The forces of reason and common sense have won a rare, if temporary, victory.
A proposed ordinance banning cell phone use while driving might be put off indefinitely by the city council.
Alderman Charlie Smyth, D-Ward 1, who proposed the ban, said the city might instead opt to take some interim steps while gathering information about how often traffic accidents occur due to cell phone use while driving.
In the meantime, the city council will consider enacting a distracted driving ordinance under which a person who gets into a traffic accident while talking on a cell phone or similar activity would be subject to a traffic ticket with a substantial fine of $500 or more, he said.
Yea!
The current idea makes much more sense to me. Hopefully it will include actions such as reading a book or newspaper, putting on mascara, shaving, etc. which I see every morning on my way to work. There are lots of distractions that cause people to be a menace on the road, and use of a cell phone should not be singled out.
On May 12th, 2008 at 11:51 AM, purplelady said:
The current idea makes much more sense to me. Hopefully it will include actions such as reading a book or newspaper, putting on mascara, shaving, etc. which I see every morning on my way to work. There are lots of distractions that cause people to be a menace on the road, and use of a cell phone should not be singled out.
exactly. Make sure that all things that distract drivers are included..... kids/dogs/cigarettes/spilled drinks etc
Ish- Tongue in cheek? Surely you are not advocating banning children from vehicles?
They are not talking about banning anything. Just fining people who cause accidents while distracted. No one is advocating banning kids from cars. However, it one feels it necessary to turn around and yell at them, perhaps they should pull over and stop first!
On May 12th, 2008 at 12:45 PM, cheesy poofs said:
Ish- Tongue in cheek? Surely you are not advocating banning children from vehicles?
Children can be a distraction. If they cause an accident, then the driver should be given the distracted driving citation-- the same as someone chatting on a cellphone...
Personallly I'm against banning the use of cell phones while driving. It is perfectly reasonable to set some type of restriction, such as wearing a bluetooth headset, but the whole concept of 'distracted driving' is one that can go beyond what happens with cell phone usage. The N-G article that IP linked to mentions that this came about after the death of Matt Wilhelm who was riding a bicycle when he was hit. One of my own pet peeves involve people who ride bicycles locally....because it's an area where many do not seem to understand that there are traffic laws that do apply. There have been times when I have driven on and off campus only to have to brake for some idiot who refuses to follow safe guidelines for bicycle usage.
My point is that anything can be a distraction. Can we really list them all? Checking your blind spot could be considered a distraction technically. I think this might just be feel good legislation.
The driver that hit Matt already had issues with her driving record, did she not? Why not focus on getting bad drivers (like her) off the road for the violations they have already committed before they do something like this? Why not make enforcement of existing laws an issue rather than making new (arguably unenforceable) laws?
Cheesy,
That kind of argument in Urbana will not have any supporters. Too reasonable.
There are many, many, many...did I say many laws already in effect, complete with penalties that could apply to most any distraction, but as you suggest, they are simply not enforced.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
That's what Urbana needs is a another ordinance! they have a book full of them they choose not to enforce, yards full of junk cars, loud thumping car stereo noise, trash everywhere, open air drug dealing in the east Flordia-Sunnycrest neighborhood, They haven't been able to do anything about those problems, so WHY do they think this cell phone thing will be any different??? Typical Urbana thinking, " It won't do any good but It'll make us feel better" Bozo's indeed!!!!
Actually the problem was that there wasn't a suitable middle of the road law[1] between "oops, traffic ticket" and "reckless driving."
Hence the calls to make an interim level. FWIW, same discussion has happened in Japan too (where they went with fine tuning a distracted driving law). I'm fine with it not mentioning cellphones specifically.
[1] Of course if she'd stayed in the middle of the road we might not be having this discussion...
There are no traffic laws that apply to "distracted" driving. If you are speeding because you are not paying attention then you get a ticket for speeding, not for not paying attention. There are no enhancements for being distracted while committing an identified offense either, unless the case goes to a trial and evidence in presented that the driver was distracted AND the judge decides that he wants to up the fine from the minimum to somewhere closer to maximum. The fine structure allows judges to make individual decisions about how aggregious the person's conduct was.
