Ann Arbor council members proposing ban on using cell phones while driving
Do you text or talk on your cell phone while driving? It soon could be illegal if you're doing it in Ann Arbor.
Two Ann Arbor City Council members said Thursday night they plan to bring forward a resolution as early as Aug. 17 to effectively ban cell phone usage while driving.
Stephen Rapundalo and Tony Derezinski, both Democrats representing the 2nd Ward, said they met with the city attorney and are asking him to prepare a resolution.
Two Ann Arbor City Council members said tonight they plan to bring forward a resolution as early as Aug. 17 to effectively ban cell phone usage while driving.
Stephen Rapundalo and Tony Derezinski, both Democrats representing the 2nd Ward, said they met with the city attorney and are asking him to prepare a resolution.
“Unfortunately, I am probably one of the offenders,” Rapundalo acknowledged, though he said he's bringing forward the proposal as a matter of public safety.
Rapundalo said more people are being distracted by mobile devices while driving, which has led to automobile accidents. He noted that other communities, including New York City, have taken a stance and banned cell phone usage while driving.
Comments
LilyM
Wed, Mar 31, 2010 : 12:14 p.m.
to the Editor: The Ann Arbor city council is attempting to ban he use of cell phones while driving. Right now the law in Michigan concerning cell phones is that drivers can not use hand held devises while driving. But drivers may use anything such as Bluethooths, GPS systems, and laptops that can be accessed by voice commands. Huron High School's own newspaper, The Emery, says, "while some advocate that the fast paced life requires the necessity of a cell phone at all times, others are quick to point out that recent car accidents have been caused by divided attention." In short this means that some people are under the impression that cell phone usage is a necessity when in fact it is not. A study done by the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society approximately 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries annually happen while using a cell phone or other electronic devise while driving. As someone who has been in an automotive accidents that had nothing to do with cell phones i can see how dangerous accidents can be. My mother drove off the road while texting, and i think banning the use of cell phones or any other electronic devises while driving would be a very good and positive thing. I think many others who have had personal experiences or near accidents from someone using a phone would agree that this law should have taken place a long time ago. Sincerely, Lily.
Julie
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 7:12 a.m.
So for all of you opposed to the ban... do you also oppose a law against drunk driving?
Ming Bucibei
Tue, Aug 11, 2009 : 4:42 p.m.
this kind of law is uenforcable & or only slectively enforcable such idiotic laws should not be passed the city council needs to pay attention to the real issues not these catspaws ming bucibei
Alisa Lee
Sun, Aug 9, 2009 : 1:09 p.m.
Even if they pass this proposal, I think that it will be extremely hard to enforce it. What about the speakerphone feature and bluetooth features? Aren't these features created for something like this?
Marvin Face
Sat, Aug 8, 2009 : 4:28 p.m.
Lord, KJMClark. It was a flippin' typo. I was commenting while driving. What do you expect.
KJMClark
Sat, Aug 8, 2009 : 1:25 p.m.
The problem with using a cellphone is the same as drunk driving. It impairs your ability to do what you're supposed to be doing; operating a multi-ton machine capable of killing multiple people. Unfortunately, young people think they're better at it than older people, just as some people think they hold their liquor better than others. Sorry, no exceptions for people who think they're supermen. Or maybe we can let you use your "phoine", if you can tell us what a phoine is, but no cellphone.
Marvin Face
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 7:58 p.m.
People over 40 = No cell phones while driving! People under 40 = Cell phoines while driving, yes!
GriswoldKJ
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 1:21 p.m.
Thanks to council members Derezinski and Rapundalo. The research supports it, as does my recent experience at the Rolling Sculpture Car Show. My assignment was to greet the show cars at the corner of Fifth and Washington, allowing the show cars down Washington and directing all other traffic to turn left on Fifth Avenue. Many drivers on cell phones were completely obvious, just blindly following the vehicle in front of them. They did not see me in the middle of the street or at the last minute attempted to turn right -- going the wrong way on Fifth. After the experienced I cut back on my cell phone use in the car and would welcome a law prohibiting cell phone use. While focusing on traffic safety I hope council will address the overgrown vegetation blocking visibility at Ann Arbor intersections. There is no national data because most other communities enforce their sight-distance ordinances and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. In Ann Arbor the overgrown vegetation is more of a safety hazard than cell phone use, so let's address both.
sottovoce
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 1:13 p.m.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: "The law in 5 states (Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) specifically authorizes a locality to ban cellphone use. Localities that have enacted restrictions on cellphone use include: Chicago, IL; Brookline, MA; Detroit, MI; Santa Fe, NM; Brooklyn, North Olmstead, and Walton Hills, OH; Conshohocken, Lebanon, and West Conshohocken, PA; Waupaca County, WI; and Oahu, HI". read Peregrine's response about your other concern.
