Ignore a Flood Roadblock, Get Fined?
Do you think drivers who ignore flood roadblocks and need to be rescued should be fined?
Major storms inevitably bring stories of drivers who ignore flood roadblocks and end up needing rescue by emergency crews.
Now, Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a bill that would levy fines on drivers who disregard the familiar warning to "turn around, don't drown."
The bill would impose:
- Fine of $250 to $500
- Two points on a driver's license
- Cost of water rescue
What do you think? Vote in our poll and tell us in the comments section below.
michael
6:43 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Can we pass a law that makes people get tested for the ability to raise children before they start breeding too? Please!!!!!!
Gloria Woodward
9:29 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Best idea I have heard in a long time!
wendy
7:53 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Yes. This bill is completely reasonable.
George brown
8:02 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Yes fine them.there stupidity cost tax dollars
Danielle
8:21 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Yes. As an Insurance broker i see the results of ignorant driving too much. Damage to their vehicles, possibily injury to their passangers, and the emergency crew members safety is at stake. It is not an occasional thing that happens. We need to respect mother nature and start thinking coherently when we drive.
MerionManor
8:51 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
At first I thought yes, but we don't need a law for everything, if they take such a risk they might suffer the consequence of death, but no I do not think a fine is in order, I can tell you if I were in a flood and given such a fine I would give the fine imposing authority the longest and best run for their money they ever would find themselves involved with; Hopefully costing them more money then the fine itself was worth to them. I wish there were a law that would prevent an insurance claim being filed in a such a case, but far be it from government to tell me I can't drive my car into a flood and injure myself!
Deborah Lonsdorf
8:58 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
We do need a law for this because others are endangered and taxpayer money is spent. It's not a "victimless" issue. The government, which is supported by our tax dollars, is set up by us to handle the larger framework that society operates under and is necessary. We are talking here about heeding signs, not getting caught in a flash flood.
JDBroomall
9:32 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
We just LOVE passing laws, huh? Revenue generation from a nanny state. An officer has at least a dozen current violations on the books he could use to fine a person ignoring a posted road sign. But.... let's make another one.
Legislators seems to have nothing better to do, I guess? Might as well pass a law making it illegal to comb your hair while driving. How about a law to make it illegal to drive your car into a wall?
Adam
10:20 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
If someone drives into a wall, it means they are not driving on the road, which brings a reckless driving charge. Also, the owner of said wall can sue, making another law unnecessary.
However, you can drive into a flood without running of the road. Also, the Ridley Creek can't sue anyone.
JDBroomall
10:24 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Easy answer... make it illegal to flood and sue the water
MerionManor
1:42 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012
JD, I can't agree more, that's what gets to me more then anything else, all these laws when we don't even use what we have on the books to our advantage at times.
Joe Melchiorre
10:10 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
As a former member of a local Fire Company Diving Unit, who knows first hand the danger these folks put people who rescued them in, this makes sense. We put our lives on the line so these fools with no common sense can go about their merry way with no feeling of the danger that was involved in their rescue, the money involved, the time & the effort of the volunteers that put forth the effort so they can live to do something stupid again. For those of who who think this is harsh thinking, you evidently never did this kind of service to your community.
JDBroomall
10:19 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Joe, For the most part.... laws are reactive not proactive. Meaning that passing a law making it illegal to drive around a posted sign (which is already on the books) is not going to stop someone from doing it. They either will be unaware of the law or just ignore it as you stated "fools with no common sense can go about their merry way".
Is this is such an issue or drain on rescue personnel's time and resources that a LAW needs to be passed? Can you provide some statistical, quantitative data that shows how many people get hurt or die every year from drowning as a result from driving around a posted sign? How big is this issue? Are hundreds dying every month? Is our town flooding with water on a daily basis?
I have to admit... I'm laughing as I type this...
MerionManor
1:45 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Get's me laughing too, law for this law for that! Makes me think were living in Johnstown cira 1889!
Adam
10:18 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
I voted yes on the fine. However I think the licence points are a bit much.
Lionel Hutz
1:43 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Just remember, you can't cure stupid. Fining someone will make no difference. Who decides the cost of the rescue?
JDBroomall
1:51 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012
They aren't interested in stopping violators, if they were concerned about public safety, they'd put up a barricade actually preventing people from passing into a dangerous area. They are looking for more reasons to fine people and generate REVENUE.
Joe Melchiorre
2:23 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012
To JDBroomall. Nothing said about driving around barricades. When commonn sense does not prevail & you see a road flooded out & a car or 2 not making it, but the dumb & dumber insists on trying it DUH!! You have, evidently,never been it a rescue situation. You cannot teach common sense, so let the losers who do this pay.
JDBroomall
1:35 pm on Friday, June 22, 2012
You assume that I never have been in a rescue situation. You also assume what type of car/truck I drive, the height off of the ground and ability to drive through a certain depth of water. Wrong on both accounts.
citizenknow
11:01 am on Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The whole point of not driving through water is that there is no way to know how deep it is or what the conditions are underneath.
travon black
4:29 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Don't call this cop! NORRISTOWN, Pa. - A retired police officer from Montgomery County is in big trouble, accused of drug trafficking.http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/18849398/retired-cop-accused-of-drug-trafficking?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Chuck M
9:06 am on Wednesday, June 27, 2012
I don't think its too much at all. These people put the lives of emergency responders at risk to rescue them for being stupid/lazy. I think maybe we need to suspend their license for 6 months instead of fines. I also hope that their insurance company refuses to pay for their vehicle damage!
DW
9:33 am on Wednesday, June 27, 2012
I think the bigger issue is that these people are taking resources away from other real emergencies. If you've read any local fire company website or listened to their reports during township meetings, you'll know that between power lines coming down and lightning striking houses these folks are always super busy during these flooding rain storms. Barricades are there for a reason, something dangerous has already been identified so they closed the road until it can be corrected.
For someone to then go around the barricade and purposely put themselves in harms way is ridiculous, wasting fire, ems & police resources for something that was totally avoidable. That's the problem, we're not talking about flash flooding and someone getting randomly stuck in water, we're talking about someone who disregards the safety devices put in place to keep them out of danger.
Bring on the fines!
Anthony Wayne
10:08 am on Wednesday, June 27, 2012
If you fine people for acting stupid and irresponsible the government would have all the money.