narrowly at "distracted or inattentive driving" and not broadly. Engine brake ordinances wouldn't be touched.
You bring up a great point - a more magnanimous position from the state would be to require the municipality to post signs on state highways that run through town that no cell phones are allowed, etc.... could be lots of signs, though.
I honestly don't know what our legislature is thinking this session. They seem to come up with some of the most ridiculous legislation possible. *SMH*
"Texting while driving??? That would give those 'west-river' guys 2 things to play with when driving to Pierre.