Indiana Lawmakers Surprised To Learn They Banned Driving With Cell Phones

Nanny of the Month, July 2015

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Indiana Lawmakers Surprised To Learn They Banned Driving With Cell Phones

HD Video Download

Many young Indiana drivers were surprised to learn the state had banned them from using cellphones while driving. The lawmakers who voted for the ban were also surprised.

"I learned it on the news, but I didn't remember that happening," said Rep. Dan Leonard (R-Huntington).

Turns out at least three other representatives who voted for House Bill 1394 didn't realize it included a provision prohibiting drivers under age 21 from calling while driving (even with a hands-free device). The bill also banned GPS and even listening to Pandora. Dialing 911 is about the only thing you can still do in your car with a phone that's still legal.

Here's hoping the lawmakers who voted for the bill pause to consider the potential unintended consequences—for example, young drivers may opt to text, a method of communicating that's more easily hidden but also more dangerous.

90 seconds.

Follow Nanny of the Month on Twitter (@NannyoftheMonth) and submit your nominees for next month!

Nanny of the Month is written and produced by Ted Balaker (@tedbalaker). Edited by R. Campopiano.

To watch previous episodes, go here.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to get automatic updates when new stories go live.

Comments

[Rufus J. Firefly]

The bureaucracy is just eating itself at this point.

When your reps are this fucken oblivious no wonder specious arguments make their way into law.

What about listening to loud music or sticking iPhones in your ears while you drive? I'm surprised they didn't make their way into the bill.

[Adans smith]

Tlaking to another passenger is also a big cause of accidents.

[JFree]

If there is one area of life where my personal instinct collides with my libertarian instinct it is to get these distracted drivers off the damn road. They are a fucking menace regardless of age and without exception.

Fortunately, my libertarian instinct wins out here. Which means I don't think there should be some petty nannying law. BUT, if any of you distracted drivers ever collide with me on the road; then I will shoot you in the head (non-aggression principle be damned) since the states penalties for that result are nowhere near harsh enough.

From what I understand, texting is the primary cause of 300,000 to 700,000 car accidents per year. Most of those are probably just property damage. But for those that cause harm, I do think that there is a very good case to be made that texting (or DUI or other factors) should be considered a mandatory aggravating circumstance that raises the criminal charge to (minimum) manslaughter with extended prison time.

[Limpee Wiltstock]

Whan I was younger, there was a law against reckless driving. We didn't need speed limits or open container restrictions. Somehow it was possible to tell folks to drive safely and that was adequate. Then, it seems, everything got really fucking stupid, really fast.

[Adans smith]

I agree,if your rekless or ause a accident then you should be held to acount.Other wise leave people alone.That would cut in to the 'dui' road bloxks though where they mostly look for drugs and other things and eliminate many dui stops and drug shake downs and legal ( ? ) theft by cops.That would cut into the states profit.

[Adans smith]

The letter C on my key board seems to be sticking,crap.

[Cap'n Krunch]

You could even drink a beer while driving as long as you weren't driving drunk. Today we're not into punishing people for bad behaviour, we prefer to prevent all behaviour in order to prevent bad behaviour. Don't wait until he breaks the law, strip him of his rights so he can't break the law. Oh, that isn't working? Well then we obviously just haven't stripped him of enough rights yet.

[Matchstick]

People didn't get stupid, fast, it's taken three generations of people educated in government schools to ruin people's basic reasoning and judgement.

[Conchfritters]

Thank God they left surfing Facebook and playing Candy Crush alone.

[johne60]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com

[Jimothy]

Wait a minute, what's this about the very last episode of nanny of the month? I don't remember voting for that.

[Drake]

Should have read the bill.

[Adans smith]

The hell you say!

[Adans smith]

The hell you say!

[Empress Trudy]

Chapel Hill is trying to ban phones while walking and ear buds while walking. They're also trying to put noise generators on hybrids and electric cars. CH is THE most liberal small town in America

[AD-RtR/OS!]

Joggers/walkers with ear buds are a real menace when they decide to do their thing on the bike path.
Then there are the texter's on the bike path, walking with their head down, oblivious to all around them.
You just want to reach out as you roll by and give the back of their head a "congratulatory" pat.

[Brochettaward]

People who ride bicycles are assholes.

[Adans smith]

Their a leading cause of smug.

[Suicidy]

Another reason why it's time to wipe out the progtards? Helter Skelter baby!

[Drake]

Great talk from the cop standing next to a giant SUV packed full of distracting electronic devices.

[JimBob7]

A valid comment; that's why the Army has a driver for every combat vehicle, whose sole job is to drive the damn track/truck. Somebody else talks on the radio.

[AD-RtR/OS!]

Solo patrols in a black&white; with a computer terminal should be banned.

[AD-RtR/OS!]

Anyone who cannot remember what they voted for, or against, while in elected office, has no business being in elected office.

[Matchstick]

Everyone is up in arms about common core and standardized testing, but I call for at least basic IQ, drug, and sobriety testing for all holders of public office, Today!

