The City of Sioux Falls has passed an ordinance making texting while driving a primary offense punishable by a $200 fine.
this is so stupid..Congrats idiots of making roads twice as dangerous..now people are going to try and be sneaky and make texting and driving worse [Josh Collins]
So we're all safer now right? All hazards have been removed from the road, no more distractions, right? Good work city council, I no longer have to worry about a distracted driver hitting me, now, how are you going to enforce it? [Kevin Kunkel]
This is just going to make the hardcore texters go to even grater lengths to hide their activity, taking even MORE focus away from driving [David Dahle].
Governments at all levels are ridiculous [Brian Snyders].
You must be in favor of the government eventually gaining control of every facet of our lives then [David Dahle].
And from before the vote:
have no more freedom in the world take away my bday as well as the right to do anything , so if your car has a electronics in your car its illegal , so why just take everyones cars away while your at it , be real grow up sioux falls [Angel Andino].
Welcome to Communism my friends... It's only going to get worse. All our rights are slowly being taken away. What I do in my car is my business! [Jeremy Cross]
Replace "texting" and "electronics" with "alcohol," and you can lodge the exact same arguments against drunk-driving laws. Do you really want to cry Freedom!!! for that beer in that driver's lap? Do you really want to shout Communism!!! over a public safety regulation targeting demonstrably, unarguably unsafe behavior?
Quit griping. Quit trying to distract us from your bad behavior with fantasy patriotism. You and you little messages are not as important as my little girl, whom you might kill while you're not looking. Put down the phone and drive.
Update 06:50 MDT: In the Really?! department, KELO devotes an entire article to advice on how to put down your phone:
With a no texting while driving ordinance expected to be in place by the end of the month, you might wonder what you should do with your cell phone while you're driving.
Not playing with your cell phone or sending text messages may be difficult for many drivers. But the South Dakota Safety Council has some advice to take the temptation out of your drive [Kellee Azar, "What Should Drivers Do with Their Phone?" KELOLand.com, September 5, 2012].
You might wonder...? It's a phone. Shut it off. Put it down. Simple.
Fighting for your right to text and drive. Because driving a a 2-5,000 lb item at 75 miles an hour isn't enough of a thrill, or a death wish.
Cooking pizzas in toaster ovens that come standard in cars ought to be a big hit with this crowd.
Addiction is addiction, regardless of substance. I'm guessing there are some who drink AND text AND drive.
For crying out loud, people. At least admit that there's something wrong when we do stuff like that (See AA "First Step.")
Bottom line, these people are defending the indefensible, Cory. Their only "excuse" is that they have become obsessive compulsive about certain destructive behaviors.
And there's no freedom in that.
None whatsoever.
No freedom in addiction... no freedom when you can't say no... that thought will ring in my thoughts today, Bill!
Perhaps an in car coffee maker:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/12/fiat-500l-to-launch-with-worlds-first-in-car-coffee-maker-optio/
One must wonder though how distracting eating a double bacon cheeseburger is; or not. Or is it and should be added to the secondary crime of distracted driving? Cory, what say you? Make eating while driving illegal and lower the overall fat content of South Dakotan's legislatively??? Headphones on bike riders, runners on public roads???
Go with thinner burgers for the road, Charlie. Ones you can see over.
LOL Bill. Texting and killing bikers in SF has set the agenda I believe. Devils advocating what is coming up to a legislature near you.
So you are ok with telling people where they can smoke and what they can smoke, but you think telling us we can't eat or text while we are driving is a sign of totalitarianism, Charlie?
What kills more people each year, car accidents caused by distracted drivers or second hand smoke?
Deaths from texting drivers just a fraction of deaths caused by overuse of livestock antibiotics:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/akar/s_is_for_scary_superbugs.html
Justin, here's a worldwide stat on 2nd Hand Smoke:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/25/secondhand-smoke-impact-m_n_788522.html
600,000 deaths per year. Not sure what the equivalent for texting is.
So less than one in every ten million die globally from second hand smoke each year. Forget about the fact you can't prove that any specific death was caused by it. Forget about the fact that the study says the us is far less exposed than other parts of the world. Let's just use the global number for SD. At that rate we would have one death about every 13 years. It isn't a public safety issue, its about a majority limiting the minority's rights because their behavior is an annoyance.
Texting and driving is clearly an ACTUAL public safety issue. I know we have at least one death in Sioux Falls due to it this year, and I'm sure there are more.
I think they had to go after composing, reading, and sending an electronic messages (sort of a.k.a. texting) specifically to drive the message home, but I think it should be revisited in the future to comprehensively cover all distracting behavior we can agree no reasonable, safe drive should be doing in their vehicle.
