(Cross posted at The Line Is Here)

Oh, this is just classic

State Del. Lionel Spruill introduced a bill Tuesday to ban displaying replicas of human genitalia on vehicles, calling it a safety issue because it could distract other drivers.

Oh really? A safety issue, eh? I'm assuming Mr. Spruill has reams of documentation showing vehicular accident reports with the main cause as "Driver was hypnotized by pair of large, dangly, hot pink testicles and ended up running off the road."

Right?

Or maybe the real reason he wants to ban them has more to do with him believing they're indecent.

He said the idea came from a constituent whose young daughter spotted an example of the trail hitch adornment and asked her father to explain it.

"'I didn't know what to tell her,'" Spruill said the constituent told him before Spruill vowed to stop such displays.

That doesn't exactly ring of "a public* safety issue".

Look, I think putting a set of droopy balls on the back of your Get 'Er' Done is stupid. I also think LEDs in your windshield washers are dumb. I also find it quite tasteless to boot. But to claim this is a public safety issue is nothing more than a Wizard of Oz moment where you're not supposed to look at the statist behind the curtain and instead enjoy the pretty light show.

For your own good, of course.

I'm wondering if Mr. Spruill has even driven by cattle or owns a male pet? Does he plan on banning animals since they generally display their offspring generation devices 24/7? Will there be a $250 fine for each canine engaged in licking themselves? Maybe we can mandate blinders for children riding in vehicles so that they won't be exposed to icky things.

As a side story, last Thanksgiving my family was driving up to Georgia when my oldest daughter, reading the billboards, asked what "Adult Toys" were (we have Cafe Risque here in Florida). The last thing on my mind, and I'm a prude by practically everyone's standards, was to call some nanny-statist lawmaker and have the billboard removed.

Again, I could understand the issue being brought up as a decency issue. I would have a problem if someone dangled figurines in the act of copulating or a large, erect penis. But to call it a "safety issue" is not-so-slight of hand to try to absolve Mr. Spruill of pushing his morality when that is exactly what he's trying to do.

*And yes, I had to strain to not write "a pubic safety issue"