Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Government

South Dakota City’s New Distracted Driving Ban to Include…Eating

Dec. 4, 2012 12:10pm Liz Klimas

Huron, S.D. Includes Eating and Other Distracted Driving Actions as a Secondary Offense in New Ordinance

If a driver is pulled over for speeding or another traffic violation and found to have been “distracted driving” it could be considered a secondary offense according to a new law in Huron, South Dakota. (Image: Shutterstock)

Getting caught shoving a few French fries in your mouth while driving in a South Dakota town could cost motorists $15 starting in 2013.

The city of Huron with a population of nearly 13,000 passed an ordinance Monday that not only bans texting while driving but also cites other distracted driving activities, like eating, as potential infractions.

As Mayor Dave McGirr put it, according to the Associated Press, the City Commission’s ban includes distracted driving activities like eating pizza and reading the newspaper.

According to an article in the Huron Plainsman before the ordinance was passed, the city’s public safety committee proposed that distracted driving be considered a secondary offense if the person was initially pulled over for other traffic infractions, such as speeding or running a red light. Texting while driving, though, the commissioners wanted to be considered a primary infraction that would allow police to pull them over without the another reason.

Here is part of the proposed definition for distracted driving:

“inattentive driving while operating a motor vehicle that results in the unsafe operation of the vehicle where such operation is caused by reading, writing, performing personal grooming, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo, using personal communications technologies or engaging in any other activity which causes distractions.”

If this woman was putting on make-up while in motion and swerved or violated another traffic law that could pose a risk to the safety of others, police in Huron could give her an extra fine for distracted driving. (Photo: Shutterstock.com)

Texting or distracted driving bans would will only apply if the vehicle is in motion, the Plainsman reported.

The ordinance goes into effect in 2013, starting with a grace period where police will issue motorists warnings as they become familiar with the new rules. Getting caught texting while driving will cost $100, while other distracted driving actions could cost $15.

Drivers in training are barred from taking on the phone while driving as long as they have learner’s permit status as well.

Featured image via Shutterstock.com.

(H/T: Drudge Report)

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (42)

deeberj
Posted on December 5, 2012 at 3:29pm
Oh great. If they do this in my town it will mess up my entire schedule. I eat stuff in the car a lot to multi task.

In the same vein, perhaps we should ban children from being passengers in a vehicle. They can be VERY distracting.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mikem1969
Posted on December 5, 2012 at 1:29pm
More government overreach. This would mean that you can’t drive with your kids in the car. I know my 4 year old is a lot more distracting than a french fry. So I guess I would have to leave her at home are get a ticket. Hmm, lets see, I have an idea. Everyone in SD needs to protest the law by driving with a screaming 2yr old while eating a bag of fries in the middle of rush hour traffic with your middle finger up to the big gov.,

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ClearCutMore
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 9:28pm
You all sound like Progressive morons. Listen to yourselfs thinking this is a good thing. I dont care if you write your next novel while driving. If you can follow the curret TRAFFIC LAWS then who are you to stop anyone from talking or texting or doing whatever the hell they want. I eat all the time and drive and drive truck for a living and i see the vast majority of drives not able to USE A BLINKER which last i checked came standard in all cars. SOOOOOOO get off your high horse you progressive ‘repupe licans’ and hold these drives for the accident if they so cause one. You’re all here to support freedom right? Stop being so damn pathetic.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- YouCantExplainThat
  Posted on December 5, 2012 at 9:58am
  Who the hell is government to tell me I have to wear a seat belt? I’ll wear a seat belt if I damn well please. And turn signals are satan’s lights! I refuse to use evil turn signals, get your hands off my steering wheel big government! Soon they will tell us that we have to registered in a database and keep track of who owns and doesn’t own a car. And then they’ll force me to carry around identification so they can keep their thumb on me and take away my freedom to be on the road anonymous. This is evil and the government is taking over everything!
  
  Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 3:49pm
The establishment is getting desperate.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SocialistSlayer
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 3:59pm
  Good I will not have to watch some bimbo putting on her makeup and driving in heavy traffic any longer !
  
  Report this comment
4th_and_inches
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:41pm
C’mon – both Drudge and the Blaze have misrepresented this law. It bans “distracted driving”. The law doesn’t say anything about eating. The mayor included examples of ways that someone might be distracted and it included eating a pizza (presumably because it is big and messy). You are safe to eat a fry unless it is in a bag on the floorboard and you are reaching to get it.
With so many real examples of overreaching in government, we need to avoid making stuff seem more than it is. As for me, I support laws like this. Hang up and drive.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ResistSocialism
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:52pm
  Pizza bites ok then… thank goodness and eating fries ok so long as they are emptied out on your lap or dash. Thanks for the update.
  
  Report this comment
- YouCantExplainThat
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 2:12pm
  Driving should be for driving only. If you have other stuff to do, then do it when you are not driving a 2-Ton killing machine. People have no self control.
  
  Report this comment
- ResistSocialism
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 2:19pm
  @YouCantExplainThat are you suggesting personal responsibility. What a novel idea.
  
  Report this comment
- IdahoAdrienne
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 2:44pm
  What you’re saying then is that after an accident the officer can call just about anything “distracted” driving. Seems pretty loose to me.
  
  Report this comment
- hillbillyheartthrob
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 4:39pm
  I happen to live in South Dakota and the news here has been reporting that law allows ANY thing DEEMED to be a distraction ticketable. That would include eating french fires or even looking down to change the station on your radio.
  
  Report this comment
- ResistSocialism
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 5:10pm
  @hillbillyheartthrob dang it aren’t you the party pooper
  
  Report this comment
IdahoAdrienne
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:38pm
One of the biggest distractions is conversation between two or more people in the car (at least for me.) As for texting? I’ve taken to carefully watching people for signs of texting. French fries? Not so much…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ResistSocialism
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:56pm
  Perhaps only one person in the car at a time is the way to go.
  
