Ann Arbor chamber takes stance against proposed cell phone ban
The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce today announced its opposition to the city's proposed ban on using cell phones while driving.
Kyle Mazurek, the chamber's vice president of government affairs, wrote the mayor and members of the Ann Arbor City Council today to say the chamber — representing 1,200-plus businesses and organizations — believes the matter should be addressed at the state level instead.
Using your cell phone while driving in Ann Arbor could cost $125 under a proposed ban working its way through City Council.
Lon Horwedel | AnnArbor.com
"The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, like the Ann Arbor Area Board of Realtors, is opposed to the city of Ann Arbor’s proposed cell phone ban (or more precisely, the proposed ban on portable electronic device use/operation while driving/biking)," the chamber's position statement reads. "A ban such as this is most appropriately addressed at the state level where it can and will receive proper airing. It should not be enacted piecemeal in varying, confusing and divergent ways depending upon one's local jurisdictional whereabouts. Statewide imposition aims to ensure uniformity in both awareness and enforcement."
The chamber points out legislation currently is pending in the state Legislature on the use of cell phones while driving. "Indications are that it may preempt local level ordinances, which calls into question the resource expenditure associated with Ann Arbor’s proposed ordinance," the chamber statement says.
"Absent state legislation, Ann Arbor’s proposed ordinance is unfriendly and unwelcoming to our area’s many visitors, tourists and business travelers who will unwittingly commit civil infractions," the chamber's position states. "Our area’s guests should not be penalized for such unknowing misconduct. It is our belief that a locally enacted measure of this sort will thwart efforts to grow business, as well as associated job creation, by creating an unfriendly business environment."
Council Member Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward and sponsor of the proposed ban, said council members are expected to vote on the ordinance at their meeting next Monday night. It was postponed March 15.
Rapundalo said the ordinance is being reworded to clarify what would and wouldn't be allowed under the ordinance, including the fact that two-way radios would be OK. He said the wording also is being clarified to note that GPS units still can be used if fixed to the vehicle.
Under the ordinance, cell phone use also would be allowed as long as the person driving isn't holding the phone in his or her hand, which means speakerphones and Bluetooth headsets would be ways around the ban for those who don't want to give up talking on the phone while driving.
In response to concerns from the business community that the ban would be a burden to those who rely on using a cell phone while driving to get business done, Rapundalo said, "We did that before the advent of cell phones, and we did just fine." He said he doesn't think it's worth risking human life for the sake of convenience.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Brian Bundesen
Wed, Mar 31, 2010 : 5:25 a.m.
City Council: 1) Attract business & jobs to Ann Arbor 2) Balance the budget 3) Fix the roads 4) Knock yourselves out trying to legislate common sense Priorities, please.
Aidman
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 8:14 p.m.
What -- so we wait until the legislature gets back from one of their vacations? Tell them to get rid of their limos so they actually have to experience what most of us do. And, have they ever interacted with a telephone-glued driver who JUST managed to keep on the road -- but who apparently wasn't aware who was also on the road with them? Well, I have. A number of times. For instance, an angry fellow employee who was almost always on the phone and seemingly always angry almost hit me in the company parking lot several times. Later, as soon as I saw that employee's SUV, I waited until it parked. I'm beginning to think that the Ann Arbor mayor and council have adopted the current Detroit behavior -- blame someone else. Try living in my shoes.
TF
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 12:22 p.m.
So I can't hold a phone in my hand, but what if I hold the phone by squeezing it between my shoulder and head. Sounds hands-free and safe to me. Just like a bluetooth.
Ignatz
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 11:45 a.m.
I love LGChelsea's point, but it's not reasonable to expect everyone found guilty of such lunkheadedness will have the means to pay all of those bills, unless those penalties are restricted to those bills of the perpetrator. Then, that rocks. I can't understand the widspread self-absorbtion I see almost minute by minute. Are all of these people so important that they have to be texting/talking while driving? I sick of it. I hope you know that because the government has abandoned it's primary mission to protect the citizenry in this area, that some have already begun to resort to vigilanteism. I for one, will not allow another driver on their device to come into my lane. Not will I let them enter the road from a parking lot when I see them trying to do that. I purposfully pull in front of them when stoppping for a light, rather that allow them access, which I normally do. If they don't care about me, tham I don't care about them. The State needs to get on the stick.
