On February 25, Stacy Arena posted a question to her State Senator, Lee Bright (SC) on his Facebook Fan page:
Stacy Arena:
"Why did you stop the No Texting While Driving legislation? BTW, I am one of you constituents, sadly. I would appreciate a full explanation, post haste & pretty please."
Senator Lee Bright's response:
"Hello Stacy, thank you for asking this question. Right now, current law stipulates that distracted driving is an offense. This means that if you are eating a sandwich in the car and get distracted and endanger other drivers, you will be issued a citation. The texting bill is therefore redundant, and the last thing we need as a society is more legislation. We need to enforce current law as it stands, rather than focus on codifying new bills for the sake of public appeasement."
Stacy took the Senator on in that thread. She gathered information in a logical way and shared it with her Senator. Then she posted it in a Facebook NOTE. (see below)
Thank you Stacy for sharing it here on Dyed in the Wool Republican.
by Stacy Arena (This was posted as a note to her Facebook page on February 27, 2014.)
Thank you for your reply, Lee. However, I do not think that you do understand where I am "coming from completely", or you would not be engaging in the obstruction of even debating the issue. You have deemed it unnecessary, by using a Minority Report tactic, for every citizen of South Carolina ~ how on Earth do you square that? And, to be sure, your stance is of the libertarian ideology, not Republican. Most Republicans I know would relish the debate, regardless of the side of the issue they stand on. Because that is the way a representative government is supposed to work.
Final thoughts, I think it would go without saying, you wouldn’t appreciate it if someone had killed a bill you felt was important. You would probably feel the same way I do. If you disagree with a bill, you should allow a vote to occur. If you disagree strongly, you would try and rally support for your cause. What you ultimately did, was eliminate that possibility. For someone who talks a lot about freedom, liberty and the constitution, how are you able to justify hindering the very process of letting the representatives from every land and climb of this state not be allowed to decide on the matter?
"Why did you stop the No Texting While Driving legislation? BTW, I am one of you constituents, sadly. I would appreciate a full explanation, post haste & pretty please."
 |
| SC Senator Lee Bright |
"Hello Stacy, thank you for asking this question. Right now, current law stipulates that distracted driving is an offense. This means that if you are eating a sandwich in the car and get distracted and endanger other drivers, you will be issued a citation. The texting bill is therefore redundant, and the last thing we need as a society is more legislation. We need to enforce current law as it stands, rather than focus on codifying new bills for the sake of public appeasement."
Stacy took the Senator on in that thread. She gathered information in a logical way and shared it with her Senator. Then she posted it in a Facebook NOTE. (see below)
Thank you Stacy for sharing it here on Dyed in the Wool Republican.
My response to SC Senator Lee Bright regarding his obstruction of debate & vote on a Texting While Driving law for SC
by Stacy Arena (This was posted as a note to her Facebook page on February 27, 2014.)
Thank you for your reply, Lee. However, I do not think that you do understand where I am "coming from completely", or you would not be engaging in the obstruction of even debating the issue. You have deemed it unnecessary, by using a Minority Report tactic, for every citizen of South Carolina ~ how on Earth do you square that? And, to be sure, your stance is of the libertarian ideology, not Republican. Most Republicans I know would relish the debate, regardless of the side of the issue they stand on. Because that is the way a representative government is supposed to work.
Let’s look at the current law that you attest, “does in fact address texting while driving”, shall we? Here it is:
"SECTION 56-5-2920. Reckless driving; penalties; suspension of driver's license for second or subsequent offense.
Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate either a wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving."
I see no mention of Texting, or the sandwich eating you equated it to earlier for that matter. Yes, I understand that in your view, texting falls under that very large umbrella riddled with so many holes it could be a sieve. The law is SO general that enforcement is nearly impossible & definitely does not address this new epidemic strain of distracted driving. In my view, Texting while Driving has become such a dangerous issue, it is deserving of it’s very own law.
Have you done your research on this threat to every driver on SC’s roads? Surely you have, being a SC Senator, a representative of our district & all the people residing within it, it would be completely irresponsible to ignore the facts that have been compiled regarding the dangers. But, just in case you haven’t, I will provide you with some links which will serve as collateral evidence as to why I, and many others, would like to see a law specifically & pointedly for this newest threat to our lives & our liberties.
"Driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).1 The federal agency reports that sending or receiving a text takes a driver’s eyes from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, the equivalent -- when traveling at 55 mph -- of driving the length of an entire football field while blindfolded." http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/files/Driving-while-Texting-Six-Times-More-Dangerous-than-Driving-while-Drunk.html#.Uw9bwXlN3wJ
“In 2011, at least 23% of all auto collisions involved cell phones. That’s 1.3 million crashes." http://www.onlineschools.com/in-focus/driving-while-intexticated
"Among other findings, the new study found a "sixfold increase of crashes when participants were text messaging while driving" compared with those who were not texting." http://www.unews.utah.edu/old/p/121809-3.html
"ONE TEXT OR CALL COULD WRECK IT ALL Distracted driving is a dangerous epidemic on America's roadways. In 2012 alone, 3,328 were killed in distracted driving crashes." http://www.distraction.gov
“We thought it was critical to send a strong message and do everything we could to stop such a dangerous behavior behind the wheel,” auto club spokeswoman Martha Meade said Wednesday. Polling conducted by AAA shows that the law is having an impact, she said. Nearly one-fourth of 800 registered voters surveyed by the auto club found that they have stopped texting or are texting far less since the law hit the books, Meade said." http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/01/29/texting-while-driving-law-nets-725-convictions-in-virginia/
Your defense of your actions with this statement, “Let's apply this concept to other offenses, like stealing. Theft of another person's property is clearly not permissible by law, but what if everyone starts stealing a product that is not specifically mentioned in current law? I would argue that no new law is needed, since current law clearly states that any type of property theft is illegal. The same goes for distracted driving. Any type of distracted driving is not allowed, which certainly includes texting while driving.” is insulting to most anyone’s intelligence.
1st of all, Texting while driving is a matter or Life & Death. Stealing involves property only & no one’s life is in danger, so, the two do not equate. But, let’s say for the sake of argument that they do correlate ~ your argument is just not factual & is easily debunked. In fact, there are many different stealing laws based on types of things stolen, goods, livestock, credit cards, bonds, forgery, even the stealing of dogs has it’s own little section in Chapter 13 of SC’s Code of Laws.http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c013.php
The bottom line for me, sir, is not which side of the argument you stand on, the problem is that you obstructed a very needed, worthwhile & possibly life saving debate. You took the people’s voice away from them by killing the bill ~ no debate, no vote. And, that, Mr. Bright, is where you are most wrong.
lib·er·ty noun \ˈli-bər-tē\
: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely
: the power to do or choose what you want to
: a political right
You took away the liberty of ALL the people of SC with a procedural maneuver ending debate & sentencing the bill to death. Why do you hate Liberty, Lee? Where do you get off treading all over mine?
Final thoughts, I think it would go without saying, you wouldn’t appreciate it if someone had killed a bill you felt was important. You would probably feel the same way I do. If you disagree with a bill, you should allow a vote to occur. If you disagree strongly, you would try and rally support for your cause. What you ultimately did, was eliminate that possibility. For someone who talks a lot about freedom, liberty and the constitution, how are you able to justify hindering the very process of letting the representatives from every land and climb of this state not be allowed to decide on the matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment