Council votes to ban use of cell phones while driving

[Dos Equis]

 

Law bans driver's use of cellphone
By Amy Busek / abusek@staradvertiser.com
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, May 21, 2013

Everyone riding in an automobile in Hawaii must now use a seat belt, under one of two traffic safety bills Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed into law Monday.

The second new law bans drivers from holding cellphones and other electronic devices, in effect replacing various county ordinances.

Abercrombie said of the seat belt law, "This measure closes the gap in protecting all passengers riding in a motor vehicle."

Previous law required occupants in front seats and minors in back seats to use seat belts or child safety seats. Adults in the back seat had the option of using seat belts. The amended law means everyone must buckle up.

The new law took effect Monday. Though police sometimes break in a new law by providing a grace period — with warnings but no citations — officials on Monday said there may be none this time.

Honolulu police spokeswoman Michelle Yu said there is little chance of a grace period for the seat belt law because of the widespread availability of information.

Caroline Sluyter, state Department of Transportation spokeswoman, said there have been extensive public outreach campaigns for Senate Bill 4 in radio and television ads, posters in public schools and tourism industry and rental car notifications.

Passengers in back seats who don't wear seat belts are three times more likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries than those using seat belts, state Health Director Loretta Fuddy said at the news conference in the governor's office.

David Manning of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said although data show occupants are 47 percent more likely to survive a crash by wearing a seat belt, only 19 states, including Hawaii, require all vehicle occupants to use seat belts. Manning said traffic accidents are the No. 1 cause of death for Americans between the ages of 2 and 34.

Honolulu police Capt. Darren Izumo said buckling up, or not, can affect the effectiveness of a car's airbag system.

"You have to understand that in a modern vehicle, your computer detects all that," Izumo said. "If it thinks you're wearing the belt, it deploys the airbags based on that or (doesn't) deploy the airbags based on that. You try to trick the system, bad things will happen."

House Bill 980, which is effective July 1, bans the use of handheld electronic devices, such as cellphones, while driving.

Adults may use hands-free devices such as Bluetooth headsets, but drivers under 18 may not.

"While all counties have some form of a distracted driving ordinance in place, this measure establishes a state law that creates consistent requirements across all counties for the use of mobile electronic devices while driving and will simplify enforcement," Abercrombie said in a news release.

Nearly one-third of all Hawaii traffic collisions in 2007 were caused by distracted driving, according to a state transportation department study.

Using a cellphone while driving puts drivers at four times the risk of an accident with injuries, Transportation Deputy Director Jadene Urasaki said.

"In 2011, the national annual statistics showed approximately 3,300 people (were) killed in distracted-driving crashes," Urasaki said. "To put that into a local perspective, that's all the people that can be seated at the Neal Blaisdell Concert Hall, plus 1,000 more."

The law carves out a few exceptions, such as allowing people to dial 911. Medical responders, work-related users of two-way radios and drivers with radio operator licenses are also exempt.

Violators caught using a cellphone in school zones and construction areas will face double the usual fine, which is $100 to $200 for a first offense.

[OzmO]

Interesting, the article talks a lot about "distracted" driving but doesn't give details.

[GigantorX]

Interesting, the article talks a lot about "distracted" driving but doesn't give details.

There probably aren't many details about it. The definition of "Distracted Driving" will be vague and open for the police officers interpretation. Thus opening up a door a mile wide for more tickets and fines.

[OzmO]

There probably aren't many details about it. The definition of "Distracted Driving" will be vague and open for the police officers interpretation. Thus opening up a door a mile wide for more tickets and fines.

Sure but the article is using the "distracted driving" study as support for the "new" cell phone laws with out differentiating in detail the various ways drivers are distracted and how many of those are from cell phone use. 

[Dos Equis]

Interesting, the article talks a lot about "distracted" driving but doesn't give details.

Yeah, I'd like to know how many of the "distracted" drivers were using cell phones.  I don't see a major distinction between holding a phone and using a bluetooth.  You're still talking/listening to someone in both instances.   

[blacken700]

Yeah, I'd like to know how many of the "distracted" drivers were using cell phones.  I don't see a major distinction between holding a phone and using a bluetooth.  You're still talking/listening to someone in both instances.   

a lot of people now are texting which you have to take your eyes off the road which you don't do on a bluetooth connection

[Dos Equis]

a lot of people now are texting which you have to take your eyes off the road which you don't do on a bluetooth connection

I agree people should not be texting while driving, but texting and talking are not the same.   