  Report this comment
Flag-Man
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:35pm
They forgot the really big distraction
Kids In Your Car

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- hkyfan36
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:46pm
  I totally agree. and pets I see them sitting on the drivers laps what the ????
  
  Report this comment
LOTO
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:13pm
I dont care what people do when they drive. Drink, eat, read, sex, text, program a gps.
I dont care until there is harm done.
Hurt someone or damage something and the price must be paid.
Why dont we have a law banning car wrecks? That would fix it.
Mandatory jail time? Would any one drive differently?
How did we ever exist without all these ( revenue producing) laws to “protect” us?
We are losing Liberty by the second.
Tune a libs radio to Rush so they cannot change it on the way home.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Wiggyky
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 5:43pm
  I have said for years there are very rare instances of an “accident” in an auto crash. They are deliberate crashes caused by someone driving a 2000 or 3000 lb killing machine. Therefore, a wreck with injuries then the offending driver should be charged with “attempted manslaughter”. If a person is killed then it becomes “manslaughter”. Convict a few drivers with these charges and you’ll see a whole new attitude in driving.
  
  Drivers should be more alert and not drive into fog areas. With most people dumb enough to drive bumper to bumper at 80 mph that is a sure fire way to invite those 50 to 100 car pileups. On the other hand the police should be out there stopping traffic from going into fog or hazy areas.
  
  Report this comment
ArmedAndReallyPissed
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:59pm
Well South Dakota, you have really done it now. You just lost a lot of Tourist money from Chris Matthews. You know he can’t stop shoveling food into that black hole mouth of his, so you won’t be seeing him driving through.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ArmedAndReallyPissed
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:56pm
The key words here are GETTING CAUGHT. Cities, States and this Country can continue to make more laws and put more bans into effect, but they will have little effect. I see people everyday driving while texting and doing other things on their devices. Slim chance they will get caught.
Then others will say these laws and bans are to help save lives too. Thats fine and dandy. So are laws against Drugs. They sure are winning on that war too, huh !

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ResistSocialism
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:53pm
And that drive through at fast food chains should be eliminated. They are encouraging illegal behavior.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RIGHT_WHERE_IT_HURTS
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:48pm
I wonder if the Sioux ate while they were on horseback?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DZ-015
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:47pm
Gotta love the pics with this story. The blonde in the first one is affecting the Debbie Wasserman Schultz hairstyle and the brunette in the second is phoning and farding at the same time.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ResistSocialism
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:40pm
What if I am distracted reading one of those billboards or sign. Those dangers should be eliminated immediately.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thegreatcarnac
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:26pm
Stupid, useless lawmakers keep thinking up ways to ticket and tax their citizens so they can get money buy votes from their useless class of citizens. I can understand a law against texting and driving but one for eating a french frie or sipping a coke is a little much. Next they’ll ticket you for driving with a radio on. They need the money to buy more votes.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- subic
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:15pm
  Wolves looking for more control over a nation of sheep.
  
  Report this comment
Rational Man
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:26pm
This may sound over the top, unless, (like me), you have seen a lady eating a salad with both hands while trying to drive.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cantstandlibs
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:23pm
Is swiping hair from your eyes included as illegal grooming? Is popping a piece of gum in your mouth the same as eating? The phrase “any activity that causes distractions” could include about anything. What bunch of sheep thinking the law will be fairly applied in a reasonable way for all time. Wow!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
right-wing-waco
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:20pm
Wait till they go after truckers using the CB.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lbk
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 6:22pm
  Thats already been done, didn’t work. It is a necessary part of the job. But, those who aren’t in that industry, are still trying.
  
  Report this comment
JUSTANOTHEROPINION
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:19pm
Finally someone came up with a new law I can and do agree with. Hopefully this will catch on and move into Florida too. Distractive driving is off the hook down here not to mention the decibel levels of some of the music emitting out of some of the vehicles.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- booger71
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:52pm
  Your should change your name to justanothermoronicopinion.
  
  Report this comment
- subic
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:55pm
  There is no more of a distraction than a woman caking on the make-up while driviing, I see it every day and I stay clear of these self absorbed bimbos admiring themselves looking into the rearview while driving forward. I’ve seen people reading the newspaper while driving down the interstate & get away from them. I was nailed by a teen texter a few years ago, but never have seen an erratic driver eating a burger or chicken sandwich driving down the road. Are they going to ban the drive-thru’s now?
  
  Just more regs to add to the police state. Now where’s that Chick-fila drive thru I was looking for?
  
  Report this comment
AVATARBABY
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:19pm
Cop pulled me over for eating and driving a few years ago. Didn’t get a ticket, but he did confiscate my crab legs, shell *******, tiny fork, and dashboard butter dish.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AVATARBABY
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:52pm
  I see “saltine” used in the generic sense got a *******. Yikes, maybe I need to spell it with a k. The Nutkracker is a Christmas tradition. I like cheese on my kracker. Or pig latin: ackercay.
  
  Report this comment
TSUNAMI_22
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:13pm
As long as they don’t include “picking my nose” as a distraction I’ll be just fine.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- right-wing-waco
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:18pm
  Bravo! Ding, Ding, Ding.
  
  Report this comment
- oldguy49
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:18pm
  how about a roady
  
  Report this comment
- TSUNAMI_22
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:25pm
  oldguy49
  
  how about a roady
  ~~~~~~~~
  Is that what I think it is? LMAO
  
  Report this comment
AmericanStrega
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:13pm
I once saw a man brushing his teeth while driving. It was disgusting. He kept spitting out his window.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ResistSocialism
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:13pm
What does picking your nose cost.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.