You don't get punished if you are browsing your phone/music player for a song you want to play. You don't get punished for talking on the phone or using voice recognition like Siri or Google's voice commands. We should have the discussion on what is reasonably acceptable.
Yesterday, I saw a lady putting on her makeup while driving through the Marion Rd construction on my way to work (the classic example of distracted driving) and then saw another lady reading a book/novel on her steering wheel as we both drove north on I-29. I would argue both of these activities are occupying the drivers' attention longer than reading a text, but they aren't punishable (that I know of). If the second gal was reading the book on a Kindle, it might have qualified. And what about eating while driving? I'm certainly guilty of this, both fast food and small snacks and non-alcoholic drinks.
I know it's going to be tough to enforce these rules, but we can at least start by defining what is and what is not acceptable, just like we have done with alcohol. It's not always easy for the police to enforce, but it can also become taboo and and more unacceptable to the family and friends riding with you, who will help to enforce the laws if they are made aware of them and discussed openly in public.
Justin; Man you are on a terror blitzkrieg today buddy. Smoke what? When did I mention smoking anything or making anything illegal or legal. Until I hear every comment in committee and on the SD House floor I have zero comment on what should be done with texting while driving, eating super sized cheeseburgers (the ones I can't see over) while driving, etc. It is already illegal for anyone to drive while distracted in SD , it just is not enforced. BTW Justin where did you dig up the one in ten million number who die from second hand smoke?
Hey Bill we quit going to bars because of the smoke in them and searched for smoke free places to hang out with friends. I voted against the smoking ban twice and would do so again because the smart guys who saw profit in being different and setting an agenda in their business for a different venue were busted by the law change. Anyway I will try finding the data from the American Medical Society on the extreme amount of carcinogens in pot smoke; like 10 times that of cigarette smoke.
Hey Charlie, good for you, brother. I'm sure your lungs are grateful for it. I know what you mean about the smart bar and restaurant owners. Not going into it in depth here, but we had an opportunity to visit a lot of those places as part of our business operation, and yes, they are some really great folks indeed. Suffice it to say they saw (before their competitors) which way the wind was blowing.
Thought your bar was in Bismarck, Charlie and no: cannabis is not nearly as toxic as cigarette smoke largely because of the chemical-laced paper used in manufacture.
Justin: exposing hypocrisy in the South Dakota legislature is key to sending Republicans like Charlie and Lee Schoenbeck back behind the safety of the barricades they have built around their souls.
It seems to me like Charlie and Lee Schoenbeck are some of the good ones.
I think the texting law will be enforceable, but some tickets will still be issued after tragic accidents take place. Officers will on occasion see people texting while driving. Just this morning someone passed me on the interstate and from my higher vantage point I saw him looking down into his lap and texting as he passed. Then at lunchtime I was stopped at a light behind some yahoo who didn't move when the light turned green. As I changed lanes to pass I saw he was texting as he veered into my new lane and almost sideswiped me. The day is not over yet.
Good at the War on Women maybe: they are the pliant apparatchiks of the RNC and will stop at nothing to own South Dakota.
If these bozos really want to stop non-whites from taking jobs from lazy white people they would raise the minimum wage to beyond subsistence.
Are straw men white or non-white, Larry? You seem to be employing one.
Look, clown: you can pretend to live in the middle of the road all you want.
You are off of my Kwanzaa card list Kurtz.
You a cult member: what a surprise....
Wow did you call me a terrorist Charlie?
Nasty habit, that.
I applaud you for voting against the smoking ban.
And you were right my math was fuzzy there. Bill's study says 600,000 globally out of 7 billion. That would be more like 1 in 100k.
Fred Deutsch, my guess: earth hater extraordinaire.
No, more like 1 in 10k.
So if we were the world, the Swedes would be telling us there are roughly 80 people a year in SD dying from second hand smoke annually. That seems even more preposterous than my original estimate.
Cody Winchester just uploaded a registration map of the chemical toilet:
http://www.argusleader.com/newsroom/maps/voter-reg-map.html
I just noticed that in addition it was a "blitzkrieg", too?
I guess the lesson is if you call somebody a terrorist AND a Nazi, you won't get smart alecks like Stace responding to terrorism charges with Nazi comparisons.
I'll instead chalk it all up to an innocent case of somebody with a limited vocabulary trying to add weight to his words.
And on the issue of Pol Pot:
there once was a smoker named larry
whose palms although calloused were hairy
he got to the point
with his miniscule joint
that fire was set to his berry
Yow! Yes, berry is singular.
There once was a poster named Rorschach,
who hardly had any ballsack.
He said "Alas!", as he kissed Charlie's ass,
"Will my integrity ever come back?"
Bad form Justin. Try again.
There once was a putzer named Justin
who thought Rorschach's balls he was bustin'
but it all went south
when he opened his mouth
and those balls were bouncing on his chin
Horshack just died, right?
His namesake now trolling a blog site.
His comments are moot,
just a big, fat galoot,
even a Rorschach pseudonym lacks dogfight.
Sorry, can't keep up with your testicle fetish, R.
For what its worth I support your right to marry whoever you want.
I think we're on the same side of most issues Justin. Just having a little fun.
Me too. Glad you understand.
Btw posting from my car at a stoplight in Sioux Falls.
What is this? A nardfest?
Like the narddog on the Office I play the banjo, but I didn't go to Cornell.
It's a bardfest, Bill. With a theme.
Ah, banjo. Well, that explains everything. ;^)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTF-ZhJMie0
So guys, can just anybody try it?
...
A limerick writer from Baghdad
Wrote verses so lurid he went mad
But you'll pardon his luck
If twixt "V" words and f**ks,
He never once mentioned a gonad.
Fits the theme. Great entry. Thanks for playing. More entries welcome. Cory will translate to French.
There is an odd man we call Sibby
Whose looks gravitated towards hippy
Alas, he was not
Tried to be a right wing bigshot
But even they found him quite dippy
(Composed in Secret Masonic Lodge #1)
Folks I have enjoyed these postings tremendously while laughing out loud. Knowing that my intellect is lower than most I truly appreciate those gifted with higher prose and respect them. Most of you are included in that assessment, certainly my gain though. For instance I would bet the farm that Justin is much younger than Rorschach while Bill is older than all of us and Larry Kurtz is still possessed by demons of the 60's drug culture.
Mr. Hoffman cries bravo
as the posts of our verse begin to flow
Though it just goes to show
When one is in the artistic ruts
Just make a joke about your nuts.
Tomatin works for me, Charlie; but, Bud Light is swill. Your generation will go down in history as the one that poisoned South Dakota.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/
(interesting read though not what I suspected--Larry you are SAFE!)
It is worth noting that cytochrome P4501A1 oxidase has numerous substrates including biologically active lipid metabolites such as arachidonic acid, and eicosinoids [25]. These molecules are components of metabolic pathways that are interwoven with the synthesis and degradation of endocannabinoids such as arachidonylethanolamine (anandamide) [26]. Hence, the inhibition of cytochrome P4501A1 oxidase by THC is likely to have multiple biological effects such as possibly enhancing cannabinoid activities by decreasing their catabolism.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20051017/pot-smoke-less-carcinogenic-than-tobacco
Responsible potheads use vaporizers anyway.
Q, you are the winner of the Madville Poetry Slam in my book.
Is your moniker taken from the best character to ever grace the Star Trek universe?
I second the Q motion. Still laughing .
Justin, it is not. Sadly. It is the first letter of my last name. I don't post with my name any more ever since I had one of those moments where you forget the internet is forever, and calling people nazi's might get you in trouble. ;)
I do appreciate the kudos, however. I would like to thank my wife, my children, and the gang here at Madville. Cory, when my I expect my trophy/check?
[CAH: Include name and functional e-mail, and we can negotiate. ;-)]
Why should all our insurance rates (auto and medical) increase when people choose to behave irresponsibly and cause property and personal injury?
May I expect- pardon the typo
Your rhymes about nuts fit the theme Q
and like Charlie I've laughed aloud too
at the end of the day
as Kristi would say
fellow bards I shall bid thee adieu
I assume you are pro-ban then SS? One of the great advantages of SD is our low auto premiums. Our medical is growing at an out of control rate though. I agree we need to do all we can do to keep auto where it is. Medical has more to do with collusion in pricing than fatality rates though.
report by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), focusing on the laws in four states—California, Minnesota, Washington, and Louisiana—found that laws prohibiting texting while driving didn’t curb insurance claims related to car accidents, and in fact, claims actually increased in three of those states. Additionally, the study found no significant difference in the number of claims in states that have the bans versus states that do not currently have laws banning texting while driving.
It went onto say the increase was likely due to the fact drivers were burying their phones in their lap.
Do we really need to legislate every bit of common sense?
No, but we apparently need to legislate that doctors tell women seeking abortion lies and to have the longest waiting period in the country for abortions. Despite the voters of the state voting against abortion bans twice.
What harm does this law do to you Ryan?
Wouldn't a rational person say analysis based on four random states when far far more have texting laws is suspicious?