Chris
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 11:08 a.m.
I emailed the State Chamber of Commerce and asked if they have a position on the proposed state-wide ban and they have not taken a position. Still waiting for anyone from the local chamber to chime in with their feelings on the proposed ban. How about the rest of you? For or against the state-wide ban? The cynic in me sees the State Chamber coming out with the same rhetoric the A2 Chamber did, pushing against such a ban, saying it would make the state unfriendly/anti-business.
Griffen
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 9:57 a.m.
@ eyeloveypsi, sure you do. No one can afford cell phones there. :)
ArgoC
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 8:50 a.m.
Depressing waste of city council time.
Steve Hendel
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 8:13 a.m.
@AAFish: Be reasonable. Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but how could a person driving from Chicago to New York and passing through Ann Arbor reasonably be expected to know that Ann Arbor restricts cell phone usage? Or, for that matter, any other town along the way?
abc
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 7:41 a.m.
I really think that when they are through banning cell phones they should focus on passing a law that bans sleeping while driving. I have personally read many stories where people have gotten hurt, ran off the road etc. because the driver was sleeping while operating their vehicle. It sure seems obvious to me that sleeping while operating a vehicle is dangerous and needs to be banned. I am not sure why this has not been addressed sooner as I have been hearing stories about this problem for years.
Anonymous Due to Bigotry
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 7:05 a.m.
Has anyone studied the effects of talking to a passenger or operating the stereo?
jondhall
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 6:16 a.m.
Who said Ann Arbor are a bunch of liberals, I'm not liberal I'm real. Here is how we solve this dilemma Council Member Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward and sponsor of the proposed ban,"should be Recalled" anyone with this mentality belongs in but one place and that is not City Council. Let's recall Mr. Council Member Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward today, who will start the drive? I'm tired of Big Brother messing with my Country, I can bet one thing Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward is not a veteran! I do not condone testing while driving, but I do not condone parachuting from a plane without a parachute either. Some will not be able to figure this out, please help them.
LGChelsea
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 3:03 a.m.
How about this: Texting/Talking on phone + driving + accident= you pay all damages, injuries, hospital costs out of pocket. (Insurance, taxpayer bailout, null and void) No helmet + motorcycle driving + accident = you pay all damages, injuries, hospital costs out of pocket. (Insurance, taxpayer bailout null and void.)
dfossil
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 10:18 p.m.
Yes. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy & the Easter Bunny will all be here before this State does anything. They are all just into political wrangling which will get worse towards the fall. & elections. The Chamber as usual supports business over people every time, (I mean we wouldn't want Verizon or AT&T to get upset would we?) To hell with the innocents killed by distracted drivers. The State acts ONLY when enough local clout shows up.
AAFish
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 8:14 p.m.
Oh, that Chamber of Commerce. Predictable enough, I suppose -- "Unfriendly and unwelcoming." Of course. Even though the proposed ordinance proscribes activity that few seem to argue is truly safe. Does it really matter under whose jurisdiction it's applied? And - there are a number of local entities throughout the nation that prohibit this as well. So -- wouldn't it might just behoove out-of-area drivers to research local laws ahead of time? When I was growing up, a number of decades ago, I was taught, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." "Creating an unfriendly business environment." Oh my God, is there possibly a bigger sin to be committed anywhere? But, hey, when one is trying to "get business done," even under unsafe circumstances, should that not take precedence over anything else? Please -- don't get me wrong. I speak tongue-in-cheek. Actually, I am opposed to the proposed cell phone ban in Ann Arbor. It should never become law. In fact, I think that laws against drunk driving should be repealed. As well as laws against speeding. As well as any traffic laws whatsoever. After all, aren't these flagrant violations of our God-given rights? Our rights to endanger others who might be unfortunate enough to be in our path?
sbbuilder
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:13 p.m.
How easy it is to poke around in others' affairs while your own house is in disarray. The insouciance of this council towards pressing, serious issues is perplexing, even incomprehensible. Do they not see that their collective reputation is diminishing to the point where they are becoming irrelevant? The State has a decent bill in the works. They should just fold their cards and go home.
eyeloveypsi
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:31 p.m.
So glad I live in Ypsi...
Stephen Landes
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:40 p.m.
