• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Chapel Hill bans ALL cell phone use while driving

DeacDiggler said:
hard to believe that someone would interpret your questions as argumentative rather than just a quest for knowledge.
Click to expand...

Only to those with preconceived answers for anything I say.

Here's a basic rule- If I ask a question, I'm looking for an answer. Reardless what you think, that's the way it is.
 
RJKarl said:
Only to those with preconceived answers for anything I say.

Here's a basic rule- If I ask a question, I'm looking for an answer. Reardless what you think, that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

That's how it is. Love it or leave it. Right RJ?
 
so me using my phone as a gps wouldnt be allowed?
 
deacondamo said:
You misspelled Asians. Although I guess you Southerners aren't exposed to that all too much. This happened to me just this morning. Guy was driving 55 in the left hand lane of a 65 mph highway. I passed him on the right and looked, obviously an Asian guy. Maybe the rules are reversed in Asia and slow people drive in the left lane. #noidea.
Click to expand...

Now that was seriously funny...and true.
 
bojangle, in NC s it against the law fa city or own to change driving laws that the state set? Can a town make the speed limit by a school 20 instead of 25 or a bike lane wider if they choose without state permission?
 
Generally preemption works like this: if the state intends to provide "a complete and integrated regulatory scheme" for a certain field, then a municipality is prohibited from regulating activity within that field. The assistant AG cited NC's existing ban on cell phone use by drivers under 18 and school bus drivers, as well the ban on anyone reading email or texting while driving as evidence that NC intends to provide "a complete and integrated regulatory scheme" related to cell phone use while driving. I actually think this is a fairly weak argument for preemption, especially considering that a lot of states have explicitly preempted municipal ordinances regarding cell phone usage while driving (i.e., their state law specifically says that municipalities CANNOT enact any ordinances with respect to cell phone use while driving), but I don't know how far NC courts have gone in reading intended preemption into state regulatory schemes. I have no idea what state law says about school zone speed limits or the width of bike lanes, so I have no idea what a municipality could or could not do with respect to them.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
Generally preemption works like this: if the state intends to provide "a complete and integrated regulatory scheme" for a certain field, then a municipality is prohibited from regulating activity within that field. The assistant AG cited NC's existing ban on cell phone use by drivers under 18 and school bus drivers, as well the ban on anyone reading email or texting while driving as evidence that NC intends to provide "a complete and integrated regulatory scheme" related to cell phone use while driving. I actually think this is a fairly weak argument for preemption, especially considering that a lot of states have explicitly preempted municipal ordinances regarding cell phone usage while driving (i.e., their state law specifically says that municipalities CANNOT enact any ordinances with respect to cell phone use while driving), but I don't know how far NC courts have gone in reading intended preemption into state regulatory schemes. I have no idea what state law says about school zone speed limits or the width of bike lanes, so I have no idea what a municipality could or could not do with respect to them.
Click to expand...

I would be curious what states have explicitly said municipalities can't. I ask because there are two types of state constitutions with regards to municipalities- 1) municipalities have the power to enact laws unless the state takes it away and 2) municipalities only have power if the state grants it. If I remember correctly nc is number 2. It would make sense for there to be a split in the states with category one states explicitly taking the right away.
 
Does the NC state law specifically say that municipalities cannot add to the state regs on this issue?
 
bojanglefunk said:
I would be curious what states have explicitly said municipalities can't. I ask because there are two types of state constitutions with regards to municipalities- 1) municipalities have the power to enact laws unless the state takes it away and 2) municipalities only have power if the state grants it. If I remember correctly nc is number 2. It would make sense for there to be a split in the states with category one states explicitly taking the right away.
Click to expand...

Looked it up because I was curious - I was wrong in saying that "a lot" of states specifically preempt - it's only FL, KY, LA, MS, NV, and OK. I know FL has home rule. Don't know anything about the others (especially LA and their crazy civil law). Think you are right about NC, but I think by statute, NC municipalities are granted WIDE authority to regulate things that are related to health, safety or welfare concerns (as long as not inconsistent or preempted by state law).

I don't think there would be any argument about this being something that would fall within the auspices of regulating safety, so it will just come down to the preemption argument. I just don't think that the NC state laws about cell phone use while driving are so pervasive that they occupy the field. But like I said, I am completely unfamiliar with how the NC courts tend to go on implied preemption cases - it may actually be a slam dunk under NC case law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top