[Brochettaward]

So, what is the logic for it only being illegal for people under 21? People over 21 are less distracted? Or is it because people over 21 are more likely to vote?

DUI should only be illegal for people under 21, too.

[Suicidy]

As a member of Alcoholics Unanimous, I second this motion.

[Adans smith]

Well yes and they are not old enough to drink or smoke you see,they need nannied.They are only good for carrying a full auto rifle in another country filled with brown people.

[Jonathon]

Part I
Our Constitutional Republican form of government was created when most all people practiced a form of religion, and while there were many areas where there was agreement there was also many areas where disagreement existed between religions. The 1st amendment was not intended to remove religion completely from our government but only to keep any 'one' religion from being imposed upon everyone.

Government, has become the new National religion, allowing 'democracy' to imply the existence of freedom while allowing no escape withing our borders for those who disagree with the rules passed down upon them by our Federal government. We, the people, are free only to cast a vote for those who will rule over us based on an ever growing number of issues which provides us with no candidates who are capable of representing a true majority on any single issue Nation wide, yet the Laws created at the Federal level of government are imposed upon all of us.

[Jonathon]

Part II
Our Congress is supposed to be where our laws originate, yet they appear more often than not to be handed down to them in a Moses like committee and brought to the floor for the entire membership of each house to approve, receive the approval by our president, and become law after which both they and the people, including the State governments are then allowed to read and interpret in many ways arguing over how to correctly interpret and apply the laws that even the so-called law makers cannot agree leaving it to the courts, who also disagree.

A solution, in my opinion, would be to require each law to be clearly and concisely stated using no more than one sheet of A4 paper, typed double line spaced, using a 10-12 point font in the body allowing a larger font to be used for a single line title, with margins no less than half an inch. Federal laws should be made clear enough that all States and all people can read and understand them, leaving them free to determine how to best apply them in ways that achieve the intended results, allowing for the courts to determine if infractions have occurred, and take necessary legal action as the means of resolving.

[Wizard4169]

I learned about this law when I read an article in the newspaper. I'm really not happy that some of the geniuses who passed the law apparently found out about it the same way. I shouldn't be too surprised at this point, though. The entire state government seems to have doubled the dose on their stupid pills this year. Just look at the RFRA debacle: first, pass a law with zero practical effect, then back down immediately after it inspires a national hissy fit. I usually defend my home state out of a certain (foolish) sense of tribal loyalty, but I'm rapidly approaching the point where I just agree with the people mocking Hoosier stupidity.

[Duelles]

Laws trying to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things, smart people for screwing up are the mindless exercise of politicians with too much time on their hands. Or rightly their staff members. Let me live me goddamn life, please. I do wear face protection to prevent injury from an air bag explosion. Now that should be a law for everyone( snark)

[cory726]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com

[Inigo "Chip" DuBois]

The Indiana legislators were from the Nancy Pelosi school of legislative philosophy. They first have to pass bills in order to find out what's in them.

It's sort of like a grab bag door prize, but the public always gets fucked over, regardless.

[Non-ideologue]

This is Pelosi's comment: "But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what's in it." That comment always seemed like such an odd thing to say, especially coming from a senior congressional leader.

On checking, it turns out like almost every other controversial comment in politics, there are at least two ways to see it. One is to take the words as such and be done with it. The other is to consider that (1) when Pelosi made that statement, the senate had not yet passed its version of the ACA and (2) the in-context quote is "So, that's why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn't . . . . It is none of these things [republicans are saying about the ACA]. It's not going to be any of these things. . . . But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can't really, we can't really debunk what they're saying." That is the context in which Pelosi made her remark - she could not know what the senate would pass.

Of course, there is always another "on the other hand". Some evidence is that people in congress do not consider it to be their jobs to read what they vote on. ivn.us/2014/12/15/members -congress-dont-believe-job-read-bills-pass/ (remove the space to get the link)

[Non-ideologue]

This reminds me of the time when the Oklahoma legislature and governor were fooled into voting for and signing into law a provision for voluntary universal pre-kindergarten that any citizen (and resident?) could send their wee tykes to without any additional taxes. it was all on the taxpayer's dime. People backing the law talked to key legislators and obtained support simply by making points that conservative ideologues would blindly support, despite some disconnects between the actual law and the rhetoric used to obtain political support for it. Other than the law's backers, apparently no one in the legislature or the governor bothered to either read the bill or understand what they were reading if they did read it. The law was passed in 1998. Had the legislature known what was in the bill, it would not have passed.

So, how did the experiment turn out? One summary is this: "We find substantial projected earnings benefits for program participants who differ by income and by program dosage. The dollar effects and benefit?cost ratios are similar across groups, with benefit to?cost ratios of approximately 3 or 4 to 1. Because we only consider adult earnings benefits, actual benefit?cost ratios are likely higher, especially for disadvantaged children." (I'd give the link but it is more than 50 characters)

When a positive cost-benefit results, one can rationally argue that bigger government can sometimes be better government.

[utabintarbo]

This begs the question of whether the program in which the cost savings are realized should even exist as a government program.