Charlie, I'm fine with dropping the hammer on anyone who drives like an idiot. We have data showing the increased risk from texting while driving (links in original post). If you show me scientific studies demonstrating that eating big burgers also so significantly increases the risk of an accident, I'll shout "Put down the burger!" as loudly as I shout "Put down the phone!"
Headphones on bicycles and on joggers are a hazard. I wore headphones once on a country bike ride; I did not enjoy it. I couldn't hear cars coming. I didn't have the same sense of the road. I ride for three hours. I sing a bit, draft blog posts out loud, shout hello to fellow non-motorists... but I keep my ears open.
But let's remember, Charlie: on my bike, I'm 150 pounds of guy, 30 pounds of aluminum and parts, and a quarter-pound of granola racing at you at 20 miles per hour, if I'm feeling enthusiastic. The meathead texting at the wheel of his F-150 at 65 mph will have noticeably more impact on you and your family when he crosses the center line. I have my responsibility on my bike; so do drivers at the wheel... an arguably greater responsibility.
But let's not get too distracted from the issue at hand. These folks who are so attached to being able to punch buttons on their phones whenever they want, consequences be damned, sound like my little girl when I correct her for some misbehavior. She's doing something wrong. She knows she's doing something wrong. She needs to stop doing it. But she desperately tries to change the subject, pointing to whatever little distraction or other issue she can think of. The texting drivers scramble to point at everyone else who is doing things that they think are bad. Great. Fine. We can have that conversation... later. First, child, you need to stop what you are doing. Put down that phone!
Good law, I think, considering the magnitude of the problem.
As a ham radio operator, I wonder: What effect would the law have on my operating mobile equipment?
Ditto for CB operators, such as truckers.
I'd likely use the ham radio or CB only in an emergency (a truck breakdown where there is no cell phone coverage) so I wouldn't be moving anyway.
I think texting is stupid whether you're moving or not. So much easier and user-friendly to just call somebody up and talk.
But I'm just a fuddy-duddy.
I think you are a pretty sharp guy, Stan, don't sell yourself short. Although self-deprecation is a great way to go.
I know when I lived in L.A. I caused at least 3 rear-end accidents because I was addicted to my investment banker Blackberry. The one accident I had in SD occurred when I dropped a Qdoba burrito on my lap and looked away for a second while the traffic on 41st St. in Sioux Falls suddenly ground to a halt.
Was I ever charged? Nope.
Justin,
If you are an investment banker you of all people should understand how a business deals with risks. Do you really think this report that could certainly be viewed as biased in favor of the insurance industry would cherry pick states that have low incidences of phone crashes? Insurance claims cost companies money and it's in their interest to curb realized bad behavior.
You may want to rethink your statement about not caring about a government that restricts something that doesn't affect me. I think we can all cite examples of a government passing laws that go too far in the name of a noble cause. Eventually they will step on a freedom that IS important to you.
I've already had plenty of freedoms taken away from me by our codified laws, thanks Ryan.
If you believe this is a liberty being snatched from you, you are wrong. Texting and driving is already illegal under our distracted driving laws. It hasn't been enforced, and it is very hard to enforce. Nevertheless, this ban will make it clear. And if you crash into a motorcycle at 65 and kill somebody while texting in your truck ( as happened in Sioux Falls last month) it will help the victims' families take every penny they can squeeze out of your manslaughtering behind in civil court when the record of your text at that exact time is retrieved.
If you gave two craps about liberty, this is the last thing you would be talking about in this state.
Distracted driving is distracted driving. Why not simply increase the penalty for that? Are you trying to say that texting is somehow worse because I can tell you the end result is the same. If I'm reading a newspaper on my lap and committ manslaughter I guess that's ok since I wasn't texting.
Ryan, I agree that a superior solution would be to impose hard fines on all forms of distracted driving. But texting while driving is a new and somewhat unique behavior. Many texters seem not to realize they are distracted (the fantasy of multitasking). I'm speculating here, but I would suggest that people reach for the phone in a conditioned, almost reflexive way that they don't reach for the newspaper or Charlie's cheeseburger. Laws spotlighting and stigmatizing this specific behavior may be necessary for public education.
For whatever reason, the police aren't prosecuting distracted driving. I don't see a problem with the local or state governments emphasizing where they see the biggest risk by memorializing the illegality of a subset of that activity and sending a message to both police and citizens that this is something that will be taken seriously.
The challenge for enforcing both laws is it is very hard to prove and almost never considered until there is some sort of collateral damage. When Amy Senser was charged with the drunk driving homicide in Minneapolis they had a record of her texting at the approximate time of the accident, but I'm not sure if that charge stuck.