Shouldn’t Tommy Norment be more concerned about his own driving record?
By Ward Smythe | Monday, February 8th, 2010 | PolicySenator Tommy Norment patroned SB 517 prohibiting wireless communications (that’s your cell phone) while driving unless in hands-free mode. This Nanny Statist bill passed the State Senate on Monday 25-15.
Interesting that Norment would sponsor such a safety bill given the history of his own DUI in 2001.
Still, I suppose the logic could be that hands-free makes sense.
That gives you one hand to hold the wheel, and one hand free for your beer.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Ward Smythe is a pseudonymous aspiring freelance writer from Central Virginia. Until late 2007 Ward blogged at the now defunct "Ward View" and was active in Virginia and national politics. Ward's signature style of snarkery gained him a unique following that he hopes to regain here at Bearing Drift. Ward uses humor, satire and sometimes photoshop to make his point. Ward is proud to be an equal opportunity offender.
Comments
14 Responses to "Shouldn’t Tommy Norment be more concerned about his own driving record?"
This is just a silly bill and a continuation of the nanny state.
Cell phone use while driving is not safe, but neither is fiddling with the radio, adjusting the mirror, putting on makeup, combing your hair, or anything else while driving.
What’s needed is not another law, but education that driving while using a cell phone is dangerous and you should use a wireless device or only use a cell phone while driving when absolutely necessary.
Of course, I’m not surprised by the names of the so-called Republicans who voted with nearly all the Democrats in favor of the bill: Blevins, Quayle, Stosch and Norment. Same crew it seems we’re always talking about when it comes to limiting freedom and having a propensity to raise taxes.
Don’t look now, but Howell has sponsored a similar bill in the House of Delegates – so much for smaller government, blah, blah, blah. I fired off a couple of angry emails last night to members of the House and will fire off a few more today. If I violate a traffic law while using a cell phone, pull me over and let it be an additional fine (in much the same way that drunk driving is, cause if you aren’t driving strangely or violating traffic laws no one knows your drunk) but to ticket people who are not violating traffic laws is I agree with JR – the nanny state. This bunch of regulatory hand wringers who are always passing legislation for everyone elses best interest.
I think the easiest solution here is for the insurance companies to say they will not pay claims if a non-handsfree cell phone was used during the incident whether it was your fault or not. the Free Market when left alone can come up with some pretty creative solutions
Norment should be thrown off a cliff. Obenshain for leader!
So I have been informed that the House versions of this did not see the light of day, but now they have to review the Senate version passed yesterday.
Govgirl, don’t worry the House will kill it. The House is into Darwinism this year. Drive fast and talk on your cell phone. That’ll thin the herd.
Nanny Steve – thanks for informing what is in my best interest. I could have moved away from home years ago if I had known that the government would make sure to look after me the same way my mother did – sarc.
Govgirl: didn’t mean the specific you. That’s was a generic “you.” They want everybody to drive fast and talk on their cell phones;-)
And I’m all for it. We don’t have predators anymore to pick off the dumb ones.
Steve clearly has an evolutionary prowess that exceeds us all.
Insurance companies can’t refuse to cover you if talking on a cell phone. You are covered if you shoot up with heroin, drink a liter of Jack Black and smoke a pound of pot. Insurance covers the vehicle, not the driver.
Of course, intentional acts are never covered, but stupidity is OK.
Now, I would support banning non hands free cell phone usage for a one armed man.
JR-If you talk on your cell phone while driving then, yes, I’m more evolved than you.
What Norment should be looking at is Norment and his part in the corruption in James City County. He first said he only earned $40,000 per year from his appointment by friend and bed partner (in a political sense, of course) Sam Powell. Yes, that was true, but he failed to mention it was only for a few weeks work. He than raised the figure to $120,000 per year for last year. Yes, that way also be true, but how many of those court ordered sale settle THIS year? And than there is his association with another shifty eyed judge who tries to look like a hillbilly, but controls everything according to the Virginia Gazette.
And, as I remember, Norment said he had given up his private practice. What was he doing in court before Powell defending a child molester? Couldn’t have been him. The Times Dispatch must have been wrong. He gave up his private practice when Powell appointed him, remember? BTW, the molester was allowed to plea down.
I can go along together with you, excellent factors you have created for your case.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.