| BG driving law stalls |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by HAROLD BROWN Sentinel City Editor | |
| Monday, 30 July 2012 10:08 | |
First Ward Council Member Daniel Gordon confirmed this morning that the proposal, introduced and given a first reading July 16, will be withdrawn at council's next meeting on Aug. 6. "The decision is based on a combination of feedback from the public, further research, and in consultation with the city administration," Gordon said. The proposal would have amended the city's traffic code by requiring operators of motor vehicles to "give their full time and attention to driving." The proposal was referred to council following a June 18 meeting of council's Transportation and Safety Committee, which is headed by Gordon. Several citizens spoke against the ordinance at the July 16 meeting. It was also clear that some council members were either opposed or remained to be convinced of the need for the ordinance. "This just isn't in the best interest of Bowling Green right now," Gordon said. "I think the discussion helped achieve the goal of raising awareness of distracted driving. It was good to get the issue on the table." Gordon said he has no plans to bring the issue back to council at a later date. "The administration does support the withdrawal," Municipal Administrator John Fawcett said this morning. "We concluded that the intent of the legislation was either miscommunicated or misinterpreted by the general population." Fawcett said the police will have no problem performing their duties without the ordinance. He said it had become apparent from reading letters to the editor and other correspondence that many people had come to view the ordinance as a way to prohibit cell phone use while driving. "We concluded that there was no benefit to be gained by continuing with this," Fawcett said. Bowling Green voters rejected a proposal to ban cell phone use while driving two years ago. |
|
| Last Updated on Monday, 30 July 2012 11:20 |
Front Page Stories
| BG redistricting lines blurred 05/22/2013 | MARIE THOMAS BAIRD Sentinel Education Editor 
A map shows the proposed boundaries for the 2013-2014 school year. |
North Baltimore residents protest removal of 125 trees 05/22/2013 | JORDAN CRAVENS Sentinel Staff Writer  NORTH BALTIMORE - A group of village residents are concerned their utility bills will [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles | ||
Comments
I understand the purpose of the law. I even support the general idea of wanting to prevent people from doing things that have the same impact as drunk driving and such. However the process of society adjusting to cell phones and in-car systems isn't complete yet. Throwing vague laws after perceived symptoms of a problem we don't understand, is dangerous, even on a local level.
Yes, he should get the majority of the rap for this failed legislation. As his statements that are available from early February, he thought he knew what was best for BG, and did not regard the public opinion.
You don't hear from "other ones" because he has been leading the charge.
Cool. Even less reason to bother with this law on a local level.
You are a little behind. Ohio has an anti-texting law.
We should be ashamed because the law would allow traffic stops for people driving and not causing accidents? We should be ashamed because we are going to rely on laws which already cover accidents and reckless driving?
Mary, I think you should take just a little more time exploring the laws that already exist. If you have an issue with the enforcement of current laws, you should take that up wit Council and the BGPD. However, more laws will not change behavior. We can only punish people for things they do. We can't have laws that punish people for something they haven't done, which is harm anyone. If one causes an accident, they need to pay for that crime.
Example 1, the "speed bump" on S Main in front of Subway. Example 2, Pearl St. between Main & Church, a coffee spiller every time. The list goes on and on.
RSS feed for comments to this post.