Sioux Falls city councilor Michelle Erpenbach is often said to be planning to run for Mayor of our state’s largest city. Which makes it quite interesting that she’s planning to propose an ordinance as intrusive as banning cell phone use in cars:
A proposal to ban handheld cellphones while driving faces a bumpy road at city hall.
Sioux Falls City Councilor Michelle Erpenbach plans to introduce a measure Tuesday to prohibit the use of any handheld electronic devices, including cellphones, while operating a vehicle on Sioux Falls streets.
I’m kind of surprised that someone would propose something so intrusive, especially someone who has been mentioned as being a mayoral hopeful. Huether is bad enough, but this puts her firmly to his left.
The thought that comes to my mind is that if she’s going to be this far to the left on what we can do in our cars, how far off is she from proposing limitations on personal ownership of guns within Sioux Falls City limits?
Because it’s pretty obvious that restricting personal rights are not a problem for her.
Do wearing seat belts save lives.
The liberals and the nanny state. Ask law enforcement how to enforce this? Does this law apply to everyone including law enforcement?
I want the police focused on crimes and criminals, not baby sitting the latest liberal policy to take rights away from people. Her candidacy just took a big hit. This is bad policy.
Not sure about cell phone ban in cars but current the laws sure have not discouraged texting while driving. It’s still fairly common and extra defensive driving and evasive maneuvers are needed at times. Sure hate to be the runner, walker or cyclist and those that loved them after a texting driver kills or cripples them.
Ask Gosch and the other RINOs who passed a texting ban in the Legislature. They’ll know the answer to your question.
What a horrible idea.
The way it is worded it would ban the use of CB Radios, business radios, hand held GPS and E-cigarettes.
And yet it doesn’t even begin the approach the issue of distracted driving. Someone who has been driving 16 hours straight can be just as dangerous as someone who is drunk. Someone who is emotionally distraught can be just as deadly as someone who is high on drugs. How about dealing with screaming kids, or eating in the car?
I remember back in the 80s when MADD was working so hard to cut down on drunk driving. Those efforts and all the nanny legislation passed to lower DUI limits, increase penalties, etc., have lowered the incidence rates of DUI, there is no doubt.
But since the movement to eradicate driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not a complete success, perhaps some in here would agree that we should just ignore drunk drivers now.
After all, it’s a person’s own business if they have a drink or two or ten and then get in a car and drive. If they screw up, then they’ll have to pay the price.
Exactly like it’s a person’s own business if they want to text and drive or use their cell phones and drive or read news or books on their phones while they drive – that’s their business, isn’t it? If they screw up, then they’ll have to pay the price.
Credible studies have shown that texting and using a cell phone while driving carries a risk equivalent to driving while under the influence. I truly hope that none of you or your loved ones get maimed or killed by some idiot driving a car when they’re drunk OR while they’re texting or using their cell phones.
Go back to Mother Russia, Heisenberg, so the State can look after your every move. Just because you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time doesn’t mean we’re all so clumsy and uncoordinated, Heisenberg.
I guess it’s safe to assume, then, that you are one who agrees that we should get rid of drunk driving laws because they haven’t solved the problem entirely and that drinking and driving is a personal issue which doesn’t need the nanny state controlling those behaviors?
By the way, thanks for the invitation to go to Russia, but I’ll respectfully decline. I think I’ll stick around and devote my life to making our wonderful country safer from the morons.
“that you are one who agrees that we should get rid of drunk driving laws because they haven’t solved the problem entirely and that drinking and driving”
Oh, the old slippery slope effort. And a bad effort at that.
The issues are the EFFECTIVENESS of a law, and a balancing of individual freedoms if that law were enacted.
Your silly slippery slope claim that since no law is 100% effective ends the debate reveals an intellectual disability.
Remember Heisy, not all who wander are lost.
“have lowered the incidence rates of DUI, there is no doubt.”
Such laws have also ruined the lives, marriages, relationships, and jobs of millions of folks who were & are a capable of safely operating a motor vehicle after 2,3, 6, or 9 beers in 1-2-3 hours..
How many people are living on the streets because they lost their jobs because of repressive DUI laws?
