Driving While Cell Phoning Ban?
by jhwygirl
Monday night’s city council meeting brings the much talked about and much debated vote on banning the use of a cell phone when operating a motorized vehicle. The motion on the agenda (the results of this Wednesday’s Public Works Committee vote) is to deny the ordinance.
The issue was prompted by Ward 1′s Dave Strohmaier, who, if I recall correctly, was nearly tagged by a driver who was using their cell phone. The public has been pretty outspoken on this issue, and much like council, feelings run pretty passionate on both sides of the issue.
I go back and forth. Glad I don’t have to vote. On one hand, we got plenty of laws – plenty of them that go unenforced. If we’re going to have laws, they need to be pro-actively enforced. Or at least “primary” offenses.
Ever try and get the junk vehicle code enforced? It’s impossible – and I’d suggest, based on my experience, that the city/county health department spends more time trying to figure out how not to enforce the ordinance then enforcing the thing. Go ahead, give ‘em a call on a vehicle that’s been sitting for years in your neighborhood and see what happens.
We’ve got laws, already, that make using the cell phone and driving illegal – it’s called distracted driving. But on the other hand, proponents will say that we’ve got laws against drunk driving. I suppose that is derived out of the need to educate the public to the specific danger. And I do buy that, for sure.
Some councilors say they may vote for the ban if it is a secondary offense – or if it exempts people on bikes. I can’t understand either of those exceptions. Going at it as a secondary offense doesn’t do crap and puts it at the level that it currently is as distracted driving…it other words, the only time it’d be an offense would be if the driver caused and accident and admitted to using the phone. Police are – I am told – to busy to pull call records on every driver involved in an accident.
Exempting people on bikes – are you kidding me? What about me, the driver, behind the wheel, who hits a person on a bike who is talking on their cell phone? The effects of car versus bike are likely to be much more deadly than car versus car. It’s a dingbat exception derived out of some overly-compensating need to make Missoula bike friendly, and has nothing to do with safety.
Which is where this all started, no?
So here is sit, having written, real Missoulian editorial-like and all, going back and forth on the issue. LOL. But in an effort to actually land on a position, here it is:
If you are going to ban cell phones while driving – and many cities and towns and counties and even a state or two has done it – ban ‘em. Ban ‘em for cars and motorcycles and bikes. Make it a primary offense, and tell the police to proactively get out there on enforcing this thing for a while to let people know that it will be enforced. Maybe hand out warnings for a month.
Anything less, fuggetabout it.
-
Recent Comments
Pancho on Who Can Can Engstrom? petetalbot on Who Can Can Engstrom? petetalbot on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Who Can Can Engstrom… on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Steve W on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F…
June 1, 2009 at 7:25 am
Well, every car driven by an idiot, turns out the idiot’s got a phone in their ear…and everybody’s seen an accident caused by an inattentive phone using driver.
That anecdotal evidence aside, two things bother me about creating this new law. First, we don’t have the police to enforce things like drivers or bicyclists running red lights, (thank you legislature!) or speeding, or drunk driving, or enough officers to drive regular neighborhood beats and stop daylight robberies. We don’t enforce the leash laws or pickuptheshit laws. Why add another law we are incapable of enforcing?
Second, anecdotal evidence aside, the studies show that the cost of accidents is far smaller than the increase in productivity. Yes, that is a straight up economic analysis, but it’s on point. This isn’t eating while driving, or changing the cd, or plugging in the IPod, or putting on makeup, all of which add little to productivity but are equallly driving while impaired. Shouldn’t they all be illegal?
Which brings me to my third point. Driving distracted is illegal; it’s careless driving. Any of those activities, as well as cell phone use, while driving erratically enough to cause an accident will usually result in another ticket for careless driving.
The idea of a “secondary offense” isn’t a bad one, like seat belts. But we almost have that now. Cause an accident with your inattention due to talking on the phone, and you’re most likely to get ticketed.
Finally, what do the studies say about cities that have banned cell phone use? Have accidents declined significantly? At the time I looked into the issue, there were no such studies showing any significant benefits of such a law.
June 1, 2009 at 7:31 am
Also, I have to say, passing an ordinance because “it happened to ME!” is exactly the kind of self serving crap that goes on at the legislature every two years to the detriment of the state.
Try not to be so self absorbed that every little thing that happens to you or a second cousin is cause for city or state wide debate. Turns out most times, there are good reasons for laws the way they are.
Check those out first.
June 1, 2009 at 8:46 am
“… studies found a fourfold increase in the risk of a property-damage-only crash and the risk of an injury crash associated with phone use.”
“Although the enactment of laws limiting drivers’ use of all phones is consistent with research findings, it is unclear how such laws could be enforced.”
Cell Phones and Driving: Review of Research
Anne T. Mccartt; Laurie A. Hellinga; Keli A. Bratiman
Traffic Injury Prevention, 1538-957X, Volume 7, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 89 – 106
June 2, 2009 at 9:19 am
Just for clarification, Strohmaier introduced the ordinance well before the incident with the driver on the cell phone. The ordinance wasn’t a knee jerk reaction. He had researched the issue well beforehand and come to the conclusion that the ordinance was necessary for the city. I’ve only been watching the city council for about six months, but I can say without a doubt that Strohmaier is one of its more studious members. When he makes a decision, he’s thought it through well.