[blacken700]

but the law has to do with banning cell phones while driving not just talking on them and most younger people now are texting

[Dos Equis]

but the law has to do with banning cell phones while driving not just talking on them and must younger people now are texting

Nobody should be texting while driving, because you have to take your eyes off of the road to do it.  They can easily ban texting without banning talking. 

[blacken700]

i lot of the accidents happen when the person is reaching for the phone to answer it becaues your taking your eyes off the road

[Dos Equis]

i lot of the accidents happen when the person is reaching for the phone to answer it becaues your taking your eyes off the road

How do you know this?  You have statistics that show this? 

And you don't have to take your eyes off the road to answer your phone.  Also, answering a phone is not in the same category as texting IMO.

[blacken700]

a phone works both ways as you know some are actually dialing numbers to call out

[blacken700]

How a Cell Phone Contributes to Driving Dangers

Two types of cell phone behavior typically lead to unsafe driving conditions:
• Handling the phone: dialing, answering, text messaging, etc.
• The conversation introduced to the environment.

Thought fumbling with the cell phone itself was a more dangerous activity than your conversation? Think again. That conversation involves quite large chunks of your thought, which according to study simulations sucks the life out of your driving concentration, especially your ability to react when seconds count.

The National Safety Council reports that in simulated driving tests, those subjects that were asked to carry on a cell phone conversation were so distracted that they went unaware of some traffic signals. The study tangentially examines the psychology of a conversation, especially the participation level required, versus other “listening” behaviors such as audio books and news radio. It seems that the more emotionally engaged the subject the less attentive to safety signals. The results were unaffected by whether the subject manually held the phone or if the mechanism was hands free, a reason why some believe hands-free initiatives are a weak and ineffectual way to control cell phone use while driving, and allegations that use of a cell phone impairs a driver’s ability as much as driving drunk.

[Dos Equis]

How a Cell Phone Contributes to Driving Dangers

Two types of cell phone behavior typically lead to unsafe driving conditions:
• Handling the phone: dialing, answering, text messaging, etc.
• The conversation introduced to the environment.

Thought fumbling with the cell phone itself was a more dangerous activity than your conversation? Think again. That conversation involves quite large chunks of your thought, which according to study simulations sucks the life out of your driving concentration, especially your ability to react when seconds count.

The National Safety Council reports that in simulated driving tests, those subjects that were asked to carry on a cell phone conversation were so distracted that they went unaware of some traffic signals. The study tangentially examines the psychology of a conversation, especially the participation level required, versus other “listening” behaviors such as audio books and news radio. It seems that the more emotionally engaged the subject the less attentive to safety signals. The results were unaffected by whether the subject manually held the phone or if the mechanism was hands free, a reason why some believe hands-free initiatives are a weak and ineffectual way to control cell phone use while driving, and allegations that use of a cell phone impairs a driver’s ability as much as driving drunk.

Three problems with this:

1.  It lumps "Handling the phone: dialing, answering, text messaging, etc." together.  Texting involves a far greater level of "distractedness."  (Is that a word?)

2.  See the bold part.  Supports what I've been saying for years that there is no logical distinction between holding a phone and using a bluetooth when it comes to whether or not a driver is "distracted."

3.  No statistics. 

[blacken700]

whether one distracts more than the other really doesn't matter if they all distract, as they do,all it takes is a second or two and you could be in trouble,  i have bluetooth built in on my car and all i have to do is push a botton on the steering wheel and i still don't use it

[Dos Equis]

whether one distracts more than the other really doesn't matter if they all distract, as they do,all it takes is a second or two and you could be in trouble,  i have bluetooth built in on my car and all i have to do is push a botton on the steering wheel and i still don't use it

It matters if the government is banning holding a phone in your hand and essentially endorsing bluetooth as a safer alternative.  It's not. 

[blacken700]

well i guess it makes it a little safer by taking the  handling the phone, dialing, answering, text messaging out of the equation

[avxo]

How a Cell Phone Contributes to Driving Dangers

Two types of cell phone behavior typically lead to unsafe driving conditions:
• Handling the phone: dialing, answering, text messaging, etc.
• The conversation introduced to the environment.

