2-way radios allowed under proposed Ann Arbor cell phone ban

Posted on Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 5:53 a.m.

2-way radios allowed under proposed Ann Arbor cell phone ban

By Tom Perkins

Two-way radios used by taxi drivers, bus drivers, tow companies and similar businesses that require drivers to communicate would remain legal under a proposed ordinance banning the use of portable devices while driving in the city of Ann Arbor.

Council Member Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward, who is sponsoring the resolution, clarified the radios are fixed units and said the key word in the ordinance is “portable.”

That question arose following the first reading of a revised proposed cell phone last week before the Ann Arbor City Council.

“Initially we had said ‘hand held,’ and that’s where we got into some confusion,” Rapundalo said. “Someone could be using a two-way radio and have it in their hand, and we didn’t mean for that to be banned, so we changed it.”

He added that while those required to use two-way radios to conduct business would be allowed do so, they would still be prohibited from using cell phones or other portable devices while driving.

“We still want to discourage the use of cell phones, especially if you’re someone who is driving a city or school bus and you have all those lives in your hands,” he said.

Rapundalo said GPS units fixed to a dashboard would also be allowed under the ordinance because many won’t function if the car is moving. But he said he is unsure whether more portable GPS units, such as “Tom-Tom’s,” have the same feature.

“We’re not trying to be unreasonable, but at the same time it’s a major public safety issue,” he said.

The newest version of the proposed ban was approved a week ago, but several council members said they weren't sure they'd be supporting it at second reading.

If approved, the ordinance would take effect 60 days after its legal publication.

The revised resolution states the use of a cell phone or "other portable electronic device" is prohibited while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle. The ban restricts drivers and cyclists from using such devices to do the following:

Talk or listen to another person.
Create, transmit, read or listen to a text, voicemail, or any other digital message, including e-mail.
Perform other non-driving tasks besides selecting and playing music, including but not limited to: playing electronic games, viewing movies and transcribing notes.
Type into or otherwise operate a navigation system.
Use the Internet.

The list of "electronic devices" banned from use while driving or riding a bicycle include:

A mobile or satellite telephone or any other electronic object commonly known as a wireless, cellular, digital telephone or smart phone.
Any type of paging device or personal digital assistant.
Any video game or digital photographic equipment.
Any type of portable computer.
Any portable navigation system, including but not limited to any equipment commonly known as a global positioning system or GPS.

Tom Perkins is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.

Comments

Bill

Thu, Mar 11, 2010 : 9:18 a.m.

I wonder if the Ann Arbor City Council is jealous of all the attention given to the Detroit City Council. Is that the reason they are unable to focus on developing Ann Arbor into a city of the future rather than trying to push Ann Arbor back 50 years? Hopefully the voters will take up the cause at the next election and remove the existing city council members and replace them with visionaries who will define a future for Ann Arbor free of ridiculous bills drafted by individuals without the experience or knowledge to prepare such documents. Focus on blancing the budget and not by simplying laying off for fire or police.

Ben

Wed, Mar 10, 2010 : 4:06 p.m.

Talking to someone over a two-way radio cannot be any less distracting than talking to someone over a phone. If distraction is the basis for this ordinance, then this loophole is a major flaw. The proposed ordinance reaches far beyond the "texting while driving" boogeyman. Like many others here, I think the issue is not effectively addressable through Luddite bans on electronic devices in the vehicle.

Kvetchmeister

Wed, Mar 10, 2010 : 1:57 p.m.

REAL public safety/driving issues include: massive craters all over the city streets, a bridge that is near collapse on one of the most trafficked streets in the city. Very little council attention has been paid to these actual safety issues. Idiots!

A2 Native

Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 2:23 p.m.

There are ALREADY state laws against distracted driving. And excluding "hands free" phones which are just as bad shows that this isn't really about safety at all. The city police can already write distracted driving tickets but they don't, is that because the city wont get the fine money if its a state law or what? My drivers license was issued by the state of Michigan, not by the idiots on the A2 city council. Although there sure are a lot of people driving around A2 that shouldnt be on the road. If you find that people are honking at you and passing you frequently, maybe you should take the hint and take the bus next time.

John Q

Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 12:07 p.m.

