Chatting, eating OK behind wheel
DENVER - Go ahead, munch on those drumsticks and put on that eyeliner while cruising down the highway. Even if you’re caught speeding, you won’t be fined extra.
The House Transportation and Energy Committee killed a bill Tuesday that would have doubled the penalties and fines against a driver who commits a moving violation while distracted. The list of distractions included grooming, reading, eating, drinking and using a cell phone, headset or an electronic device such as a computer, recorder or digital-music player.
Rep. Paul Weissman, D-Louisville, submitted what he termed one of his “pet-peeve bills” because he and others have been frustrated by drivers nearly causing crashes while chatting on phones or reading the newspaper. The bill would have been a way to do something about distracted drivers without criminalizing their behavior, he said.
Supporters and opponents of the bill thanked Weissman for bringing up the topic. But Republicans and a number of Democrats on the committee thought the definition of distractions was too vague and the bill went too far in legislating behavior.
“I almost lost my parents to a car accident, so traffic safety is very important to me,” Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, said. “I’m just concerned this isn’t the way to do it.”
Weissman’s bill had captured the attention of talk radio and had drawn praise and sneers from people who had experiences with distracted drivers. Representatives from the Colorado Libertarian Party, the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and Verizon Wireless testified against it, while Boulder County resident Don McKee asked for something to be done to stop cell phone use in cars, which he said has gotten out of hand.
“This kind of law will effectively make legal actions become illegal when done in conjunction with other activities,” Libertarian Party legislative director Richard Randall said.
The Colorado State Fire Chiefs Association sought an amendment to exempt public safety officers who must use headsets or on-board computers to do their jobs. That led to a discus- sion of whether snowplow operators and maybe taxi drivers should be allowed to be distracted, too.
Such discussion was enough to get Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, to be one of three committee members to back the measure — if only to create more discussion when it hit the House floor.
“It’s not a government prohibition,” Rice argued, failing to win over the 10 committee members who opposed the bill. “It ultimately puts the responsibility on the driver.”
Weissman also pointed out chatting on the phone or eating chicken, which he confessed to doing often in the car, would be cause for stiffer fines only if the person commits a violation like swerving between lanes because of that distraction. But Levy said it would be hard to determine if that distraction is what led to the violation.
Current law allows police to stop motorists for reckless driving but does not add on extra penalties for a specific cause of that behavior.
CONTACT THE WRITER:
1-303-837-0613 or ed.sealover@gazette.com