Thought fumbling with the cell phone itself was a more dangerous activity than your conversation? Think again. That conversation involves quite large chunks of your thought, which according to study simulations sucks the life out of your driving concentration, especially your ability to react when seconds count.

The National Safety Council reports that in simulated driving tests, those subjects that were asked to carry on a cell phone conversation were so distracted that they went unaware of some traffic signals. The study tangentially examines the psychology of a conversation, especially the participation level required, versus other “listening” behaviors such as audio books and news radio. It seems that the more emotionally engaged the subject the less attentive to safety signals. The results were unaffected by whether the subject manually held the phone or if the mechanism was hands free, a reason why some believe hands-free initiatives are a weak and ineffectual way to control cell phone use while driving, and allegations that use of a cell phone impairs a driver’s ability as much as driving drunk.

If the conversation is an issue, does the National Safety Council also advocate for making it illegal for. A driver to talk to passengers? What about a driver listening to conversations between passengers? Is it OK if he just doesn't think about the conversation?

[Dos Equis]

California Court Says Viewing Phone While Driving OK
By Steven Nelson Feb. 28, 2014

A California appeals court decided Thursday some cellphone use while driving is legal.

Steven Spriggs of Fresno, Calif., successfully argued he didn't deserve a $165 fine for violating a state law against using cellphones while driving because he was not using his phone for communication, but instead using a map application to find a new route.

“Spriggs contends he did not violate the statute because he was not talking on the telephone. We agree,” a three-judge panel ruled. “Based on the statute’s language, its legislative history and subsequent legislative enactments, we conclude that the statute means what it says – it prohibits a driver only from holding a wireless telephone while conversing on it.”

The decision from the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal overturned a previous ruling against Spriggs from the Fresno County Superior Court.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris's office argued unsuccessfully for a more expansive interpretation of the state's 2008 anti-distracted driving law.

The appeals court ruled the government's assertion "that the statute bans all hand-held use of wireless telephones [while driving]" would "lead to absurd results and is opposed to the legislative intent.”

It’s unclear if Harris will appeal the ruling to the California Supreme Court.

“Our office is still reviewing the decision,” says Nick Pacilio, a spokesman for the state attorney general’s office.

Supporters of tough distracted driving laws are upset about the judges' decision.

“It’s an incredibly irresponsible ruling,” says Candace Lightner, founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and president of traffic safety advocacy group We Save Lives.

“It may be legal but it’s still dangerous,” she says. “All of a sudden now, people are going to think twice and perhaps not be as serious as they should, even though the problem is getting worse and not better.”

Lightner says people often claim they weren’t sending text messages when nabbed by police.

“It’s like saying, ‘I only had two beers,’ the old drunk driving thing,” she says.

Lightner, whose activism in the 1980s helped raise the national drinking age to 21, says she’s worried the ruling may erode the enforcement of anti-distracted driving laws in other states.

The ruling is not without its fans. Well-known George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr declared “reason has prevailed” in a post on The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

A spokesman for the California Highway Patrol, which ticketed Spriggs, told the San Jose Mercury News on Thursday “we will continue our enforcement the way we do it,” suggesting drivers won’t be able to automatically dodge a ticket by claiming they were looking at a map.

In the past decade 41 states passed laws against sending text messages while driving and many others banned hand-held use of phones to make calls. The ruling has no bearing on other states.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/28/california-court-says-viewing-phone-while-driving-ok

[OzmO]

The unrealistic reality of do-gooders is unbelievable at times.

[RRKore]

California Court Says Viewing Phone While Driving OK
By Steven Nelson Feb. 28, 2014

A California appeals court decided Thursday some cellphone use while driving is legal.

Steven Spriggs of Fresno, Calif., successfully argued he didn't deserve a $165 fine for violating a state law against using cellphones while driving because he was not using his phone for communication, but instead using a map application to find a new route.

“Spriggs contends he did not violate the statute because he was not talking on the telephone. We agree,” a three-judge panel ruled. “Based on the statute’s language, its legislative history and subsequent legislative enactments, we conclude that the statute means what it says – it prohibits a driver only from holding a wireless telephone while conversing on it.”