Your and MADD’s efforts are also racist as those who are arrested, convicted, and jailed because of DUI offenses are disproportionately black and Hispanic.
Yet, we are not doing anything about people driving with animals on their laps while they drive or people wearing ear buds.
Or deaf folks–imagine the outcry if the city banned hearing impaired/deaf folks from driving!
Why stop there?
(WARNING! SCARCASM AHEAD!)
Let’s ban all motor vehicles.
No more drunk driving
No more underage driving
No more distracted driving
No parking headaches
Hit and run has a new meaning
(SCARCASM ENDS)
The fact is there are many ways to be distracted while driving. Cells phones (texting/ voice) have become easy targets. What we need is refresher driver training. Some of us need to relearn a few basics
MC, your post is entertaining, but hardly the kind of credible post we would expect of someone who ran this blog back when Mr. Powers was in Pierre working for the SOS and running his postcard and yard sign business from that office, ultimately resigning in at least some shame for “personal reasons” or “family reasons.” or “whatever reasons” for which he resigned.
Look, you can make as much fun of this issue as you want, but cell phone usage while driving a car carries roughly the same risk of causing carnage as driving while drunk.
The risks of maiming or killing another while wolfing down a burger or yelling at kids or hogging down a cigarette has apparently not been a big enough problem to put forth statistics.
So while you are amused by this, could you also give us some sort of an idea of what you think we should do to address the cell phone risk – if anything?
Many years ago, I had the duty to tell a young wife, that her husband would not be coming home. He was killed by a drunk driver a couple of hours earlier. They were not strangers, they were both very much my friends. It was very sobering. It was the third hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life.
But that had nothing to do with driving and talking on a cell phone, or using a CB radio.
This is about politics, plain and simple.
There people driving with dogs on their laps, they are trying to eat fast food, they are looking at maps, trying to mind two or more kids fighting in the back seat. We have people working eight hours then driving 10 or more hours straight through, they are taking drugs (legal and illegal), some of them are not emotionally stable, and there are some people who can barely see over the dash. Yet there is nothing being done about these distractions.
There are already laws on the books to deal with this issue, however, the police don’t have the man power to catch red light runners, Let alone go after people using their cell phone. This law would be unenforceable, just like the texting ban is. We don’t need more laws that can’t be enforced,
This is about Erpenbach making a name for herself. This is about getting the city council members on record opposing a safety issue.
Yea Heis, the state can fix everything in your life. What about hands free, and CB radios to the other many gadgets and widgets that are in our cars like Windows and mirrors. There’s those pesky billboards meant to distract us. What about addresses and name of businesses on buildings. What about people riding in your car talking to you? Clothing or lack there of by pedestrians on the street is distracting, right? Breathing or coughing or blinking, that’s taking your eyes off the road, right?
If only we’d pass a law, there would be no poverty, crime, death, destruction. I am reminded of that John Lennon song.
Heisenburg, don’t you get it? Laws don’t save lives, people save lives. We don’t need any laws, because laws don’t solve problems, people solve problems. That’s their story and they’re stickin’ to it. Except when it comes to laws they want to pass. Then suddenly we hear complete opposite.
P.s. Troy, John Lennon’s song was about imagination, not law. He was killed by a crazy guy with a gun. Very unfortunate reference on your part, my friend. 🙁
You must be mistaken about Lennon’s murder.
NYC had a strict ban on handguns–Lennon could not have been killed by a crazy with a gun.
You must be a meat puppet making strawman arguments.
You must be troll.
End of argument, right?
Bill you miss the point. yes we need laws, and we need to enforce the laws. What we don’t need is a new law that can’t be enforced, because the old law is not being enforced.
MC, trust me, I didn’t miss the point. I’m thinking perhaps you missed mine. Most of us are law abiding citizens. We don’t break laws regardless if there is sufficient enforcement or not, simply because we believe in, and trust the rule of law.
You’re essentially arguing that unless we have a police state, we shouldn’t have laws. I don’t agree with you about that. To some degree, on the micro scale, all laws are “unenforceable.” But you’d have to be brain dead like Per Curiam to think that means we don’t need them.