City Council has much more important work to do than worry about something that is, as it should be, being addressed state-wide. Put efforts into balancing the budget -- cutting costs and realigning priorities -- and leave issues such as this one to others. This falls into the same category as fiddling while Rome burns.
Mick52
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:05 p.m.
Its a state issue. A person travelling across municipal boundaries should not be subject to being fined for something that is legal in one area but illegal in the next.
JoeM
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:04 p.m.
While driving with cell phones, and especially texting while driving are rapidly growing concerns. They are being addressed at the state level, and in agreement with the Chamber's position, enforcement needs to be uniform. In times of a poor economy, Ann Arbor can not afford any opportunity to be looked upon negatively by its visitors. Would people avoid the area, knowing of the cell phone ban, No. But would they speak poorly of the area after having been cited for talking on a cell phone, YES. The real issue is the cost of education of locals and visitors alike, and quite frankly, I believe that the monetary cost (New "Welcome to Ann Arbor, Get Off Your Phone" signs, PR, Etc) would be greater than the perceived / assumed positive effects of any ordinance. Understanding the area needs additional revenue, this is not the answer. Let cellphone use be addressed at the state level where law can be written in a uniform manner. Save local ordinances for issues that can be managed locally.
Chris
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 4:41 p.m.
Is anybody from the Chamber reading these comments? You have explained you don't want the city tackling this issue but what is your stance on the proposed state-wide ban? For/against?
jcj
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 4:05 p.m.
City council is no different than the federal government. It does not matter what the citizens want! Cram it down their throat anyway! Why don't we address all the brain dead drivers that have their dog on their shoulder while driving! How many of you dog lovers would like that! Or how about all the bimbos driving with their left foot on the arm rest!
krc
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 4:02 p.m.
It passed in the State Senate.
djm12652
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.
I say leave it to the State. State law supercedes local laws anyway don't they? Why doesn't the city concern itself with more pressing issues like lay-offs and wasteful spending, i.e. an underground mugging, er I mean parking structure...
Lokalisierung
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 3:19 p.m.
Think they should leave it for the State right now. If it gets tossed out and A2 really really wants it they can deal with it then.
Adam Jaskiewicz
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:49 p.m.
I agree with the Chamber. Focus on other things. This is something that, AFAIK, is currently underway at the state level (I've seen a couple stories about it; I think something just passed the state Senate or House last week, but I'm not sure of the details). No sense enacting a ban that just becomes redundant in a few months.
Levelheaded
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:33 p.m.
If we are worried about safety, how about having the police crack down on jay-walking and drivers running red lights...those are far bigger problems than people talking on cell phones. It seems like A2 City Council is ignoring real safety issues and just trying to be trendy.
LiberalNIMBY
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:13 p.m.
"The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce today announced its opposition to the city's proposed ban on using cell phones while driving." Was that photo of Kyle texting this announcement while driving just for effect? But seriously, what's more unwelcoming: one of "our area's many visitors" getting a ticket or your child being maimed? Let's be grown-ups about this and do what we know is right and not wait for our oh-so-functional state legislature. And please, people, amend this to include headsets. The data doesn't show a difference between holding the phone and having it plugged into your ear in terms of your likelihood of crashing. Yet another example of government splitting the baby in order to negotiate support? (I guess it's in fashion, though.)
xmo
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:07 p.m.
Doesn't the city council have better things to do? i.e. the budget
Fred Bosick
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:03 p.m.
Some of the most inconsiderate drivers are business types driving nice cars. No wonder the Chamber of Commerce has a problem with a cell-while-driving ban. Sorry folks, pedestrians and other drivers are infinitely more important than your latest deal/scam. Want to rip off hardworking people? At least do it from your excessively appointed offices.
Elena
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 1:47 p.m.
I agree with the chamber. This is something that should be addressed at the State level. I'm disappointed that City Council is spending time on this when we have so many more pressing problems in Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor needs to avoid another "only in Ann Arbor" type association - many would be suspect that this is not a safety measure but a way to entrap many visitors to Ann Arbor that may be unaware of the City ban on cell phone use. I believe that the State will act on this as other's have and I would support it then.
Atticus F.
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.
I'm glad someone is taking a stand against this.
Chris
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 1:32 p.m.
Ok, so Ann Arbor should instead wait until the state legislature decides to do something. What is the A2 Chamber's position on a state-wide ban? Support or against one?