Create a Ning Network!
This is a discussion and results of HB103:Should people under the age of 18 be banned from using wireless phones while driving. These are the Final results:
Comments to the survey:
Subject: Re: HB103:Should people under age 18 be banned from using wireless phones while driving?> >There is already a law that covers that, its called inattentive driving! Wow, I think the legislature is worried about there job security, if they don't have any "bills to vote on" they can't justify their existance. Or their paychecks!>>Just keep taking away our freedoms with every stupid law passed. >>The zero fatalities movement already teaches this, a law will not curb it any better than the law that already exists.>>Thank you for your update!
"T" from Eagle Mountain
RE: HB103:Should people under age 18 be banned from using wireless phones while driving?
Yes, I think this is a good idea. We already limit driving with non-family for 6 months, and night driving for 6 months, and allow driving with parents only for a year – all these things are designed to allow new drivers to gradually take on more difficult situations. Telling them not to use a cell phone and drive is very much like this – just another way to allow them to gradually and safely develop skills before taking too much on.
"B" from Eagle Mountain
Re: HB103:Should people under age 18 be banned from using wireless phones while driving?
From a pure police officer stand point, we would have to erect signage to alert out of state drivers, the exceptions make enforcement very hard unless you get a warrant to determine who they were calling. Thus was the same objection I had before when it was introduced. For emergency use, proceed to a safe place and stop the car, the same for the other exceptions. If a person is issued a citation and they were intact on the line with 911 that is easy to check, or they can submit a call record to prove they were on for an emergency, this costs the State nothing, so if rewritten just prohibit the use while driving, but take into consideration use under special reasons. Money will have to be allocated for signing or the court will throw it out. It should be a primary offense. I just fear the way it is written it will be a nightmare to enforce. "A" from Eagle Mountain
More comments from survey participants:
There had been a typo in the original blog post. Thanks to Mike McGrath for pointing that out. It has now been corrected.
Join DavidLifferth.com ©2013
Welcome toDavidLifferth.com ©2013
Sign Upor Sign In
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DavidLifferth
Friend me on Facebook:
© 2013 Created by David Lifferth.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.