“You’re essentially arguing that unless we have a police state, we shouldn’t have laws”
Talk about strawmen.
That’s not what he wrote, nor what he believes.
Why would you wildly misconstrue his words?
Try this “interpretation”
:
Fleming is essentially arguing that since we have a police state, any law is fine.
I don’t agree with that.
See how easy it is? Just invent a [ridiculous] position for your opponent, and then wisely disagree with it, and pat yourself on the back for doing so!
How lazy.
If we have a law that says you must be seated while driving, do we need a second law to say you may not stand while driving?
Okay (*sigh*) so, do we have a law that says we can’t use cell phones while driving, MC? Is that your point? If so, can you reference it for me? If not, then yours is a straw man argument (as per my critique of other arguments here). Hopefully, you’re intelligent enough to understand why. This isn’t an issue about who can make the most clever quip on a blog. It’s a matter of concern that whatever laws are out there right now about distracted driving aren’t working, and so perhaps need to be made more specific. Responsible citizen will take it seriously. If you don’t like the laws being proposed, think of a better one. But please, let’s not pretend that cell phones in cars aren’t a growing public safety problem.
I see it every time I drive home from work.
“Laws don’t save lives, people save lives.”
Pretty much true.
Unfortunately, you don’t believe it.
It’s a straw man argument. A logical fallacy. The fact that you think it’s true shows me your level of rational sophistication, and demonstrates conclusively why dialogue with you is a complete waste of time.
Bill:
Be sure to call law enforcement when you need medical assistance.
Go to the courthouse when you have a heart attack.
Get a prescription fro ma federal judge.
PEOPLE SAVE LIVES.
PEOPLE TAKE LIVES.
PEOPLE MAKE LIFE MISERABLE.
PEOPLE ENRICH LIVES.
Laws do none of the above.
LOL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarecrow#/media/File:Kakashi2.jpg
“You’re essentially arguing that unless we have a police state, we shouldn’t have laws”
WHO are you talking about?
Name the person around here who is arguing that we shouldn’t have law!
Otherwise, you erected a strawman.
Per MC above:
“There are already laws on the books to deal with this issue, however, the police don’t have the man power to catch red light runners, Let alone go after people using their cell phone. This law would be unenforceable, just like the texting ban is. We don’t need more laws that can’t be enforced.”
Classic straw man argument.
This is what has been written:
MC: ” We don’t need more laws that can’t be enforced.”
became in your view,
“You’re essentially arguing that unless we have a police state, we shouldn’t have laws”
Sorry, getting from the first to the latter requires deep holes in rational or logical thinking. One does not a “police state” to make any law enforceable or more enforceable, nor did MC ever some near to that suggestion. In fact, in most polices states, laws are rarely enforced let alone conformed with because there are SO MANY OF THEM!
You routinely do this to commenters here: you MISSTATE their views then analyze & criticize those misstated views.
And it’s so easy to catch you in these lazy strawman efforts.
If anything, MC’s statements could be criticized as an anti-“slippery slope” argument–but not a strawman.
But I doubt you understand slippery slope- or strawman-type situations.
Slippery slope and strawman arguments aren’t mutually excluseve. They are frequently used in combination, along with fearmongering. Put them all together and you pretty much have the entire NRA debate strategy in a nutshell.
BTW PC are you interested in discussing the topic here or just in trying to bust my chops? Either way you’re doing a really poor job of it. No wonder you don’t want anyone to know who you are. I wouldn’t either if I sucked as hard as you do. 😉
“Put them all together and you pretty much have the entire NRA debate strategy in a nutshell.”
Again, tell us what this new strawman has to do with anything on this thread?
“or just in trying to bust my chops? ”
You have no chops to bust–just weak pudding.
“if I sucked as hard as you do. ”
If I were you, I’d
beg the blogmaster to remove such an obscene &
a vulgar sexual comment.
Even if my name were Mudd, I’d not make such despicable comment in public…or private.
It’s sick.
But I’m not you.
Early Jazz musicians would say that a guy could really “Blow” if he had a good sound when playing the horn. If he couldn’t play very well then they would say that he was “Sucking” on that horn. That’s where the term “Suck” as being something bad came from.