Amanda
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 12:37 p.m.
Really...why don't they handcuff our hands to 10 and 2 while we're driving also? Because any movement could "cause an accident" or "be dangerous". Also, they're comparing the city of New York to Ann Arbor!? New York City has a population of 8,210,000 people compared to the less than 120,000 people that live in Ann Arbor. Can city council find something better to do wtih their time? The cell phone thing is getting old. The city police should focus more on catching "real" criminals rather than innocent people talking on the phone exercising their right to free speech.
Top Cat
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 12:28 p.m.
The City Council needs to focus on balancing the city's budget without new taxes. Regardless of the merits of this issue, it is grandstanding and a distraction.
sottovoce
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 12:07 p.m.
MjC: this will be national. New York Times: Federal Agency Plans Distracted Driving Forum By MATT RICHTEL Published: August 4, 2009 "The action by the executive branch on the issue comes a week after several senators proposed withholding federal highway money from states that fail to ban texting while driving. Congress has used the tactic sparingly to persuade states, which set driving laws, to make changes. But the moves by the federal government underscore the growing focus on the dangers of texting and talking behind the wheel."
MjC
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : noon
This issue should be addressed by the entire State of Michigan, not just the City of Ann Arbor. If a law banning cell phones while driving in the City of Ann Arbor were passed, how would visitors (and we have plenty) know that we had such a law on the books? You can pass laws all you want, but in the end it's a driver's responsibility to properly control a motor vehicle.
Julie
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 11:47 a.m.
Sorry, Sally.... hands-free is just as problematic. The problem is distracted driving. The research shows that talking on a phone (hands-free or not) is much worse than talking to someone in the car. Qualitatively different. Yes, manipulating the controls in the car can be a problem. But the quantum leap in accident rates with cell phone use is undeniable, and easy to solve. It's just not worth it. People are killed.
Sally Scheer
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 11:37 a.m.
Banning the use of cell phones while driving is not what's needed. Banning the use of cell phones while driving WITHOUT A HANDSFREE DEVICE will accomplish the laudable aim of safer driving. Shall we ban radios (distracted while tuning the radio), eating and drinking, friends in the car? I remember following a carful of women where the driver kept her head turned to look at the passenger and gestured with one hand and drove.
margaret
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 10:41 a.m.
I totally agree no texting or cell phone talking while driving. I saw my life go by quickly one day while a girl was talking on the phone and PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF ME AND NEVER SAW ME OR HEARD MY HORN PEOPLE ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO DRIVING THAT BIG EXPENSIVE CAR OR DON'T THEY CARE ABOUT PAIN AND LIFE????? LIFE IS TOOOOOOO SHORT. DON'T RUIN IT BY STUPIDITY.
in situ
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 10:30 a.m.
Does anyone know if this proposed ban includes "hands-free" usage such as with a Bluetooth device?
Julie
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 9:20 a.m.
David, it doesn't take long to find a considerable amount of research. One summary of it: http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
David Bardallis
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 8:54 a.m.
I really wish city council members could stop trying to ban whatever it is they personally don't like. Where is the evidence that there are more accidents from cell phone users anyway? Note: I tend not to use the phone while I'm driving, but I don't think we elect people to be our nannies and decide for everyone what they can and can't do safely.
sottovoce
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 8:39 a.m.
Enforcement: the same as seatbelts. If you look like a punk, you get caught. If you drive a nice car, you're ok. @Chimp: If you want to be informed, here are some sources of the metrics. NYTimes: June 25, 2009, 3:18 pm Texting Is More Dangerous Than Driving Drunk By Richard S. Chang Virginia Tech Transportation Institute: New Data from VTTI Provides Insight into Cell Phone Use and Driving Distraction Royal Automotive Club Foundation: The Effect Of Text Messaging On Driver Behaviour A Simulator Study by N. Reed & R. Robbins Sep2008 This doesn't prove insurance companies aren't behind this, but there are 3 different studies that show similar results.
Julie
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 8:28 a.m.