Why is it that people are so intent on justifying unsafe behavior? The federal government has banned texting and other distracted driving behavior in commercial trucks and buses. Or do we want the people driving the kids to school on cell phones and texting as they drive? Quit being a menace on the roads! http://www.distraction.gov/

Rabbit1

Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 10:49 a.m.

Comment on a2ete's opinion. You seem to hate slow drivers, ones that don't get out of your way. Are they really distracted? They may just be driving carefully at the speed limit. What have cell-phones got to do with you being blocked?. What's the rush? The real danger on the roads is aggressive driving. Aggressive drivers pass on the right, hug blind spots, honk, upset people, drive above the speed limit, tailgate, and eventually cause more serious accidents than responsible drivers. Cell phones and GPS navigators can be used responsibly. GPS maps with voice directions reduce stress and help navigate. They can and should be programmed before a trip. I have even avoided accident prone situations at night and in fog by using a GPS.

Mary Remmers

Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 10:25 a.m.

This proposed legislation is way, way too broadly written. And if I found myself driving beside a driver using a GPS for guidance or another who is trying to read notes or maps and pick out street signs, well, I'll take the GPS-aided driver every time.

DagnyJ

Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 8:32 a.m.

I look forward to the day when I can vote Steve Rapundalo out of office. I am a 2nd ward resident and I urge all my neighbors to vote against him.

TitleNine

Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.

Someone needs to organize the Soccer Mom's: no DVDs or movies in the car either????? This ordinance goes much too far. Too sweeping in its scope and too difficult in its enforcement. Best to withdraw it Mr. Rapundalo lest the citizens withdraw your opportunity to "govern".

snapshot

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 11:45 p.m.

If you people would get off your cell phones you'd notice cell phone users are a hazard. I'd like to see higher car insurance rates for cell phone users.

rcastentman

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 11:15 p.m.

If they outlaw cell phones only outlaws will have cell phones!

ogel1209

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 10:50 p.m.

Please PASS this bill!! I have had enough of "close calls" due to people talking or texting while driving. Give them all a ticket. They deserve it! Safety is the main issue here. Please get it done City Council!!!

ogel1209

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 10:47 p.m.

Ken Olson

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 9:01 p.m.

How can we attract high-tech companies and young workers to Ann Arbor with this embarrassing proposed law on the books? "Grow your company in Ann Arbor where your employees can't operate a GPS system, listen to voicemail, or talk to another person."

American Family

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 8:45 p.m.

George Orwell's book 1984 ring a bell to any one??? Just because some people are careless, everyone must suffer. What happened to "you are responsible for your actions!"? So once again, the Nanny State believers want a "one size, fits all" law. So silly. I have one more reason to stay away from the People's Republic of Ann Arbor. PS: Do not talk to your passenger while you are driving. This law will make that illegal. Shame...

jcj

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 8:11 p.m.

Does anyone believe that council members turn their phones off while driving?

mg0blue

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 6:15 p.m.

Hmm, just re-read the article and noticed one glaring thing: Were not trying to be unreasonable, but at the same time its a major public safety issue, A MAJOR public safety issue??? Yeah, the city is being menaced by bands of rogue cell phone users, who also use GPS devices to coordinate their crimes! Isn't it a bigger public safety issue that the police department has 100 less officers, and they are currently looking at cutting the budget even more with the possibility of laying off more officers? Like they say, driving while using a cellular phone is a gateway crime. First you use a cellular phone, then you violate the noise ordinance...next you'll be committing robberies and rapes!

Why

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 5:40 p.m.

Laws banning cellphone use while driving fail to reduce crashes, new insurance data indicate http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr012910.html

Mark A Gebert

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 5:20 p.m.

We may not like it but City Council is completely it's right to enact such a ban since the state allowed that loophole. However a badly crafted ban will not only make this an "unfriendly" place to do business or recreate in but it will lead to legal challenges further costing the city. The more reasonable bans would be hands free operation of phones, and no texting while driving.

sbbuilder

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 5:17 p.m.

