The legislative silly season has begun in Carson City as the State legislators begin their legislative session.
First up, State sen Shirley Breeden (D-Nanny) of Henderson proposed a bill to ban talking and texting while driving.
From the LVRJ: Breeden, D-Henderson, feels optimistic about her Senate Bill 140 becoming law -- unlike two years ago when her similar bill passed the Senate but died in the Assembly.
"I haven't heard anyone say they oppose the bill," she said. "They come up to me and say, 'But Shirley, I depend on texting.' "
If the bill becomes law, then there is a pretty big club in it to induce drivers to obey.
For a first violation, the fine would be $250. A second violation carries a $500 fine. For a third offense, the fine would be $1,000, and the offender would be suspended from driving for six months. http://www.lvrj.com/news/bill-to-ban-cell-phones-while-driving-introduced-115747034.html
"I haven't heard anyone say they oppose the bill," she said. "They come up to me and say, 'But Shirley, I depend on texting.' "
If the bill becomes law, then there is a pretty big club in it to induce drivers to obey.
For a first violation, the fine would be $250. A second violation carries a $500 fine. For a third offense, the fine would be $1,000, and the offender would be suspended from driving for six months. http://www.lvrj.com/news/bill-to-ban-cell-phones-while-driving-introduced-115747034.html
Apparently Sen. Nanny Breeden is unaware that there are laws that already on the books to punish drivers who are not paying attention while driving- it's called inattentive driving, reckless driving etc.. So, I wonder when Nanny Breeden will propose bills that will prohibit eating while driving, changing radio stations while driving etc. Oh, and police officers are exempt from this proposal. So, cops can text and drive while us little people cannot. I guess the police are special because they are never distracted when driving and talking on the phone.
The next nanny up is Democratic Assemblyman Harvey Mumford wants to tax junk food because kids and adults are getting too fat and of course to raise money for the state.
From the LVRJ: Assemblyman Harvey Munford says there is nothing wrong with birthday cakes, candy, ice cream or soft drinks.
But the former teacher makes that statement with a big proviso -- as long as the eating of sweets and fast foods is done only occasionally.
To induce children and others not to binge on unhealthy food, the Las Vegas Democrat is drafting a bill to place as much as an extra 5 percent sales tax on junk food purchased in restaurants and convenience stores.
"I am trying to find new revenue and so I'm thinking, why not tax junk food and other such discretionary spending that contributes to obesity?" said Munford, vice chairman of the Assembly Taxation Committee. http://www.lvrj.com/news/legislator-wants-to-tax-junk-food-116007759.html
But the former teacher makes that statement with a big proviso -- as long as the eating of sweets and fast foods is done only occasionally.
To induce children and others not to binge on unhealthy food, the Las Vegas Democrat is drafting a bill to place as much as an extra 5 percent sales tax on junk food purchased in restaurants and convenience stores.
"I am trying to find new revenue and so I'm thinking, why not tax junk food and other such discretionary spending that contributes to obesity?" said Munford, vice chairman of the Assembly Taxation Committee. http://www.lvrj.com/news/legislator-wants-to-tax-junk-food-116007759.html
Yeah Assemblyman, and computers, Playstations, Ninetendos and other computer games don't contribute to kids being fat. Kids are getting fat not only because of junk food (any proof that kids are eating more junk food than before?) but because they less active than before. Kids are inside playing with their computer games instead of playing outside. They are on their cell phones instead of riding bikes. They are watching TV instead of playing sports.
So, Assemblyman Munford, stop being my nanny and my family's nanny. Concentrate on being a legislator and deal with the State budget. But if you want to be a nanny, then go after the things that actually cause obesity in kids- lack of physical activity.
You know this guy will be pissed:
Cookie monster photo stolen from Realdebate Wisconsin: http://realdebatewisconsin.blogspot.com/
I'm a little surprised that conservatives are against anti-texting while driving legislation.
ReplyDeleteFirst, there is no defense for the behavior. It is always unnecessary, always wrong, always stupid. Period.
Second, "inattentiveness" is vague and open to interpretation. The proposed legislation is specific, and clear. What's the problem?
Third, texting is far more distracting than changing the radio, talking to a passenger, or even eating something. To text you have to look away frequently and focus on a little screen and littler buttons. You're distracted by a) reading, b) typing, c) mentally processing the conversation, d) going through the procedure of sending/receiving. That's a LOT of distraction.
If suddenly people were trying to steer with their feet, and control the pedals with a stick, and it was a widespread problem, I'd want them to outlaw that too!
And yes, I deliberately picked a stupid example, because texting while driving indescribably stupid.
No doubt it is a stupid idea, but my main complaint is that there are laws that already cover this. It's just an unneeded law.
ReplyDeleteI agree they should have a specific law on the books targeting texting while driving. The part of the law that I vehemently disagree with is cell phone use while driving. Ban new drivers from cell phone use for the first 6 mos to 1 yr...not the entire population.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, i can't drive and talk on the phone at the same time, so I won't. And that is another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
ReplyDelete"I don't have a cell phone."
ReplyDeleteLuddite! :)
Amish.
ReplyDelete