Last updated on 2014.03.20
The South Dakota Legislature listens to constituents, respects local control, and sends a message that texting while driving is irresponsible, dangerous behavior. What's not to like?
David Montgomery reports that, after declaring failure just a couple days ago, legislators have crafted a compromise statewide texting ban that, actually, feels less like compromise and more like a whole lot of what good sense would call for.
We should see the details in HB 1177 shortly. But it looks like we get $100 fine for texting as a secondary offense. The Highway Patrol can't pull you over just for staring at your screen instead of the road, but when they bust you for not seeing that stop sign or drifting over the center line, they can write up your texting as well.
As a bonus (consolation?) for Republicans, the new bill would not prohibit local governments from implementing more serious penalties.
As a bonus for small-d democrats, Rep. Charlie Hoffman tells Mr. Montgomery that this bill is happening because the people want it:
"There was an enormous amount of pressure from home, and from people who talked in the last crackerbarrels, (saying) ‘Why aren’t you doing something about texting?’" said Hoffman. "People in this House and Senate didn’t want to go back on their campaign and have to be badgered with, ‘Why aren’t you doing your job?’ [David Montgomery, Lawmakers Reach Texting Ban Compromise," Political Smokeout, 2014.03.13]
Dang: voters speak, legislators respond. That's how government is supposed to work.
This is where the state should adopt a statewide law on texting-whatever it is.
Funny local control on this and no local on deciding regulations on types of dogs.
Don't mean to open that can of worms Cory but to me it just doesn't make sense.
I was in the committee meeting three years ago (or was it 4?) when Miss South Dakota described the death of her brother in an text-related accident. Broke my heart and then infuriated me because the committee voted the bill down. I'm sad it took so long to get another bill to the point of likely(?) passage but heartened to think it just might happen this time.
I also remember once observing an idiot on a motorcycle texting and really not wanting to be driving on the same street with him.
I am really at odds with this texting legislation. The fine should be higher and be a primary offense. I've known personally at least one cyclist killed by a driver killed by a distracted driver on their cell phone and texting is far worse.
As a cyclist the one thing I fear the most is getting hit by a driver who is texting. Recently I visited with another cyclist about training rides in rural areas here in South Dakota and he expressed the same concern. We always do a shoulder check and try to make eye contact with these drivers as they approach and when he sees their head down he gives them as room as possible. He said it is very common to see these drivers distracted texting. Talk about riding defensively!
I have read from those opposed to stronger penalties on texting and driving that it would be just another example of being a nanny state or use the example of eating and driving and accidently spill part of your lunch on your lap. I just feel that is a weak argument. When you have a growing public safety issue there needs to be laws to help change people's behavior. Otherwise if they are concerned about being a nanny state than repeal many laws and turn it into the Wild West.
If I get hit by someone that I find out was texting I'll be very angry to say the least.
The Voice of the People wins!