Toledo City Council passes law to ban texting while driving
It’s with a sigh, that I share this from FOX Toledo:
DOWNTOWN TOLEDO – UPDATE 4:48 p.m. EST: By a 10-2 count, Toledo City Council voted to ban texting while driving in the city of Toledo. The measure will go into effect Jan. 1.
The only two council members to vote no for the ordinance were Lindsay Webb and Michael Ashford. Councilwoman Webb voted against the ordinance because she believes the texting while driving ban should be banned state-wide, not just a few communities throughout the Buckeye state.
“It’s very similar to the smoking ban, which in my opinion had detrimental affects when we just passed it in Lucas County because people could simply go to the outlying areas,” she said. “So I want to see consistency across all boundaries and I would like to see it passed state-wide.”
I’m not sure I want to see it state-wide but I didn’t feel as if this was a necessary law and that our current law enforcement forces have enough problems enforcing the current laws we have for much serious driving offenses, such as dui’s…
Texting while driving is very dangerous. Anyone who has observed it, or who has done it themselves, knows that. It should be ranked up there with other impaired driving conditions. I am not “big” on bumper stickers but do agree with one I saw that said “hang up and drive”. We all enjoy the benefits of rapid communications available to us, but does anyone really need to text messages while driving? We have the ability to text, twitter, email, voice mail, facebook, myspace, linkedin, blog, tweet, tag, poke,….., but is it necessary to do it while driving. I am all for utilizing technology, but it almost seems as if the real “killer app” is wasting time. Seriously, does anyone really care what you are doing every moment of the day? Much of the new technology catches on rapdily with teenagers, and teenagers texting while driving doesn’t seem like a receipe for success?
November 25th, 2009 at 4:49 amI am not a fan of more laws to tell us what to do, but when I observe people texting and driving it makes me wonder where their good sense has wandered off to.
This may be a crazy idea in which I know it will never happen but here’s a thought. Let’s make council or in this case the ones who approved the “no texting” law become police members/officers and try to patrol the neighborhoods with the current laws in place which from what I hear is a very long list. Now throw in the new law and see if they can actually perform their duties without ignoring a true crime just to catch that evil texter. I know it won’t work and they won’t get the hint that our police crew have their hands full already. Welcome to Toledo where irrelevant laws get passed while other issues get over looked. I’ll be looking for signs display a cell phone with a finger over it and ever so popular circle with the slash through it at every border entrance into Toledo.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:05 amWhat about being on the internet while driving? Most cell phones access the internet. Why aren’t we outlawing that? What about putting on makeup while driving or combing your hair?
There is already a law that covers all of these activities or any activity that distracts the driver. Is it possible that Council enacted this ordinance to get publicity and distract attention from real issues the City faces?
November 25th, 2009 at 7:06 amWhy couldn’t this just be covered under “reckless operation.” it’s already a la and would certainly seem to cover this activity.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:50 amLaw, not “la”
November 25th, 2009 at 7:51 amMore laws that can’t be enforced. More duplications of laws that already exist. More strain on an already strained police force. More services to perform with a budget that’s way into the red.
Yes, this seems highly intelligent.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:11 amWell, now that we are getting this specific, maybe we need even more laws. Here are some ideas:
- Putting on makeup in the car while driving
- Looking in a bag in the passenger seat(purses, bookbags)
- Reading a book or magazine (could be two laws)
- Sneezing or coughing
- Touching the radio
- Talking to passengers
- Blinking excessively
- Daydreaming
- Sunglasses when it isn’t bright enough
I think you get the idea and please feel free to add to my list if you have anything you can think of because if it saves just one life, it is worth it. We can not let this be classified under just one simple law of reckless driving, oh no, we must make a seperate individual law for every possible infraction.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:33 amHow many of you know of people that have multiple DUI’s? I’m so glad those pesky laws against drinking and driving work so well.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:05 amBut at least DUI’s get a pretty, more expensive license plate.
Maybe TWD’s should get a mandatory 160 character signature on their text messages
Seriously though, I think this law has got to be one of the stupidest laws. Not that I support TWD but really it’s covered by other laws and is written to the point where it’s unenforceable.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:50 amParty Plates.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:42 pmadding to Doug’s list –
- Did you leave the coffee pot on
- Was the iron still on
- Is my presentation going to influence my pay grade?
