Idiocy of Ohio's cell phone texting ban

Earlier this morning I wrote about the passage of a texting ban in the Ohio House, but I thought this particular point about the ban deserved its own post.

There are a lot of onerous facts to consider in the ban, and one of them, as I detailed, is that members of the Ohio House are touting this bill as 'making our roads safer.'

But if safety is such a big concern that we need to have a law, why wait six months to actually enforce it?

From the press releases I received comes this identical wording:

Additionally, House Bill 99 provides that for the first six months after the effective date of the bill, no ticket, citation or summons may be issued for a violation of the new prohibition established by the bill. During this time, only a warning may be issued that provides information about the prohibition.

Huh???

We so desperately need to make our roads safer that we need a new law when we already have one on the books that will suffice, but for the first six months, we're not going to allow a ticket, citation or summons to be issued? We're only going to warn people that the ban exists?

If there is no penalty for violating the law, the law is worthless. And if we need it to ensure our safety on the roads and highways, how will not enforcing the law accomplish this goal?

If having a law that bans texting and driving is enough to keep us safe, won't the fact that people know they'll only get a warning for the first six months encourage them to go ahead and break the law, knowing there are no consequences for doing do?

As Glenn Beck says, get out the duct tape before your head explodes!

And yes, this does qualify for 'stuck on stupid' designation.