Time to take a look at the texting and driving bill. The House passed HB #484 that would ban texting and driving by those under the age of eighteen on February 13. Those voting against it were:
Anderson, Blackmon, Clark, DeBar, DeLano, Denny, Dixon, Gipson, Haney, Horne, Lott, Metalhead, Mims, Scott, Sullivan.
The Senate expanded the language of the bill to state:
It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who manually texts or accesses social media while driving is in violation of this section.
The bill passed the Senate on March 5. The bill went to conference between the two chambers since they differed to whom the bill should apply. The bill that emerged from conference said the bill would apply to all drivers. This is where the old meets the new and in this case, it was the technology that caused a problem. The computer systems at the legislature have their bugs. One such bug is the short title of the bill. The short title does not always reflect the changes in the bill. The short title for the bill that passed conference stated:
"H. B. No. 484: Texting; prohibit any motor vehicle operator age 18 or younger from while driving."
However, the actual language of the bill stated:
"(2) An operator of a moving motor vehicle is prohibited from writing, sending or reading a text message and from accessing, reading or posting to a social networking site using a hand-held mobile telephone."
The Senate leadership told the chamber when it brought the bill up for passage the problem with the computer system and what language was in the bill. The bill passed with no problem. Oh yes, only three Senators voted against the bill: McDaniel, Sojourner, Watson. You got it, the only people to vote against texting and driving in the Senate were the three "conservative" senators and I write that as a conservative.
However, the mischief started in the House. The House passed the bill. The nays were: Anderson, Arnold, Barker, Brown (20th), Busby, Clark, Currie, DeBar, Evans (43rd), Formby, Gipson, Guice, Horne, Jackson, Malone, Mims, Moore, Scott. However, Representative Bill Denny filed a motion to reconsider the bill. He claimed (in the video below) he thought he was voting for a bill that applied only to drivers under the age of eighteen. Never mind he voted against that bill a few weeks earlier, he just said he voted for it because the short title stated the bill only applied to those under the age of eighteen and he um, thought it should only apply to those under 18.
He asked the House not to table his motion to reconsider. He then launched into some slippery slope argument against the bill itself. The bill died.
Note: Thanks to Mississippi Center for Public Policy for posting videos of legislative sessions online. Unfortunately, the House took a brief recess and the rest of the debate is not available for viewing.
25 comments:
what does age have to do with it? no texting or all drivers or no law. agree the more youthful drivers are the most prone to doing it.
Will never vote for Denny again. What a disappointment.
I am appalled. That people even NEED a law to stop them from doing something so obviously dangerous bothers me considerably. What can possibly be so urgently in need of instant communication that it can't wait for the next exit or parking lot? And most of the idiots doing it have nothing more eloquent to convey than "LOL" or some other garbage-y slang shorthand. u hv 2 b v stupid 2 do it at all, mch lss whl u r drvng.
I beg to differ regarding the 'under 18' suggestions. I see people of all ages weaving in traffic, driving ten miles an hour, crossing lanes and turning erratically while manipulating a hand-held telephone device. Can't imagine Mississippi cannot pass such a simple law. Connecticut passed this law six years ago. The dumbasses who suggest it will lead to racial profiling need to be caned.
The phone carriers should be forced to load a App that can not be removed or shut off that does not let the phone send or receive texts while moving over a certain speed. Something like that. Just a thought.
I hope we get rid of Denny next time, what does this old man think when he gets in a car. Many he is going to whitfield and has lost it.
I am glad the bill was killed. It would be impossible to enforce, as there is no way Officer Fife could tell if one is checking the time, talking, looking at email or even looking online. It was just another reason for the police to stop innocent drivers without probable cause for yet another fishing expedition.
If age is the criteria then send Thad to the showers too!
I favor the additional police power due to the demonstrated safety interest. The insurance industry is not currently popular, but Hue Mena will eventually lose this one.