The decision from the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal overturned a previous ruling against Spriggs from the Fresno County Superior Court.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris's office argued unsuccessfully for a more expansive interpretation of the state's 2008 anti-distracted driving law.

The appeals court ruled the government's assertion "that the statute bans all hand-held use of wireless telephones [while driving]" would "lead to absurd results and is opposed to the legislative intent.”

It’s unclear if Harris will appeal the ruling to the California Supreme Court.

“Our office is still reviewing the decision,” says Nick Pacilio, a spokesman for the state attorney general’s office.

Supporters of tough distracted driving laws are upset about the judges' decision.

“It’s an incredibly irresponsible ruling,” says Candace Lightner, founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and president of traffic safety advocacy group We Save Lives.

“It may be legal but it’s still dangerous,” she says. “All of a sudden now, people are going to think twice and perhaps not be as serious as they should, even though the problem is getting worse and not better.”

Lightner says people often claim they weren’t sending text messages when nabbed by police.

“It’s like saying, ‘I only had two beers,’ the old drunk driving thing,” she says.

Lightner, whose activism in the 1980s helped raise the national drinking age to 21, says she’s worried the ruling may erode the enforcement of anti-distracted driving laws in other states.

The ruling is not without its fans. Well-known George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr declared “reason has prevailed” in a post on The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

A spokesman for the California Highway Patrol, which ticketed Spriggs, told the San Jose Mercury News on Thursday “we will continue our enforcement the way we do it,” suggesting drivers won’t be able to automatically dodge a ticket by claiming they were looking at a map.

In the past decade 41 states passed laws against sending text messages while driving and many others banned hand-held use of phones to make calls. The ruling has no bearing on other states.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/28/california-court-says-viewing-phone-while-driving-ok

CA is using an outdated law that will surely be changed before long. 

Hawaii's law seems more practical in that it seems more concerned with what one's eyes are doing. 

(Even answering a phone isn't something that most do without using their eyes -- I don't know anyone who answers their phone without looking at it to see who it is unless they've set up their phone to have a special ringtone for certain callers.)

[Dos Equis]

Michigan woman gets odd sentence for fatal bike crash
By Ken Palmer, Lansing State Journal
June 4, 2015

ST. JOHNS — A woman whose car struck and killed a bicyclist last fall near DeWitt drew an unusual sentence Wednesday in Clinton County District Court.

Mitzi Nelson will serve two years of probation and at least 90 days in jail, but she will also have to speak to 20 driver's education classes about the dangers of distracted driving, perform 150 hours of community service and forgo owning or using a cell phone or other portable communications device during her time on probation.

Judge Stewart McDonald acknowledged that someone could challenge his authority to bar someone from using a cell phone but hopes the sentence will deter others from using one behind the wheel.

"I don't think she has a right to have a cell phone," he said. "I think it's a privilege."

Jordan Byelich, center, husband of killed bicyclist Jill Byelich, reaches to hug Mitzi Nelson, left, in court in St. Johns as her family looks on before she is taken to jail Wednesday. Nelson pleaded no contest to a charge of committing a moving violation causing death or severe impairment in the 2014 accident, which police and prosecutors called a case of distracted driving. (Photo: Rod Sanford / Lansing State Journal)

"I thought the judge thought it through very well and looked at all the factors on both sides," he said after the hearing.

Nelson's attorney, Mike Nichols, said he was struck by Jordan Byelich's compassion.

"Jordan gave Mitzi a hug," Nichols said. "That's what it's all about."

McDonald gave Nelson six months in jail, with the final 90 days deferred depending on her progress. Nelson will have to serve the first 30 days of her jail sentence immediately and another 30 days next spring. The rest of the 90 days will be served over four holiday periods. The judge said he would consider her request for work release at a later time.

He also ordered that she pay more than $15,600 in restitution and $1,500 in fines, fees and costs. The state in May suspended her driver's license for a year.

McDonald recommended that Nelson consider speaking to school assemblies about what happened to her as part of her community service.

"If you do that, then maybe that message of deterrence will most emphatically get through," he said.

Nichols said he doesn't expect to challenge the judge's order that she can't own or use a cell phone or other portable communication device for the term of her probation.

"Mitzi may be just fine with that," he said.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/06/04/michigan-jail-sentence/28459901/