BRAVO!!!!!! THANK YOU, Mr. Rapundalo and Mr. Derezinski, for having the guts to stand up and do what is right, even if possibly unpopular! For those of you STILL thinking this is a non-issue -- wrong! From the apoltical National Safety Council: drivers using cell phones are four times more likely to be in a crash (never mind the utter aggravation of sharing the road with them -- my addition, not the NSC), and over 100 million people are estimated to use cell phones while driving. The annual cost of crashes caused by cell phone use is $43 Billion. Worried about rising cost of insurance???? The NTSB is already recommending a ban on cell phone use by bus drivers and train engineers due to horrible tragedies because of their use. Whatever your political orientation, it is the job of our elected government to protect the safety of the people they represent. I work in a field where I see the results of car accidents every day. And cell phone use NEEDS to be banned, both hand-held and hands-free, cuz it turns out there's no difference in levels of distraction. An individuals convenience does NOT trump anothers safety. Thank you, city council, for moving on this!
busguy5
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 8:28 a.m.
Many U of M students are talking and trying to drive around campus-very dangerous while they dont know the area and dont need to be driving. The campus has enough buses running they could remain out of cars.
TheInfamousOne
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 7:33 a.m.
This is just another way for the city to generate revenue. First, I like to know where do they get their metrics on accidents caused by drivers on cell phones? My guess is the insurance companies, and of course they are going to look for ways to raise premiums while lowering their cost. So will this be a zero point offense or can people expect to get a point on their license? And can we expect our insurance premiums to go up as well? So how are the police officers going to prove you were on the phone while driving? Are we going to equip them with digital cameras? Will the police cause an accident while driving and taking a picture of the guy who's driving and talking on his cell phone? Or will it be the good ole boy network when people go before the city magistrate to fight their ticket? It's interesting to see all the garbage the comes with the monetary system. Way to go City Council, I'm glad you thought this through by putting a rush on this proposal.
cheshirecat
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 7:03 a.m.
This seems more like a way to generate more ticket money than out of any real concern for safety. How are you possible going to enforce this? And what about tourists or people that just happen to be driving through---how are they to know it's not legal to be on their cell phones? Will they get tickets too?
racerx
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 5:15 a.m.
Both texting and cell phone useage are distractions to driving. As one recent government study concluded, it equates to having an alcohol level of.08, which is legally drunk/impaired in Michigan. Enforce is the tricky part however. Though any resolution should begin at the State level, not the city which can be askewed if there is no enforcement say in Lodi Township, but once you hit A2 there is. While at the state level, only add to a moving violation if texting or using a cell phone while in a accident. The rampant revenue that A2 police would pull people over just for this infraction is scary with these keystone cops here in town.
MikeB
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 4:29 a.m.
I think that this is another one of those things that some people can do just fine, while others cannot. Unfortunately, we (society) tends to just legislate based on those that can't do thing adequately and become a safety hazard. I would personally rather see harsher penalties for those that commit a moving infraction while using the cell phone (whether that be speeding, tailgating, an accident or worse) rather than an outright ban. Make people seriously consider whether the possible penalty, if they get distracted and commit an infraction, is worth the conversation.
Peregrine
Thu, Aug 6, 2009 : 10:48 p.m.
@Matt Sussman: Does your logic work the other way too? There have been some noted fatal accidents in which the driver has been watching a movie while the vehicle was in motion. Because you can point to something else that is distracting, we cannot prohibit watching a movie while driving? While we're at it, we can't prohibit driving under the influence (0.19 blood alcohol anyone?) since, as you say, being tired also impairs the driver? In other words, according to your logic if we don't prohibit everything that decreases safety we can't prohibit anything that decreases safety. There is an alternative way of viewing it. There are multiple factors, such as: * How dangerous is the behavior? * How widely practiced is the behavior? * To what degree does the behavior endanger third-parties (as opposed to only actor)? * How practical would it be to enforce a law prohibiting the behavior? * Is there a safety benefit to allowing the behavior? There are likely other factors. But where a behavior falls on those various scales, can help one decide whether there should be a law to prohibit it. Simplistic, absolutist views can be very tempting. Multi-factored views are more challenging, but they better resonate with the complexities of a real world populated with people (and other nonlinearities). Wow, did I actually write that sentence?
Matt Sussman
Thu, Aug 6, 2009 : 10 p.m.
It as come to my attention that finding a radio station is also a distraction on the road and therefore I move that all radios, CD players, and MP3 hookups in cars be banned in the city.
Matt Sussman
Thu, Aug 6, 2009 : 9:39 p.m.
Many accidents also result in motorists being too tired. Solution? It should be illegal to drive 12 hours after waking up in the morning. I know what you're saying. How do you enforce this? Hold your question until I am complete with Phase 2 of my plan, which is to install CCTV cameras in everyone's bedroom.