- Putting on sunglasses when the sun is facing you
- Taking them off when it’s not
- Adjusting any of the mirrors
- Setting cruise control
- Adjusting the wiper setting
- Spraying windshield fluid
I can go on and on, any one of the things mentioned above and in Doug’s comment can in theory cause an accident.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:13 pmIn addition to comment number 2 –
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2604/4134705920_7530fcbfb3_o.jpg
Enjoy
November 25th, 2009 at 5:21 pmI’m not sure how I feel about this one, but Webb’s rationale for oppposing it (it should be applied uniformly statewide, like the smoking ban), as is her thought process in general, is absurd. First, the argument against piecemeal city smoking bans was economic: people will take their business to the next town over, hurting the bar where smoking is not allowed. But with the texting ban, there are no economic issues. Then there’s her claim that this would be unfair because the driver who starts a text Sylvania Township becomes a criminal once they enter Toledo. The solution, Lindsay? Don’t text at all behind the wheel. No matter how you feel about the law, it’s just plain dangerous, period. (admin delete comment in violation of rules) And the fact that Ashford signed on to Webb’s rationale makes me seriously question his thought process. Longtime Ashford detractor Jack Wilson would be proud of me.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:15 pmLisa Renee,
Agreed; we already have a law on the books and it is called reckless driving. A person causes an accident then charge with this. Our politicians must stop creating the stupid unenforceable laws.
But I would be all for a stupid politician law…
November 26th, 2009 at 5:42 amReading the various posts to this issue makes me feel good about the general consensus. I agree, adding laws doesn’t do much of anything and we really don’t need a “texting law” it is already covered under other laws. IMHO what needs to happen is for individuals to act responsibly! Whatever you are doing right at the moment isn’t all that important! Modern technology is wonderful, it extends our abilities in many directions. The only problem, as I see it, is that we tend to think of everything being used positively by intelligent people. Get real. The downside is that the same people who were doing really stupid things in, pick a year, are still doing stupid things with whatever is available today. Or if they aren’t, they unfortunately, have reproduced and passed along their idiotic tendancies.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:49 amAt least the liberal do-gooders on toledo city council get to pat themselves on the back! Once again they saved the citizens of toledo from themselves!
November 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pmIt was Councilman Collins who introduced this, he’s not a liberal.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:13 pmChad – Again, I’m not sure how I feel about this. It seems hard to enforce. Regardless, the law wouldn’t save us from ourselves; it saves someone like me from some idiot who can’t focus on their driving.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:17 pmLisa – Not that I really care too much, but why was I edited in #13? My derogatory remark was aimed at Lindsay Webb, a public figure, not a fellow GCJ contributor. Thus I thought that this fell within your rules. Correct me if I’m wrong.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pmSee Rule Number 2:
2. Civil discourse is the goal, repeated personal insults directed at other members of the blog, especially those not related to a topic or not in a heated discussion of a topic will be edited/deleted. This now includes elected officials/candidates since it seems as if some can not follow the “heat of the moment” context in which that was intended. Those who continually go off topic will find their posts moderated and only those comments that are on topic approved.
Your observation was not only not related to the topic it was a personal insult.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:22 pmI am going to guess that when internet providers start getting text messaging subpoenae from municipal courts, they are not going to drop everything and for a lack of a better phrase, get right on it. And I am not sure that a municipal court would even have the authority to order such an onus from interstate providers. Texting offenses would be of a minor character and have a relatively short statute of limitation and the cases might collapse without the complete cooperation from the internet people. Toledo once had an ordinance which prohibited anyone from painting the wings of sparrows and trying to sell them as canaries. That ordinance must have been important to someone too.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:39 pm(13) I, too, failed to see Webb’s logic. The smoking ban affects businesses and patrons can, indeed, go to other areas. So her logic there was valid, but does she think people will opt to drive and text other places if we have a ban? I sure don’t get that.
If the police get the nod to pull people over for texting, under the reckless driving legislation – why would Council need to have spend the time and effort to do this?
We’re not facing a shortage of legislation – enforcement is the issue. And I’m not sure the cop on the street would know to pull over someone for texting. Maybe the administration could do some reckless driving training with the street cops.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:15 pmI actually get part of her logic, having only one part of our area have a texting ban is going to create a nightmare, there are people who are normally well informed that are not aware this passed, expecting people to be aware if they drive into Toledo that this law has passed, without erecting signs at every single street that enters Toledo is not realistic. We have residents of our area that don’t read the papers or watch the news. We saw this first hand with the change in trash pick up and again at the trash meeting you and I went to, there were people there that claimed this was the first they had heard of automation.
At least with the smoking ban, if people were not aware of it, they were made aware when they entered the establishment. There were a heck of alot less places where people smoked to notify compared to not just Toledo residents but any person who drives through Toledo. While I still would not support a state law, since we have laws on the books that would address a person who caused an accident while texting, at least a state wide ban would be consistent as far as creating a larger awareness base.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm