Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate passes measure limiting cellphone use for teen drivers after extended debate

Utah State Senate · March 13, 2013
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Senate advanced House Bill 103, restricting use of wireless phones while driving by those under 18. Supporters emphasized education and road safety; opponents said distracted-driving laws already cover the behavior and raised questions about scope and enforcement.

The Utah Senate on the floor took up and passed House Bill 103, a measure limiting the use of wireless telephones by drivers under 18.

Sponsor Senator Hilliard said the bill targets a known danger, describing studies and local law-enforcement concerns about teen distraction. He framed the measure as an education-oriented approach — noting the fine was intended as an educational deterrent rather than a revenue source — and said the change would be taught in driver-education classes.

Other senators opposed or questioned the bill—s scope. Senator Knutson and Senator Thatcher argued that distracted driving of any kind is already illegal as a moving violation and that the proposal singled out cell phones rather than addressing all distractions. Senator Knutson asked whether a $50 maximum fine was necessary; a transcript correction indicated the House had amended the maximum fine to $25.

The body moved to suspend constitutional reading requirements after a call of the Senate, allowed members to return, and recorded the final roll-call result. The Senate passed the bill under suspension of the rules; the clerk recorded the yeas and nays on the roll call and the bill was sent to the House for the Speaker—s signature.

The debate centered on whether the measure was the right incremental step to reduce teen driving deaths or an unnecessary duplication of existing distracted-driving statutes. The bill—s supporters emphasized its public-education value and link to driver-education curricula; opponents focused on breadth and enforcement consistency.