|
|
||
Text-message ban bill put off for a year Date published: 1/16/2008
By Chelyen Davis
RICHMOND--Bills to ban text-messaging while driving will have to wait another year. The House Transportation Committee yesterday referred two such bills to the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, which will study them for a year to make sure they don't create any unintended consequences. The bills, from Del. Jim Scott, D-Merrifield, and Del. Albert Eisenburg, D-Arlington, would make it against the law to send text messages on a cell phone while driving. Scott said he introduced the bill because texting has become so widespread, and is a dangerous distraction for drivers. He noted that the General Assembly has banned all cell-phone use while driving for teenagers, and said the time has come to address at least one dangerous aspect of cell-phone use for adults. Martha Meade, of AAA, agreed. "We have such a problem with distracted driving in our nation anyway,'' Meade said, adding that there are about a million crashes a year due to driver inattention. "We truly believe this is a very dangerous activity, and we hope Virginia will take a lead in banning it and saving lives on our roadways." During 2006, 158 billion text messages were sent nationwide, Meade said. That's a 95 percent increase from 2005. "I know that's gone up even more since then, especially among younger adults." Del. Jeff Frederick, R-Prince William, asked Scott why he didn't propose banning other distractions, such as applying lipstick, changing CDs, eating or lighting a cigarette. "I guess one could ban every possible distraction. But it seems to me this is particularly bad because it requires you to, in the main, use two hands," Scott answered, calling texting "much more dangerous than the other items you mentioned." Scott told reporters after the meeting that he had no problem with his bill being carried over for a year for further study. He does plan to reintroduce it in the 2009 session. Chelyen Davis: 804/782-9362Email: cdavis@freelancestar.com
"But I do not agree with putting animals lives before [those] of people."
Right, because people who so carelessly tread upon the lives of others are more deserving than those who are shamelessly exploited. You don't have to be an animal lover to disagree with cruelty.
testicular ornaments as antennae - this would be passed. Same ole same ole down in Richmond - Looks like its business as usual and nothing of consequence will be done.
Is saving more lives considered an "unintended consequence"???
"...the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, which will study them for a year to make sure they don't create any unintended consequences." Such as preventing our representatives from texting while zooming up and down 95 on the people's business. I remember the guy who was trying to share my lane as he was texting. Good thing one of us was paying attention.
I find this news very disturbing. I am an animal lover and agee with the bill on making any type of animal fighting illigal. But I do not agree with putting animals lives before that of people. Texting whild driving is a real problem and people are dying because of it. So while we wait another year (expensive study) more people will die on our highways. I just wonder if the fatality rate from this practice will be a part of this study. I am one not willing to become a statistic for it.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
