| Bumpy ride for driving proposal in BG |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by HAROLD BROWN Sentinel City Editor | |
| Tuesday, 17 July 2012 09:53 | |
Two citizens shared their dislike of the proposal, engaging council members in a discussion. One council member said the proposal was “unnecessary and overly broad” and another member said he wasn’t sure how he would vote on the issue. Daniel Johnson told council the ordinance uses vague terms and questioned how a citizen could prove they were not distracted. “It puts a burden on the police. What is distracted driving? It will create undue fear of the police. The law could in fact endanger people. If I have a cheeseburger in my hand while I am driving and see the police, I may be more distracted by trying to hide the cheeseburger. The law is vague. It needs to be defined.” Second Ward Council Member Daniel Gordon said he shared some of Johnson’s concerns but noted the proposal is not new and has been on the books in some places since the 1950s. Gordon disagreed with the need for more definitions, saying that should be left up to the court when dealing with a citation. Gordon heads councils’ Transportation and Safety Committee, which steered the proposal to the full council. Nathan Eberly said he views the ordinance as another attempt to prohibit the use of cell phones in cars. He noted that BG voters turned down such a ban a few years ago and that vote ought to be respected by council. “Table this and respect the residents of Bowling Green,” he said. Eberly suggested the city wait to see how a recently-passed state law on texting while driving works out before considering any action. Eberly also called the proposal “pre-emptive” giving police the authority to pull over drivers who might be doing something police consider distracting, even though the driver is not exhibiting any problem with their driving. “Use the laws on the books. Don’t assume a distraction is causing a problem.” Several members of council engaged Eberly in a discussion. “I’m not sure where I stand on the (proposal) at this point,” At-Large Member Bruce Jeffers said. Jeffers noted the existing reckless operating law as his preference. He said the proposal seems vague and relies on the discretion of the officer. “As Chief (Brad) Conner said, it is another tool. I’m just not sure on this.” Fourth Ward Member Greg Robinette said the proposal “is unnecessary and overly broad.” Council plans a second reading of the ordinance Aug. 6 and a third reading Aug. 20, at which time it could take action. Council also: • Watched as Justin White was promoted to police sergeant and sworn in by Mayor Richard Edwards. White has been with the division since 2001. He was chosen from three candidates who took the test for promotion. White holds both bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Tiffin University. • Learned the city’s water supply is not a problem, with the reservoir full and the Maumee River intake in a favorable place. “We are keeping an eye on the situation and are not encouraging frivolous use of water. We have no basis for conservation action at this point,” Municipal Administrator John Fawcett said. • Received a budget summary for the first six months of 2012 that shows city income tax receipts running at 53 percent of the estimate for the year. |
Front Page Stories
| Elmwood tries income taxes again 06/18/2013 | MARIE THOMAS BAIRD Sentinel Education Editor  JERRY CITY - Elmwood will be back on the ballot in November with the second request fo [ ... ] |
Bullying reports on the rise 06/18/2013 | BILL RYAN Sentinel Staff Writer Over the summer, school officials will have a question to ponder: Is bullying in schools on the rise [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles
| ||
Comments
He has been told this multiple times, might be time to recall him from office.
Or if one is lighting a cigarette.
This law is so very vague, that enforcement is impossible as a primary offense. If, however, it was a secondary offense, if you cause an accident due to talking on your phone, you could at that point be cited. That would be ok in my mind. But the primary offense would be the accident.
In the majority of the states, such bans are for only young drivers, and for adult drivers it is a secondary offense. This is the law in Ohio now.
- all speed limits in town lowered to 10 MPH
- all intersections, 4- way stops
- 5 way restraints and helmets at all times
- if you're under the age of 25 you should be banned from driving
- seat belts on bicycles, if they work in cars they can work on bikes
- 10 and 2 at all times, no exceptions, if you only have one hand- sorry, hoof it.
All these for a start, again moving to a complete ban on civilian traffic. This isn't about liberty, it's about safety.
My tongue is now being removed from my cheek. Some good ideas there though huh Daniel?!
RSS feed for comments to this post.