Kansas City proposes ordinance to crack down on dangerous driving stunts

The Kansas City, Missouri, City Council is considering new legislation aimed at curbing dangerous driving behaviors, including stunts that involve vehicles lifting their wheels off the ground. The ordinance, introduced last month by Councilman Wes Rogers, would require all of a vehicle’s wheels to remain in constant contact with the ground while in motion.

Set to be reviewed by the council’s Transportation, Infrastructure, and Operations Committee on January 7, the proposed rule applies to both motor vehicles and motorcycles. The move reflects the city’s intent to address safety concerns and discourage reckless driving, which can endanger both drivers and bystanders.

If passed, violators of the ordinance would face significant penalties, including municipal citations, up to 180 days in jail, and fines ranging from $250 to $1,000. The ordinance also outlines stricter consequences for repeat offenders to further deter dangerous behavior.

Kansas City officials hope the proposed rule will create safer streets and reduce accidents caused by reckless stunts such as wheelies or vehicles intentionally losing contact with the ground. However, the ordinance is likely to spark debate over enforcement and its potential impact on certain driving communities.

Whispers From The Neighbourhood

The proposed Kansas City ordinance requiring all vehicle wheels to remain in contact with the ground has generated mixed reactions. Critics argue that the measure may be overly broad, unnecessarily punitive, and could alienate certain communities.

One major criticism is that the ordinance could criminalize recreational and cultural activities, such as motorcycle stunts or car exhibitions, that are often performed in controlled environments or as part of organized events.

Opponents argue that these activities are not inherently dangerous if conducted responsibly and should not fall under the same umbrella as reckless driving. “This law risks punishing hobbyists and professionals who perform stunts safely,” one critic noted.

Another concern is the severity of the penalties. Critics argue that fines of up to $1,000 and jail time for up to 180 days are disproportionate, particularly for first-time offenders. Some suggest that educational programs or community service could be more effective in addressing reckless behavior without burdening the judicial system or individuals.

Enforcement of the ordinance is another point of contention. Detractors question how law enforcement will differentiate between intentional stunts and accidental situations where wheels momentarily leave the ground, such as when navigating potholes, speed bumps, or uneven terrain. “Are we really going to start ticketing drivers for hitting a bump in the road?” one resident asked.

There are also concerns about potential bias in enforcement. Critics worry that marginalized communities, particularly young drivers and motorcyclists, could face disproportionate scrutiny under the ordinance. “This could lead to selective enforcement and further strain trust between law enforcement and the public,” one advocacy group stated.

Additionally, some argue that the ordinance fails to address the root causes of reckless driving behaviors. Rather than focusing solely on punitive measures, critics suggest the city should invest in infrastructure improvements, such as better-maintained roads and designated spaces for car and motorcycle enthusiasts to safely engage in stunts.

“You can’t legislate behavior away without providing alternatives,” a transportation expert commented.

Finally, the ordinance’s broad language raises concerns about its impact on everyday drivers. For example, trucks or SUVs driving over uneven terrain might unintentionally violate the rule.

Opponents believe the language should be refined to ensure that the ordinance targets dangerous, intentional stunts rather than inadvertently penalizing ordinary driving situations.

While proponents see the ordinance as a step toward safer streets, critics believe it needs significant revisions to avoid unintended consequences and ensure fair enforcement.