See what I mean? You even suck at giving me a hard time! LOL.
Do you have ANY sense of embarrassment at writing what you have written?
Your parents must be proud.
LOL, I’m 65 years old, kid. Been playing jazz and writing at pro level since 16. Trust me, my parents have nothing to do with the fact that you suck when you think and when you write. If your parents told you otherwise, alas they are sadly mistaken. Up your game or give up.
Yuck.
60-something stalking me???
This is REALLY getting creepy.
Get help, kid. You’re delusional. The only interest I have in you is being rid of your drivel.
Let me see If I have this right. There is a law on the books to deal with distracted driving. It isn’t working. your answer is to pass the same law only targeting one aspect of it. (The easiest target).
If the first law isn’t working, what makes you think the second law will?
The way the rule is written, it would ban E-cigarettes, yet allow people to use fire to light an ‘analog’ cigarette.
Studies have also shown that it is not the cell phone that is the distraction as much as it is the conversation.
I’m not defending how the law is written MC. Change it so it’s better. If you are talking on your cell phone while driving you are easy to spot. In the same way we wouldn’t pull up beside a cop in our car and take a pull off a beer, most of us would become conscious that what we are doing is illegal, and would stop doing it. Will some people cheat? Of course. But right now, we’re sending a signal from “the establishment” that endangering others lives on the road via cell phone use is completely legal. Lives can be saved (maybe yours or someone you love) by refining that message. Again, if you don’t like the bill, write a better one. But arguments that we don’t need one, or that people will break any law we make both seem like bad arguments to me.
Billy,
You’ve really gone off the deep end on this one. Your pro arguments for a ban on cell phones have convinced me more then ever how messed up liberal logic is. If a law isn’t working re-write it until what? What is your ultimate goal? How is measurement achieved? At what cost of freedoms are you willing to law us into? Liberals write laws to achieve feelings of accomplishment. Your above posts are exactly why the democrat party is a non-factor in this state. Goals and objectivity have been replaced with feelings and gimmicks to get noticed. Both make you irrelevant in the debate. Get good candidates and a strong platform to recruit candidates and raise money. These Wieland tactics will get you another 27% vote in the next election.
Just saying
ymous, how about if we look at the law that you claim covers using a cell phone while driving and see if we can figure out why it is that it’s not being properly enforced? Sounds like MC might be up for that. Maybe ask some law enforcement people why they don’t pull people over when they see someone talking on their cell phone while they’re driving. How about if you promise to turn somebody in every time you see it happening? Lots of ways to go, I agree. What I don’t agree with is doing nothing and pretending like it’s something. People are getting killed out there, just as surely as if they were driving drunk. Surely you don’t think that’s okay do you? Driving drunk?
Bill just trying to visualize Larry lighting his hair on fire. Would that cause a few accidents?
Depends on where he does it. 🙂
Let me extra ordinarily clear.
WE DO NOT NEED A NEW LAW!!
What we need is better enforcement of the current law
we need better education as to what the current law is and what it covers.
WE DO NOT NEED A NEW LAW!!
It’s worth a try, MC. So, how exactly do you propose to get that done?
Bill as one who has bent every rule on the books by trying not to break them I can tell you the only way distracted driving becomes as anti-normal as drunk driving is as a Primary offense with an extremely high monetary fine plus severe liability in any case involving physical human damage. This addiction to being connected to social media must become a cultural negative in order for a whole lot of us to regain that seemingly lost sixth sense. When the Facebook Kid Wonder gets sued for killing Grandma by addicting the driver to FB posts cell phones will be labeled in court as weapons. Seems insane right? Watch it happen.
Interesting notion Mr. Hoffman.
Would you consider Internet/facebook/texting addiction on the same or similar level as alcoholism, or illegal drugs?
MC of course not; but a mental stigma needing continuous approval certainly. The number of negative responses to my blatant ultra conservative view points chastising liberals proof without regard for truth. The much greater loss is that of our innate sixth sense; that loss of understanding by being subjected to emotion by nothing more than a a look in someone else’s eyes.