Only complete cell phone ban while driving would improve safety
To the City Council and the Mayor,
The proposed (cell phone ban) ordinance would have real safety benefits in restricting wireless device use that requires people to read and write or type while driving.
Unfortunately, the exception in (provision) 3 A for hands-free voice communication destroys almost all the safety value of the ordinance for voice use.
Most of the danger in voice communication on a cell phone comes NOT from holding the phone or dialing it. The danger comes from the mental distraction with the content of the call.
A driver can choose a safe time to dial, for example when stopped at a light. They can choose not to answer a call when in a tight traffic situation.
But the driver cannot choose the time when the person on the other end of the line asks a difficult question, or relays some disturbing news, or otherwise causes the driver to divert critical attention away from the complex task of driving - sometimes just when the driver needs all their mental focus on the road ahead to avoid an accident situation.
A restriction to the hands-free mode for voice calls does NOT fix the real problem - the mental distraction. It is a nice bit of "feel-good" legislation that looks like some action was taken, but it has almost no real safety value.
As you know from the folder of information I mailed you in August 2009, the National Safety Council asked in January 2009 for every state to pass a total ban on cell phone use while driving. That is the only effective legislation.
The mayor is right, we cannot depend on the state to solve this. The cell phone industry and the Ford Motor Co. will spend whatever it takes in Lansing (and in every other state) to prevent passage of an effective cell phone ban while driving. They have too much money invested in their technology to allow it to be banned statewide, in any state. I expect no good legislation from Lansing on voice calls.
But we could pass effective legislation for Ann Arbor. I urge you to amend the ordinance to remove the exception in 3 A for voice calls.
James C. Walker Ann Arbor
Comments
shepard145
Tue, Mar 2, 2010 : 8:14 p.m.
So Ann Arbor City Council members are going to fine cell phone users $125 because THEIR BEHAVIOR is unsafe. We are told it's grandmotherly concern for infantile resident's safety and definitely absolutely NOT A TAX. The last few weeks after any snow fall, we see dozens of CAR ACCIDENTS around the CITY OF ANN ARBOR because the ROADS ARE UNPLOWED AND UNSALTED DURING RUSH HOUR. SAFETY HAZARD!! How seriously does the CITY OF ANN ARBOR take its roll of ultimate protector of safety when that protection COSTS THE CITY MONEY! Further, what is the statistical comparison between accidents caused by cell phone and the Citys failure to maintain roads in the winter? Driving into the City from the west one morning, dozens of cars were stacked up, sliding into each other as they failed to make it up the hill into town! So how much will the City of Ann Arbor pay RESIDENTS IN FINES for this gross negligence? How about having the Police show up at a council meeting and hand out tickets to members for, say, $1,000 each? Councils phony concern over residents safety just another lie concealing another cash grab that I hope voters remember when it's time to vote out those who support this fraud.
Jim Walker
Mon, Feb 22, 2010 : 5:25 p.m.
Jody Durkacs asked for a citation for the part that the mental distraction is the key danger. My citation is from the January 12, 2009 release from the National Safety Council asking all states to ban cell phone use by drivers. That release specifically says that hands free calls are not safe. The NSC used to have the full text of the release at www.nsc.org/news/cellphone_ban.aspx but they have redone their website and I don't quickly find the full text of the 1/12/09 release. The page of news releases only goes back to July 2009. Here are related NSC items people can research http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Pages/safety_on_the_road.aspx http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Pages/KeyResearch.aspx I have read several items that relate talking on a cell phone to about the same risk level as driving with a BAC of.08 to.10. This is VERY different than talking to a passenger who can see the driving environment, and may indeed be helpful to warn of dangers they see. Regards, Jim Walker
The Grinch
Mon, Feb 22, 2010 : 1:03 p.m.
So if everyone in the car was dead, how does anyone know what the driver was doing? The accident, BTW, was at the intersection of A2 Saline Road and Ellsworth. The car was eastbound on Ellsworth (not Wagner) and pulled into the intersection as the gravel hauler got there (njot over the line into oncoming traffic). The point here is that virtually every easily verifiable detail of the accident as described by stunshif is incorrect, so we are supposed to believe he knows what the driver was doing at the moment of the accident? I think not.
tracyann
Mon, Feb 22, 2010 : 11:56 a.m.
The directions may be wrong but the story, unfortunately, is true. I remember reading about it after it happened when the News was still in print.
The Grinch
Sun, Feb 21, 2010 : 10:22 p.m.
stunshif: Must have been a neat trick going eastbound on Wagner Road since it runs North-South. Once again, lots of opinion with no facts.
Jody Durkacs
Sun, Feb 21, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
I completely agree with the first commenter. In fact, "new revenue stream" was my first thought upon reading about this proposed ban as well. It's no secret the city loves those sweet enforcement monies, wherever they can squeeze them. Playing with the radio, talking to passengers, and drinking a beverage are dangerous distracting activities that can cause accidents too, but we don't see bans proposed for them. Of course using a cell phone while driving is a dangerous distraction. It should be publicly discouraged, not legislated against. Also about this part: "Most of the danger in voice communication on a cell phone comes NOT from holding the phone or dialing it. The danger comes from the mental distraction with the content of the call. " Citation needed.
Thick Candy Shell
Sun, Feb 21, 2010 : 9:59 a.m.
@stunhsif, I think we should ban all passengers. After "the driver cannot choose the time when the person on the other end of the line asks a difficult question, or relays some disturbing news, or otherwise causes the driver to divert critical attention away from the complex task of driving". This is a matter of personal responsibility, not a need for Government interaction. Some can handle multi tasking, others can not. It will not change anything anyway. Too many people spend too much time in the vehicle every day for them to stop using the phone and most have a hands free anyway. Those that don't have the hands free will get it.
stunhsif
Sun, Feb 21, 2010 : 8:20 a.m.
This is getting to be a complete joke. This is about finding revenue for the city, nothing more,nothing less. About 6 years ago a woman driving her Honda minivan eastbound on Wagner Road crossed over into the west bound lane and was hit head on by a gravel hauler. She and her children died instantly. Was she on her cell phone? No, she had turned around and was trying to interact with her child that was in a car seat. So if we want to be safe, there should be no babies in cars because they cry, fuss and are a distraction. Teenage drivers should not be allowed to have passengers. We should outlaw radios, CD players because they all require taking your eye off the road. Ticket drivers for poor driving, whether it be tailgating, swerving, driving too fast or too slow. We already have laws to cover this, we don't need more.