Wrong Message on Texting

by Tim Skubick
October 30, 2009

Given a chance to reduce who-knows-how-many traffic fatalities and prevent how-many injuries, a House committee punted, taking the politically expedient way out.

Shame on them.

The issue was outlawing text messaging while driving, which 18 other states have already done. To be sure, the House Transportation Committee did approve a ban, but it’s half a loaf. While it may save some lives, lawmakers whiffed at saving more.

The ban, if enacted in its present form, would allow the cops to slap you with a ticket, but only if they haul you over for another traffic offense first. That makes the text message violation what they term a secondary offense. Which is, in and of itself, offensive.

On top of that, if you do get caught, no points are imposed on your driving record. Yeah, you’ll be hit with a $100 fine, but that does not escalate with each additional violation.

The lobbyist for the Michigan State Police carefully watched the committee debate and tried to remain politically correct when asked to comment on the measure. Lt. Matt Bolger wanted the law to be a primary offense, and with points, but rather than criticize lawmakers he waxed on about how this would be “a tool in the tool box to address reckless driving.”

He was asked whether this tool was not a hammer but a feather.

“Those are your words,” he began to bob and weave.

“Well, wouldn’t you concede it is not a hammer?”

To his credit, he confessed it was not.

All of this has a familiar ring to it. Back in 1985, lawmakers finally got enough guts to pass a mandatory seat belt law. Anyone with half a brain knew at the time that the law would save lives. But there were still some legislative Neanderthals who forced their colleagues to make it a secondary offense by threatening to vote no on the bill.

Everyone caved.

And that’s the way it stayed until March 2000, when lawmakers decided to give police the power to stop you for not buckling up.

In the 15-year period before March 2000, seat belt usage hovered around 70 percent. Funny thing happened when the law changed; 97 percent are now buckling up because, if they don’t, smokey can pull them over. Somehow the fear of a ticket changed behavior.

Which brings us to the sponsors of the text message ban. You can’t blame Rep. Gino Polidori (D-Dearborn) and Rep. Lee Gonzales (D-Flint). They wanted points and primary enforcement, but they were told in no uncertain terms if they pushed for that, they would get nothing.

“Something is better than nothing,” Mr. Polidori sheepishly told the TV cameras. And maybe, he went on, this will be like the seat belt law — eventually it will gain primary enforcement status.

And more lives will be lost in the interim?

“That’s the sad part,” he lamented.

And while he lamented, ATT rejoiced. It fought the primary status. Maybe it’s because hawking text-messaging devices is a lucrative business. And when it is profits vs. saving lives?

Well, corporate American being what it is these days, profits trump lives. After all, times are tough.

Tim Skubick is Michigan’s senior Capitol correspondent and has anchored the weekly public TV series “Off the Record” since 1972. He also covers the Capitol and politics for WLNS-TV6 in Lansing.

Tim Skubick Extra Extra… (A weekly bonus for Dome readers)

Felix and Oscar
The legislature’s celebrated odd couple is at odds.

For months Democratic House Speaker Andy Dillon and GOP Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop have walked pretty much arm and arm through a budget-writing minefield, and for a moment it looked as though they would emerge with their trusting relationship intact.

Forget that.

“It was a breach of an agreement,” reflected one half of the odd couple, as Mr. Dillon noted his buddy Bishop just killed a doctor’s tax that Dillon wanted to fill in the budget holes in the state’s health care budget for the needy.

Dillon contends that Bishop promised him a “good faith” effort at getting the doc tax through the GOP-controlled Senate. What Dillon got instead was a quicky up-and-down vote after only one Democrat was allowed to speak in support of a possible compromise on the measure.

It took Dillon almost 90 minutes to pass the tax in the House and Bishop about 10 minutes to kill it in the Senate.

“I got no notice and no opportunity” to see if the proposal could be reworked, Dillon told the Capitol press corps.

“I’m not happy,” he noted and, when asked if his trust in the senator had been shaken, he cryptically responded, “Yes.”

Interestingly, prior to Dillon’s remarks, the same press corps cross-examined Bishop, who said he never had an agreement with his pal to move the doctor tax, but the relationship was still sound and he, Bishop, could continue to work with the Democratic speaker.

Maybe he needs to check that with Dillon, who accuses Bishop of playing politics at a time when all sides should be at the table talking about how to raise new revenue to restore part of the $1.2 billion in budget cuts that Bishop wanted and got.

So Felix, er… Bishop, is happy and Oscar, er… Dillon is not.

And who is that over there whispering, “I told ya so?” Why it’s Governor Jennifer Granholm, who somewhere along the line probably warned Dillon not to trust Big Mike.

Reverse Call
Nobody has ever tried this, but as the governor et al. frantically search for Senate GOP votes to raise revenue for the schools, why not toss in a reverse recall as a threat if the Rs don’t budge?

A reverse what?

Heretofore, when the anti-tax gaggle wants to intimidate lawmakers into opposing anything that even looks like a tax increase, they eventually trot out the recall option: vote for that tax boost and we’ll boot you out of office.

So why not flip it: if you don’t vote for more revenue, we’ll boot you out of office.

Oh my, that would be nasty.

But think about it. The schools now confront a whopping $292 cut for every school kid who walks through the door. The governor is urging the education lobby to get in the game and turn up the heat on Republicans, who are loathe to put up a green light on new revenue. Tossing the recall card on the table might up the ante.

However, there are only four Republicans who could be threatened. The rest are all term-limited out of office at the end of next year, so trying to recall them is a waste of time; they are leaving anyway.

Thus, the reverse recall strategy, as far-fetched as it is, could be more fruitful in the House, where a ton of Republicans want to hang onto their jobs.

Nobody has talked about actually doing this, but nobody has really considered the option…until now.