Iowa City debates whether police officers belong in schools
Southeast Cedar Rapids shooting under investigation
Tornado touches down near Oklahoma City, more forecast
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
Severe storms blow through Eastern Iowa
Interactive: Shelter from the storm
Should cell phone-related distrated driving be a primary offense?
Related Stories
Iowa lawmakers are debating whether to allow law officers to issue distracted driving citations to cell-phone users.
Sen. Tod Bowman, D-Maquoketa, told a Senate subcommittee that distractions like texting while driving have become “somewhat of an epidemic” on Iowa highways, but he expressed concern that the proposed language in Senate File 33 may be too broadly worded and encompass activities like changing a radio channel or eating a hamburger while driving.
Senate File 33 seeks to prohibit drivers from engaging in a distracting activity while operating a motor vehicle. The proposal would repeal the current law, which bars a person from using a hand-held electronic communication device to write, send, or read a text message while driving a motor vehicle and bans cell-phone use outright for young drivers. Current law is only enforceable as a secondary action when a peace officer stops or detains a driver for a suspected violation of another motor vehicle law.
What do you think? Should cell phone-related distrated driving be a primary offense in Iowa?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
I think any activity that causes a motor vehicle to be driven in an erratic manner should be reasonable cause to pull over that motor vehicle. Beyond that, you had best make sure you have just cause better than your interpretation of what I may or may not be doing. This isn’t a police state yet.
I’ve had a scary close call when a woman drove through a red light, passing inches in front of me, after I hit the brakes in time to avoid an accident. As she passed by I could see that she was talking on her cell phone and oblivious to the world around her. People should have the common sense to not talk on their cell phone while driving. We shouldn’t need a law.
Sadly, I fear that we do need a law because people do not use their common sense. The law should ban any cellphone use, including hands free, and should also ban texting. The problem is not the physical problem of holding a cell phone and driving. The problem is the distraction.
I personally find the “free” Obama phones to be a primary offense. A previous administration started the program to make land lines available for indigent elderly and disabled adults. Then it was expanded to cell phones for anyone recieving govt. assistance with a limit on prepaid minutes. Not enough minutes? No problem get 5 phones! Now that program includes a pricier phone in case a welfare receipiant wants to type a resume. It’s estimated this will cost us taxpayers $100K/mo. Guess who is supplying the phones?
Texting while driving should probably be a primary offense, typing a resume while driving, definetly. They can use the penalty money to pay for the
“free” phones and pay off the big donors.
Talk about going off-topic. This post may set the record.
I often respect Sue’s opinion, even when I disagree, because she normally has a well thought out position that she expresses well. Not today. For all intents and purposes, this post has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
” . . . normally has a well thought-out position, . . . ” Apparently you’ve seen “positions” I haven’t — I can’t fathom the “normally”. You might want to look at further comments by her below and rethink that statement.
1. What does your first paragraph have to do with the issue in question ?
2. What is your source of information for the statements made in the first paragraph ?
That is what you guys object to?!! I may have been about 2 degrees of separation with my teachable moment post but I thought I tied it in rather nicely to the conversation at hand.
Cedric, http://obamaphone.net/
No, you did not tie “it in rather nicely”. You had an agenda that had nothing to do with the subject of this discussion. I’m disappointed that the Gazette let this get through.
The “previous administration” that started the landline program was Saint Ronald Reagan. No wonder Sue didn’t mention His name.
The cellphone program was started by the Bush II administration. Again, Sue fails to mention that.
As for reality, more can be learned at Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp) rather than the not-even-close-to-credible “ObamaPhone” site Sue relies on.
Keep watching FOX News and listening to Rush, keep sacrificing IQ points.
Perhaps If you just sat quietly for a moment and took a few deep breaths, Sue?… Sue?
The program was started for the right reasons, who wants to deny granny from calling 911 for help? Right Joe? Then Bush came along and was convinced the program should include cell phones because grannies were more mobile these days, not always disabled but poor nonethless. Are you with me Joe? It was the dems that expanded the program to include anyone recieving public assistance. Heard of Tracphones Joe? They are now dubbed Obamaphones (not by me) and include a shiney taxpayer paid for brochure glorifying the hand outs that even you may qualify for. The moral of the story, Joe is that all these well intended programs get so out of hand to invite fraud & big abuses.
Joe you can continue to discredit me by your comments but it doesn’t change the facts.
http://www.surenews.com/obama/and-the-rich-get-richer-worlds-richest-man-and-major-obama-supporter-getting-filthy-rich-supplying-obama-phones.htm
“That is what you guys object to?!!” I can only speak for myself but i object to trying to vector off and politicize every subject. Furthermore I object to posting rumor, misinformation, and myth as fact — I happen to believe individuals individually, and as a whole (the electorate), make more sensible decisions if they base them on facts versus fallacy. Is there something about that you don’t understand, or take issue with ? Try staying on the subject and fact check your intended statements before you post them and see how the “you guys object to” responses drop off.
Cedric, just a suggestion and speaking for myself, if you would spend less time reading the dog catcher tribune or watching MSNBC you might be able to do your own homework and not rely on links of mine you don’t like.
First of all, I have no idea what the “dog catcher tribune” is ( note that if it is a publication the first letters should be Capitalized and it should be surrounded by quotation marks). nor do I watch MSNBC. “Do my own homework”, about what — what are you talking about ? “Rely on links of mine” what the heck does that mean and relate to anything ? Why would I need to rely on your links? Your link, to something called “Surenews”, appears to be nothing but a sensationalist blog — and you didn’t post that link until after my “This is what you guys . . . ” appeared. Your “just a suggestion” reply post is a total, meaningless, waste of keystrokes.
Yes, it should be a primary offense. There is no reason for people to be driving and talking on the phone. If what I hear in grocery stores, etc, most conversations are BS sessions anyway. You want to gab, do it somewhere other than behind the wheel. 30 years ago there were no cell phones, and we got along just fine. Many people use it simply because it’s there.
You got it Dave, on the money ! But much worse when driving is TEXTING !! ( But otherwise I’ll take texting any day — I don’t have to listen to inane conversations. But there’s still the problem of them bumping into you (or walking into traffic) as they text.
Yes to the primary offense (whatever that is). A fine well into triple digits and very heavy penalties if serious injury or death was caused would also be nice.
Blatant distracted driving is the drunk driving for self righteous hypocrites.
Moderate me Scotty.
One wonders if the person creating the headline for this question was doing so from a cell phone while driving. How else would they be so distracted as to leave the c out of the word distracted as it appears at 5:23pm on Wednesday Feb 20? Maybe the gazette’s editor was also distracted before approving this question?
That dad-gum, dag-gone, dratted distrated driving !!
Talking, I don’t care so much. At least your eyes can be on the road, unless you are the moron that tries to talk AND write notes on a pad of paper resting on the steering wheel. Texting is a whole different matter. Texting should be an automatic ticket. Example: sitting behind a young lady at a stoplight. She was texting during the red light, but then was so engrossed in the text that she sat through the green light, the yellow light and the second red. She finally looked up about 3/4 through the next green and took off like nothing was wrong.. I did not honk since we were the only two at the light and wondered how long we would sit there. She had no clue what was going on around her as her head was down the entire time. Scary, because I would bet she texts while the car is moving.