June 1, 2009 at 9:29 am
This law has proven unenforceable in both of the places I’ve seen it in action — Chicago and California. Applying it to bikes (like applying any traffic law to bikes) would only make it utterly futile to enforce. Besides that, I don’t think there are that many cyclists who would even try talking on a phone while riding a bike in traffic.
And double PS, the cyclist-motorist road relationship is unfair — get over it. Everyone is entitled to use of the road, but if you’re behind the wheel of the car, you’re the only one licensed to be in that situation. Most people who drive obey traffic laws not because it’s the right thing to do, or because of the threat of fine, but because of the ramifications of having a bad driving record and/or the loss of license via point accumulation. Therefore, cyclists are never going to follow the little procedural traffic laws, and you may as well get accustomed to that inequity.
Besides that, motorists absolutely positively bear more responsibility. I mean, just pause for a second and think about it — you’re operating a machine with the power of how many horses? 150? 200? Get off the fucking cross already.
June 1, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Easy there klemzy – don’t know where you got I was anti-bike. Every time I can grab a council person’s ear, I’m begging for just 3 extra feet of asphalt on S. 3rd. St. for bikers, pedestrians and handicapped people in wheelchairs – there are at least 6 of ‘em – in the interim until they get that project done.
And how you missed seeing bikers drive around talking on cell phones, working their I-pods, eating lunch and yes, even carrying a whole pizza, I don’t know.
State law requires bikers to comply with the same traffic laws as cars. There’s no reason – if it is approved – that they shouldn’t comply with this one.
“Get off the fucking cross,”?! Who pissed in your Wheaties, first of all – and second of all, what in the hell are you reading this blog for if you don’t expect to read opinion and editorializing?
Geez. I thought California was laid back, sippin’ on gin & juice like. Guess I’m wrong.
June 1, 2009 at 2:59 pm
The first part of that post was directed at you, then it became a diatribe toward any motorist who complains about cyclist behavior. I actually wasn’t trying to ream you out at all, but I can’t restrain myself when it comes to motorist self-entitlements… even if there are none presently being expressed. The idea that someone reading this blog is about to chime in with a few makes me rabid. So… my bad.
As far as bicyclists and phones/ipods/pizzas, I don’t think its a problem. It’s really pretty rare, whereas I see drivers blah blah blahing in every window.
Also, I don’t know Montana traffic code at all, but in some jurisdictions, bikes are exempt from certain traffic laws, DUI laws among them. Besides that, it’s not the technicality that counts but the enforcements. Folks in Montana — land of the “road pop” — should know that to be true.
June 1, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I’m thinking you can get popped for DUI here on a bike.
Anyone?
It could be that I’m deja vu’ing from somewhere else I lived….
June 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm
By jurisdiction, I meant state, but the answer seems to be no.
(3) (a) “Under the influence” means that as a result of taking into the body alcohol, drugs, or any combination of alcohol and drugs, a person’s ability to safely operate a vehicle has been diminished.
(b) Subject to 61-8-440, as used in this part, “vehicle” has the meaning provided in 61-1-101, except that the term does not include a bicycle.
June 1, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Bicyclists who want the rights of vehicles must also accept the responsibilities. I saw some d-bag biking IN TRAFFIC, riding with no hands so he could text. Maybe he was being “productive” by surrendering his situational awareness along with his ability to steer or use his brakes, but if bicyclists want to be protected by the rules of the road, then they should also follow them. If that means no cell phones for drivers (and I think it should) then that means none for cyclists, too.
June 1, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Why? He’s only endangering himself. Do you really not see that distinction? Are you really so blinded by the commonness of that steel and fiberglass bubble that you forget that within it lies the power to kill someone more easily than with a state-approved firearm? Are you really going to sit here and tell me that cars and bicycles are the same thing? Really?
[For the record, I don't really care whether they pass this law or not or what exclusions they make (history shows it won't work anyway), but I'm taking up this argument on principle.]
June 1, 2009 at 8:08 pm
He’s not just endangering himself, klemz. I know if I hit the guy – if he lost his balance and fell under my wheel, or veered off because a hornet came at him- whatever – I’m going to have to live with that tragedy forever.
there’s more to than who get’s physically hurt worse or who’s mode-of-transportation costs more to fix.
I don’t know…is it because I’d give a shit if I killed someone, even if it were their own fault? Which isn’t exactly true, because of no-fault laws.
I have to think that killing someone, even if it isn’t your fault, is a pretty traumatic and life-changing thing.
No-fault laws, btw, don’t prevent lawsuits. If I hit that guy on the bike who was texting and operating that bike hands-free, I’m going to be legally at blame. At least 50%, regardless of any tickets issued.
June 1, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I didn’t realize that we’re responsible for each other’s psychological conditions at the moment of our exit. On that note, how utterly indecent of the victims of the Khmer Rouge and the protesters at Tienanmen Square not to die in a manner less traumatic to the rest of humanity.