Dear Ann Arbor City Council Thankyou so much for being concerned about my driving. Although I have a perfect record, with no points, and with nary an at-fault accident, you have seen fit to deem me a dangerous driver while talking on my phone. This ordinance will make me an even better driver, I suppose. While you're at it, could you find the time to settle some disputes between my kids? That would be appreciated. We also have a neighbor who is a bit grumpy, and doesn't shovel his walk right away. Oh, and also, could you guys talk to the people down by the corner who mow their lawn once a month whether it needs it or not? So many pressing problems to deal with! Where to start! Wait a minute. Now that I think of it, there are already laws on the books that cover those issues. (All except my kids' arguments, that is.) Hows about if I get in an accident, you write me a whompin big ticket? If I'm on my cell at the time, tack on some extra clams. Meantime, bug off.

a2baggagehandler

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 5:14 p.m.

Sun's in my eye. I propose we ban driving toward the Sun,when it's within 15 degrees of rising or setting on the horizon. This should be in effect one month before and after the Equinoxes.

Regular Voter

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 4:16 p.m.

These cell phone and other side shows are one of the ways council keeps us from noticing they are bankrupting the city or Ann Arbor. Let's just replace our councilmen and mayor this August with new people. They are sure to do a better job than this crowd, if not we'll replace them until we find some competent public servants. We are getting the quality we deserve through our tolerance of silliness.

breadman

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 4:16 p.m.

Race car drivers use two way radios and they go 180 mph. So the next new bumper sticker will read "no passenger becuuse we cann't talk" we might loose our train of thought.

the major

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 3:56 p.m.

Rapundalo your bill stinks. It like it was written in the dark ages. That person that said the convergence of technology between mp3 players, phones, and gps hit it on the head. This bill is penalizing everyone for the mistakes of a few. I mean this bill is just step away from banning music in your car all together. Get this guy off council soon!!!

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.

Is this going to apply to the bikers? What about the pedestrians talking & texting and walking into traffic? If they're in the road - it should apply! And - more importantly - can we issue citizen's arrests??? Seriously - don't you guys have more important things to deal with? If you need money so badly - go after the jaywalkers!! Oh wait - we're cutting police services - never mind.

grumyoungman

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 1:46 p.m.

I wouldnt worry about this law with all the police layoffs who is going to enforce it

Anna

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.

@ mg0blue - Haha, my thoughts exactly! Can we ban eating and drinking beverages in the car too? :P

mg0blue

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 1:05 p.m.

This is absolutely ridiculous! I understand that cellular phones can be distracting for drivers, but so is everything else in a car! How about banning passengers in a car, or even worse yet, young children in a car? Not saying that I support that ban, but just stating it because you CAN'T impose laws to protect everyone from everything. I have not seen any data to show that cellular phone use from a driver is any worse than talking to a passenger, and now they are trying to ban using GPS devices? I have been a life-long A2 resident and know all of the streets like the back of my hand, but they have to understand that A2 has a lot of non-residents visiting due to the University, and I'll admit that this can be a difficult town to navigate if you don't live here. How about we ban all driving when we get more than 2 inches of snow on the ground because, statistically, more crashes happen with snow on the ground? Crazy? Yes, my point exactly.

Anna

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 12:09 p.m.

How will they enforce this? Will police demand suspected law-breaking drivers hand over their portable devices when they are pulled over?

Pete Bigelow

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 11:59 a.m.

A comment has been removed from this thread because it made a personal attack.

krc

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 11:54 a.m.

I just don't get how they are ever going to enforce this? Will they put up little signs like those useless 'no right turn on red' ones at the intersections on the edges of the city? And by 'useless' I mean the ones that are always one car back and hidden by branches if you're making a R turn? Off subject...they should have the 'no R turn etc.etc.' signs hanging from every traffic light! They could do this with the 'no cell phone use' ones. But how to enforce at the intersections without traffic signals? It is just unrealistic.

John Galt

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 11:36 a.m.

Ah, yes. Now the politicians will proceed to the usual "split-hairs" arguments to selectively enforce something that was intended to reduce distractions in cars. They should have kept out of regulating the impossible.

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 11:25 a.m.

krc: For Racerx's sake, I hope you grade on a curve. You knew what she or he meant though, didn't you? There are more important issues here...

Eric D

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 11:14 a.m.

This needs to Pass. If your "Driving" and using a cell phone or Texting, then you need a ticket! Driving needs all your attention. I will be the first one to turn in my grandkids.LOL. This is way past due. Let's get it done city council. If it saves one child from being run down by someone sending their hundred and first text of the day. That's all that really counts..Get IT DONE!

krc

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 11:06 a.m.

