Welcome to our weekly column in which a topic of interest, piece of news, relevant opinion, or general request for feedback is presented. We’ll offer the topic du jour and accompanying question, and you have the opportunity to respond with your thoughts.
Simply fill out the form below. A collection of each week’s responses will appear in the following week’s column. To read last week’s responses, scroll below this week’s topic.
Publisher reserves the right to edit responses for clarity and publish online and/or in our print publications.
Please let us know your thoughts!
This week’s topic is:
HALT Drunk Driving Act
On Wednesday (June 30), a news conference in the U.S. Capitol (House Visitors Center, 201) was held at which House Energy and Commerce Committee Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee Chair Jan Schakowsky and Committee members Debbie Dingell, Kathleen Rice and Paul Tonko, along with Congressman Tim Ryan urged the House to pass the auto safety provisions in the INVEST in America Act. Since the bill includes the bipartisan HALT Drunk Driving Act, they were joined by the national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and a drunk driving victim from Michigan whose five family members were killed by a wrong way drunk driver in January 2019.
The House of Representatives approved the HALT Drunk Driving Act during the last Congress in 2020. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan), the impetus behind the HALT Act, re-introduced the legislation this year, along with Reps. David McKinley (R-WV) and Kathleen Rice (D-NY). The bill is now included in the INVEST in America Act (HR 3684), which the House is considering this week.
The HALT Drunk Driving Act calls for a federal rulemaking process that will lead to drunk driving prevention technology as standard equipment in new vehicles in the near future.
Our questions to you:
Do you agree with the intent of the HALT Drunk Driving Act and the possibility of drunk driving prevention technology becoming standard equipment on all vehicles? Why or why not?
Please share your thoughts by filling out this form.
Last week, we asked you about the State of Emergency Being Lifted and you responded! Here is a sampling of reader responses. To read more, click here.
Yes, it's time to lift the state-of-emergency. The stats have spoken!
Maryland has done an excellent job working through this pandemic by implementing protocols, mandates, testing, vaccinations, etc. in the past 15 months. (People should still feel free to mask up if they want but it's GREAT not being required to wear one now that we're in our second summer of COVID-19)!
Life needs to get back to normal. If nothing else, for our kids. Their well-being is so important. So, let's return to fun in '21!
Dana Strotman, Edgewater
I think lifting the state of emergency is premature. I think opting out for Federal programs that provided aid prior to Sept. 6th was also premature. I think people need time to prepare. Now the unemployed are reapplying because of a charter and it has been 3 weeks pending receiving those funds and it will be longer. I think people are trying to get back to normal and that will be a process. It is hard to breath in those masks and if you have glasses they fog up and it is hard to see too. I have a suppressed immune system and the vaccine was not tested on that part of the population. When I go to the post office and see people applying for passports to go to other countries - which I see a lot of - it is frustrating because COVID is not over. I think the population will relax too much and trips to other countries who have not been controlling this will cause it to rise again.
Cindy Myers, Arnold
Next week we’ll examine a new topic—Contradictions in Bay Health Reporting—so put your thinking cap on now and get ready!
