Queen City Cell Phone Ban Disconnect
Charlotte’s proposal to ban cell phones while driving likely hit a major hang-up this week with news that a similar ordinance in Chapel Hill has hit a legal brick wall. This from the Herald-Sun:
Town leaders expressed surprise and frustration Thursday at the news that the town’s controversial towing ordinance and cellphone ban was shot down by Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson.
The Town Council passed both ordinances last spring amid complaints from residents that motorists talking on cellphones while driving posed a danger to themselves and others and that tow companies in Chapel Hill engaged in predatory practices.
…
The cellphone ban was to go into effect June 1, but Hudson granted preliminary injunctions against it and the towing ordinance in May after George’s Towing and Recovery filed a complaint against the town saying the towing ordinance and its cellphone ban would do irreparable harm to its business.
On Thursday, Hudson ruled that the town’s ordinance was pre-empted by the state law, which already regulates motorists’ use of cellphones.
…
Councilwoman Laurin Easthom, who has frequently questioned whether the town has the legal authority to enact a cellphone ban, said she was not surprised by Hudson’s ruling.
“I always thought the state’s law superseded the town’s ability to enforce a cellphone ban in Chapel Hill,” said Easthom. “I’m not surprised with that part of the ruling.”
Charlotte officials, along with members of the council’s community safety committee who are reviewing a cell phone ban here, have said they’ve been keeping an eye on how developments unfold in Chapel Hill as a guide to how to proceed with a local ban. The latest ruling should give them a fairly clear indication.
Meanwhile, up in Ohio, not so much:
Banning texting while driving is one issue, but what about outlawing “distracted driving” as a whole? That’s the burning question the Bowling Green City Council faces as they introduced new distracted driving legislation to the community on Tuesday night.
According to The BG News, the ordinance would ban any type of distraction that takes the driver’s attention away from the road. While some residents expressed concern that this vague definition would violate their rights, personal injury attorney Mike D. Bell says the heart of the ordinance is in everyone’s best interest.
…
Bell says the proposed law is different from the state texting legislation coming into effect at the end of August, which will ban minor drivers from using any handheld device in a vehicle and adult drivers from texting. Bowling Green’s law, if passed, would penalize distracted driving of all forms, which could include eating, changing the radio station and gazing out a side window.
“Texting and driving and handheld devices and Bluetooth are all convenient, but when they’re used in the car, they could be incredibly dangerous and we all know that,” Bell said. “Bowling Green City Council believes that this legislation is necessary for them.”
Put aside all valid criticism of the extreme nanny state leap the BG ordinance would make, and there are many, and the proposal makes perfect statist sense: how much more dangerous is somebody talking on a hands-free mobile device while driving, than somebody chowing down a Big Mac, reading a book, or applying a fresh coat of cosmetics while barreling down the road?
It’s “necessary for them,” after all, citizen.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=10914