Racer X, it's "alluding to" not "alluring too" Check it out in your dictionary.

ypsituckian

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 10:39 a.m.

I fail to see how CB radios, ham radios, or other two-way communication devices are any less distracting than cell phones. My husband was almost hit by a van merging onto the expressway a few weeks ago. The driver was distracted by the walkie talkie he was talking on and nearly side-swiped us. Good thing my husband was quick-thinking and was able to scoot to the other lane which was thankfully empty. I think some form of this ordinance should happen but the criteria really needs work if people are expected to take this seriously.

jcj

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 10:19 a.m.

"Two-way radios used by taxi drivers, bus drivers, tow companies and similar businesses that require drivers to communicate would remain legal under a proposed ordinance banning the use of portable devices while driving in the city of Ann Arbor." What about heating and cooling companies that dispatch service workers to different locations using nextel 2 way radios. What about utility companies? I agree with MG Rapundaloa is in so far over his head he can't see the sun! While this is an issue worthy of some regulations. It is too complicated for city council. They can't do anything without hiring a consultant. Oops now they will hire a consultant and spend more money we don't have!

Sammy77

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.

Have they even presented data showing how many accidents/deaths were caused in Ann Arbor due to speaking on the phone? There are many, many more pressing issues facing the city. This is a state issue and they are in fact handling it. The Council should stop spending time and resources on this non-issue and focus on getting financing under control. Jeez, talk about being distracted!

Sammy77

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 10:10 a.m.

Have they provided any data showing how many accidents/deaths have been caused in Ann Arbor as a result of talking on the phone? I think this is a state issue and they are in fact handling this. This is a distraction for the Council. There are many, many more pressing issues facing the city.

Bill

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 10:07 a.m.

What Ann Arbor really needs is a very simple ordiance to ban City Council!

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 9:42 a.m.

It looks to me as if Rapundalo and his fellow band of merry men are starting to realize they've painted themselves into a corner on this one and are looking for a way to save a little face. The fact remains however this proposed ordinance has so many holes in it that any halfway decent lawyer is going to be able to drive the proverbial truck through it in court. Example: In the past I was an automotive test driver for one of the manufacturers located here in Ann Arbor. We were issued company radios at the beginning of each shift, with which we were expected to communicate with the fellow test drivers in our convoy during the course of our day. Hand-held company radios. Hand-held company radios which were, in fact, a safety device with which the driver in lead could relay turn instructions to his or her coworkers following for example. We were "required to use two-way radios to conduct business", as we drove through Ann Arbor and all the other communities throughout southeastern Michigan in our testing area. And under the proposed poorly-written ordinance, we would be talking car-to-car illegally. I don't imagine it would take the company lawyers too long to convince a judge or jury that there really isn't any difference between a hand-held microphone for an installed radio, and a small hand-held company radio. Give it up council, and get back to work. There are budgets to be fixed, costs to be trimmed, potholes to be filled, and bridges to be replaced. Each and every of those are more important than this.

Jody Durkacs

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.

If they think it is so important, put it on the ballot in November. Let the people decide! If the council is unwilling, it would really show that this is more about revenue than safety.

dconkey

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 9:32 a.m.

Simple solution to all of this, just ban all motor vehicales, and go back to horse and buggies.

Don

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 9:15 a.m.

Stephen Rapundalo your bill stinks.I use a GPS mounted to my dash with a suction cup everyday to find addresses around town, now I have to hid it please him? I don't want my local city council members telling me what I need to do be safe. Their job is not to legistate my safety. They are not in the least bit unsafe. I don't touch it while I drive. It tells me where to go, I don't even need to read it! I only type into it when I am stopped. Don't you folks have enough to do without creating laws to suit your fancy? Work on the fact that the city and schools are going broke, leave my gps and phone alone. To be fair, texting while driving is nuts. for the rest of your bill it is intrusive and unfair. If you want to address texting, address that. Not every fine device ever created for our communications work and enjoyment. That is short sighted and infurrating.

averagetaxpayer

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 9:14 a.m.

This comes from New Jersey... "Assemblyman L. Harvey Smith has introduced a bill that would prohibit the manual operation of a global positioning system (GPS) device or similar navigation device by the operator of a moving motor vehicle. Big difference with the absurd Rapundalo proposal. The Smith bill addresses the issue of safety. Rapundalo goes way past that.