If you’re operating an instrument with lethal capabilities then no action external to yourself is going to alter the reality that the potential exists that you will take a life. If you don’t like that, then don’t drive. Those are your options.
June 1, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Yeah. And somehow me driving a car that hits a texting hands-free biker equates to some maniacal government killing it’s citizens in Khmer Rouge or in Tienanmen Square.
I didn’t realize hands-free texting bicyclists were trying to make some sort of statement.
Cell phone freedom for everyone!
Who knew?
June 1, 2009 at 11:15 pm
It does in a hyperbolic metaphor.
June 2, 2009 at 6:36 pm
You seem grumpy, klemz. Are you missing Missoula?
June 2, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Yes, of course I miss it. I left for a better financial aid package at a better (or, at least, higher ranked) institution. The trout fishing here sucks and people threaten to call the police when you spark up a joint in the bar.
But I’m not grumpy. The internet is a handicap for people who speak in excesses because it lacks the ability to convey on a tonal and non-verbal level. Plus, I would like to remind you that you actually haven’t hit and killed a cyclist yet, so you can hardly take exception to a comparison — whimsical or otherwise — to the Khmer Rouge.
When you kill someone, I’ll reissue the statement to include a more apt parallel antagonist, depending largely on the manner of the cyclist’s death and the vehicle instrument.
June 2, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Pity the person who tries to have you arrested for firing up…not only do I suspect that you’d tell him to go f* himself, but there’d probably be a lengthy lecture in there on the nanny state government too.
Oh, I’m laughing just thinking about it.
June 1, 2009 at 9:47 am
Of course, I can drive perfectly while talking on my cell phone. I can also roll a cigarette, change my CD and floss my teeth, all while driving and all at the same time. It’s those other idiots on the road who can’t multitask like me. (Seriously, isn’t that how everyone thinks? “I can do it just fine, it’s everybody else … “)
And while, like goof, I’m not a big fan of new laws, I support this one. I think my reason is this: Missoulians already suck at using their blinkers, which is something that drives me crazy. Throw in the fact that folks are now talking on cell phones and you hardly see a blinker anymore.
(The alternative would be issuing felony citations or public floggings for failure to use turn signals. This was suggested by former Missoulian editorial writer Sam Reynolds, I believe. Right on!)
Anyway, not using my cell phone while driving will be an inconvenience but on other hand, maybe we could all use this time for a little break from the action.
June 1, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I thought women were the only good multi-taskers.
In fact – if they’re going to be doing exemptions, I think Council Goddess Stacy Rye should put forth an exemption to the cell phone ban for women age 25 – 55 because tests have shown that they are superior multi-taskers.
I know I’m good at it.
June 1, 2009 at 12:36 pm
are you kidding me? there absolutely needs to be an exception for bikers. we are infinitely smarter than people who drive. we don’t pollute. we have much shaplier calves. and we run this town.
plus have you ever rode a bike while texting your bff? so easy a chimp could do it.
June 1, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Why can’t people just accept responsibility for their actions? Do you really need the nany State breathing down your pants, controlling/watching every action you do? Pathetic!
June 1, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Having a freakin bumblebee fly in through the drivers side window and right down the collar of my shirt, that’s distracting. Cell phones pale in comparison to getting stung on the neck repeatedly while driving.
Adjusting the pack of matches that is aligning the 8 track tape in the deck so it’s not cross tracking. Having the cassette begin to mumble and spit out tape while playing that sweet 4/29/71 that’s one of a kind. Those are distracting.
The woman in the passenger seat is having contractions five, no, four minutes apart and is puking into the jockey box between the seats. I’m fifty miles from a hospital going 100 miles an hour thinking there’s got to be a HiPo somewhere…that’s distracting.
The smell of burning jeans and car seat, that’s distracting.
There oughta be a law, dammit.
June 1, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I’m calling on the spirits, I know – but I’ll still make any damned call I need to and taken any damned call I need to.
And sometimes that’s going to include calling in the exact MM post of where the utility truck and its occupant is on the side of the road performing CPR on their co-worker – just to make sure the ambulance is on the way and knows exactly where to go…and sometimes it’s going to include a call to local Missoula dispatch about smoke plumes seen rising out of the forest.
Both of which have occurred in the past week.
They passed it tonight, making it a secondary offense. Exemption for hand-free.
It’s all hippy-skippy for me, goof. You feel free, too, to answer that phone while you’re here in town. All’s copacetic.
Who needs laws anyway? When you have the highest offices across the land ignoring them, who gives a shit about someone using a cell phone a driving? Seriously.
At least 7 of ‘em were happy – it got a majority vote. Even hippy-skippy Dick Haines was happy with it.
June 1, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Seriously! They passed it?
The cell phone police, coming to a town near you? I guess they’ve run out of people to ticket for speeding, or running red lights, or failing to yield to pedestrians.
June 2, 2009 at 12:21 am
You forgot dogs.
June 2, 2009 at 7:58 am
However, dropping and losing the burning roach into your lap is still okay…as long as you don’t unhook your seatbelt, or call the fire department while your crotch is on fire.
“Drive Stoned–Not Phoned!”