Comments on: Toledo City Council passes law to ban texting while driving

By: LisaRenee

LisaRenee — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:40:08 +0000

I 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.

By: kateb

kateb — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:15:38 +0000

(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.

By: Ron Korsog

Ron Korsog — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:39:01 +0000

I 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.

By: LisaRenee

LisaRenee — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:22:18 +0000

See 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.

By: Sujay

Sujay — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:20:31 +0000

Lisa – 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.

By: Sujay

Sujay — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:17:51 +0000

Chad – 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.

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:13:44 +0000

It was Councilman Collins who introduced this, he’s not a liberal.

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:18:59 +0000

At 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!

By: wwjbd

wwjbd — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:49:40 +0000

Reading 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.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:42:20 +0000

Lisa 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…