I live in Denny's district and I've voted for him before and will do it again. We don't need government telling us every little thing to do or not do,
Thanks Bill
Pound for pound we have to have the dumbest legislature in the country.
They are lost not having Haley to tell them what to do.
I would hardly call texting and driving a little thing.
It scares the hell out of me seeing people driving with a cell phones in one hand stuck to their ear and the other hand putting on eyeliner. YES. We need laws to PROTECT the public from stupid people. Like laws that protect kids from being left in a hot car in the summer time, etc. etc.
No one should text and drive at any age.
I 'll betcha some of these goobers don't know the difference between texting and talking on a cell phone and think since they have cars with handless phone systems, they couldn't take calls.
Yes, that IS how dumb many of our legislators are!
You can put 'em in a suit and make them take a bath, but they are still goobers.
There are far too many people posting here way too comfortable with subrogating their personal responsibility and freedom with governmental nannyism.
If one texts and drives and doesn't bother anyone else, then so be it. We have gone too far with all of this pre-crime legislation. When you have become far too comfortable with writing laws to prevent crime, instead of writing laws to punish for crime, everyone becomes a criminal and there is no more personal responsibility for doing what's right.
8:40 am, I don't care if you are fat and smoke. That really doesn't put my life directly at risk. I don't come from people with genetic predispositions to obesity or cancer or lung disease.
But, if you drink and drive or text and drive , you could KILL me or mine!
You have NEVER had a RIGHT in this country to put the lives of others at risk because you are f'ing stupid or lack self-control!
The nanny argument is important but those of you who are too stupid to understand the difference in putting others DIRECTLY at risk of bodily harm and some possibility of risk to those with bad genetic predispositions or a lack of willpower enable the would be nannies!
We do need protection from those who are irresponsible and stupid. We need to be able to put their asses in jail!
I agree with 8:40. If you're texting and driving and not bothering anybody else, you should be left alone. I frequently drink and drive and am not bothering anybody else and resent the law telling me I can't. I mean, really! Government nannyism encroaches on my personal freedom. I also frequently litter from my vehicle but do it so it's not really seen by anybody else and doesn't bother anybody.
Unfortunately we have law enforcement who want more powers over things they can already administer. Example: County Sheriff Departments want to run radar for 'safety' issues when all they have to do is get a stop watch and set distance and be able to do simple math. Problem solved if you can add/subtract, but that may require ability to think.
Texting while driving. There are already laws against reckless /distracted driving that can be enforced, if they wanted. Example, you see someone texting,eating,putting on makeup as a 'professional' you can pull them over and write a ticket. Again, they would require thinking.
Laws against speeding, lack of seat belts are on the books, but almost every wreck you see has a component of speed involved.
The government can not stop people from breaking laws of common sense, only write up the report after the consequences. If you want to give up every freedom to the government to 'protect' you, then you won't be able to live a life of freedom.
PS name one law (drinking driving/speed/seatbelt/distracted driving/ etc that has taken the risk away?)
9:25 am Try using your eyes and brain.
You can't stop some people from murdering or robbing either!
Do you really not know that kids and adults, for that matter, are now having designated drivers or " drunk buses"?
Did you not know restaurants and hosts are cutting off the booze to avoid liability?
Do you not look at the stats for how deaths have been reduced per capita by speed limits and seat belts?
You don't want freedom. For freedom to work, you have to have responsibility and control the irresponsible who are willing to harm PHYSICALLY or damage property to do what the hell they want. You want to do what you please without respect for others!
And, you still don't know the difference between nanny laws geared to save or make corporations and insurance companies money and laws geared to save lives.
You should be opposed to a meritocracy because if we had one , you'd be SOL.
9:04
The decision for you is a simple one. Don't drive. If you fear dying from a statistical anomaly, you simply shouldn't drive.
If the actions of another is somehow a less honorable way to die than of your own actions, then remove yourself from society because the risks as a result are entirely too high.