Blue Eyes

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.

Another good reason to shop, dine, etc anywhere but the Independent Republic of Ann Arbor. Too bad they think they're better than the rest of the State!

averagetaxpayer

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.

"...GPS units fixed to a dashboard would also be allowed under the ordinance because many wont function if the car is moving." So someone with a built-in gps can use the device while at a stoplight (they unlock while stopped) but not if you're using a garmin or tom-tom. That's just total nonsense. There are so many reasons this is bad proposal. Hoping the rest of city council has more sense than Rapudalo.

walker101

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 8:21 a.m.

What if you pull over and use the cell phone, your still in the vehicle, would that also be prohibited? I don't recall it being mentioned.

walker101

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 8:19 a.m.

How else will the City of Ann Arbor recoup money needed if they don't raise taxes, I'll bet that they will make as much if not more when this goes into effect in the city coffers. They'll even have enough revenue to hire a few more traffic police. Current cost of a ticket in California for not moving over to the other lane while a State HWy patrol officer is writing a ticket is about $725.00 for first offense. Cell phone is up to $125.00 and no seat belt $100.00. The second offense is about 30% more in each case. Give them time and we'll be right behind them.

zollar

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 8:02 a.m.

At least I can still talk on my CB. Thar's a full blown gator in the left lane. 10-4

CAARP

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 8:02 a.m.

Is it considered breaking the law if/when, acting in good faith, I report a citizen who's talking on his cell phone while driving a car by calling the police on my cell phone as I'm parked next to this person at a red light?

Elizabeth

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 7:50 a.m.

"The ban restricts drivers and cyclists from using such devices to do the following: Talk or listen to another person." Are you kidding me???? So I guess talking to a passenger would be out as well. I understand the need for safety, but this proposal takes it too far. If you can talk to passengers in your car, why can't you talk to someone on your phone using a hands free device...how is THAT any different? As far as GPS goes....to ban them is a step backwards. No one is more distracted than a lost driver looking for an address or street name. In my experience, the GPS allows me to focus on driving and the traffic around while it guides me to my destination. This ordinance needs an overhaul!

Bill Sloan

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 7:47 a.m.

I've been driving for over 55 years, I drive a lot on both city streets and highways, and I don't recall my safety while driving ever being compromised by a drunk driver, yet over the past several years I have been endangered regularly by drivers using cell phones and similar devices. Drivers drifting out of their lane, speeding up and slowing down for no apparent reason, running red lights, slowing down in the freeway fast lane, gesticulating with their hands (sometimes both hands!) while driving in traffic are all examples of distracted and dangerous driving behaviors that have been an unfortunate consequence of the development of cell phones, video games, and other hand-held devices. Existing laws virtually crucify drivers whose blood alcohol is.08, yet good research data shows that driving while distracted by cell phones, etc is equally if not more dangerous. In a perfect world the penalties be equal, and what the City Council is proposing is really just a slap on the hand. I urge Council to pass as rigorous a policy as they can, and show Ann Arbor's intelligent and responsible leadership on this issue. The State may eventually come around, but why wait? Legislators are not likely to be pressured by a grass roots effort on this issue. I don't think we will ever see Mothers Against Drunk AND Distracted Driving.

a2ete

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 7:26 a.m.

I suppose now this means we all go back to that wonderful form of communication... CB Radio. After all it was 2-way and it was a fixed device. I guess I better dust mine off and see if it still works.

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 6:53 a.m.

Clearly using 2-way radios to conduct business is safe, and normal citizens like us using a cell phone to talk is not. Again, if the issue is texting, then address texting, not all forms of communication. They are in way over their head on this one. Let the State and Feds sort this out and stay out of it. I think there are better things to spend time and money on instead of this ridiculous issue. If this passes, then I think we need to start discussing what it would take to strike the ordinance down.

racerx

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 6:14 a.m.

Were not trying to be unreasonable, but at the same time its a major public safety issue, Rapundalo said, again, based on what evidence is he alluring too? How is it a "major public safety issue"? Does he have any stats by the local police department to back-up these claims? Or is this just a perceived notion that it's a major safety issue? What a waste of taxpayers time and money. Oh, then again, maybe not their money since these residents will be socked with this fines!