Now, see if you can follow along the trail of logic. If a parent hovers over their children and constantly steps in and removes those children from the results of irresponsible children, what happens to the child? They become irresponsible for their own actions. This is our modern society. For every ill, action or event, someone must be blamed and held responsible by others. Personal responsibility and the shame of lack thereof left us a long time ago.
If I create an accident, for whatever reason, then I should be held accountable. Attempting to create a situation where that accident won't occur by creating a pre-crime law, has never done what it was intended. It is further justification for legislative largesse.
If one can't stop and give honest thought to such, then the reality will never matter as long as a feel good measure can mask it. Such is the folly of ignorant fools.
Now, please continue with the logical fallacies in order not to have lend actual thought to the subject. Please feel free to use extreme examples as some form of argument instead of stepping back and attempting to discuss the subject. For it's much better for those of your like to be right in an argument than to be correct in life.
2:13 pm
You apparently never took a course in logic and you certainly weren't on your high school debate team if you managed to graduate!
You also don't have any understanding of law.
You compare apples to oranges.
Driving doesn't put others at risk.
Texting and driving does . Drunk driving does.
You don't have to hurt someone to be arrested for drunk driving.
If you smoke and don't expose others or if you eat too much, you only put yourself at risk. The effect on others is tenuous and indirect as it has to do with medical costs.
You can be irresponsible and stupid in a free society as long as you don't engage in a behavior that puts others at risk.
We deal with stupid and irresponsible in law all the time. That is why you can't practice medicine or drive a semi without meeting certain requirements or your ass will go to jail whether you've hurt someone or not.
Well, I hope 2:13 pm doesn't have children!
One day, they become teenagers.
If 2:13 pm thinks he can parent teenagers and not need laws and rules as an added tool, he is delusional.
He's apparently ( or will be) one of those parents who made life worse for other parents because he actually believes HIS teens are in his control. So HIS little Johnny or Jane is always truthful, trustworthy and responsible! HIS children will never suffer from peer group influence or rebel or have poor judgment.
Maybe he'll wise up and figure out job #1 as a parent will be getting your children into adulthood alive and undamaged physically so they can be functioning adults one day. But, then he may expect church and home school to keep his kid from being hit head on by another texting teen.
maybe 2:13 has already parented teens and taught them personal responsibility and a sense of right and wrong.
maybe 2:13 is not like 10:05 who needs a law to define for him/her what right and wrong is.
maybe 10:05 simply doesn't understand the concept of personal responsibility and what other parents do or do not do should not be a stronger impact on their children's lives vs their own teaching of what is right and wrong.
maybe 10:05 will realize that their job is to get their kid to adulthood without using others to guide them to what is right and wrong but with the capacity and intelligence to personally decide for themselves. perhaps they will regret trying to childproof the world and in it's stead, worldproof their children.
but, for some, it takes a village
8:33
I graduated the top of my HS class, a class of over 500. I actually was head of the debate team, where I learned that debate isn't seeking of the truth, it's simply attempting to "win an argument."
Which helped me to become a very successful plaintiff's attorney, not to mention arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court.
But, all that is said, not to argue from a position of superiority, but to point out that your attempt to do the same is as silly as your illegitimate attempt to to dismiss logic in favor of emotion.
ROFL 3:32 pm
" Not to argue from a position of superiority" and then that is exactly what you are attempting to do as you can't defend your argument.
High school class size? Really?
Does that mean that graduating from the top of your class at Trinity or Phillips wouldn't be more impressive because your class was larger?
You say you were " top of the class" but you don't say you were valedictorian.
Did your debate team win national honors?
How about undergrad? Were you Phi Beta Kappa?
And, you describe yourself as a " successful plantiff's attorney ". That's an interesting description.
Are you advertising on television as well? "One call, that's all" ?
Why don't you mention Law Review or professional recognition in one of the colleges? Are you published? How are you ranked in Mississippi?
Post a Comment