Perhaps another aspect would be to have at the State level, that if you cause someone to be killed, then you can be punished by a year in jail. So if you ran a stop sign ( Like Mrs. Bush did) and KILL someone, like she did then pehaps the law could allow for that person to receive a year in jail. That way, if they are driving will downloading ring tones, and run into 3-4 people, then the judge would have some discretion to put people in jail....but we dont need more laws, we just need modifications to existing laws.
The history of the Judeo-Christian civilizations is that we do not criminally punish people for accidental conduct. Focussing on the death of someone he cares about, like his family friend Matt Wilhelm, caused Charlie Smyth to want to deviate from this long standing principal.
The fundamental problem is that criminal sanctions for accidental conduct are not very effective deterrents to future conduct, since the conduct was never intended in the first place.
Charlie: We are sorry an accident killed your friend. It was an accident. No laws need be changed to avenge his death. Riding your bicycle on a state highway shoulder has and will be risky, albiet legal, behavior.
This is why people want to MAKE a law about "distracted" driving. The judge in the Wilhelm case did not have the discretion to give a punishment that was somewhere in between "oops, got in the wrong lane!" ticket and "hahaha, watch me take out these pedestrians for extra points, woo!"
The conduct in question is deciding that it's a grand idea to download ring tones to a phone while driving at speed, rather than pulling over first.
There is a level at which behavior stops being "accidental" and becomes "any person with half a moment's thought or any judgement at all would not have tried to do such an involved task while driving." That includes downloading ring tones to your phone, as well as trying to flip the cassette over in a deck on the passenger seat, fumbling around with the buttons (all at speed mind you) and wiping out 4 kindergarten kids walking on a field trip.
If you mess with your phone, flip tapes, eat 5-course meals in your car and don't get in any accidents, fine. But if you do get in a wreck and cause some damage, and it comes out that you were engaging in this non-accidental, purposefully stupid behavior, then I have no problem with that serving as an aggravating factor allowing a stiffer punishment.
The history of the Judeo-Christian civilizations is that we do not criminally punish people for accidental conduct. Focussing on the death of someone he cares about, like his family friend Matt Wilhelm, caused Charlie Smyth to want to deviate from this long standing principal.
The fundamental problem is that criminal sanctions for accidental conduct are not very effective deterrents to future conduct, since the conduct was never intended in the first place.
Charlie: We are sorry an accident killed your friend. It was an accident. No laws need be changed to avenge his death. Riding your bicycle on a state highway shoulder has and will be risky, albiet legal, behavior.
Um, I don't think the part where she was downloading ringtones while driving was accidental.
Yet we do punish people for negligence and reckless conduct.
And what's with the "Judeo-Christian civilizations" business? How is religion relevant here? (Even if there were such a defined thing as Judeo-Christian civilizations.) I'll remind you that Judeo-Christian civilizations may not punish people for accidental conduct, but do burn people as witches.
He could have said "western" civilizations - would that be better? Do they still offer Western Civ as a college course these days?
Akibare- You can't legislate against stupidity, and that is what this really all comes down to imo. Ms. Stark had 4 moving violations in Champaign County in a period of 16 months ending with the tragic death of Mr. Wilhelm. At what point do you suspend a privilege that is being abused? If someone exhibits a pattern of poor judgment behind the wheel of an automobile it is a safe bet that they will continue to do so regardless of whatever new law is created to "ban" such behavior.
Why not create an instant and automatic license suspension upon receiving (insert number of citations here) citations within (insert number of months here) months and enforcing through the current system?
Sure you can. It's only asking for an aggravation factor.
Notice I am not restricting myself to the Stark case. However, I would say that even if she had a 100% clean record before hitting Wilhelm, when they found during the case that she was downloading ring tones to her phone (not just talking on it, CONFIGURING IT!) while driving, hell yes I'd be 100% fine with that being considered an aggravating factor getting her a more serious punishment.
That's ASIDE from other ideas such as those you suggest.
As others have posted, in other arenas already we have plenty of precedent for negligence being punishable under the law.
Sure you can. It's only asking for an aggravation factor.
Careful, slippery slope, that is. Who is to say what is stupid (or a distraction) and what is not? Who makes that determination? Sure, it is obvious that downloading ring tones is both, but then others come in and say kids are, and pets are, and the radio is, and putting on sunglasses is, etc... and how do we prove that someone was indeed changing a radio station at the time of an accident? I guess what has not been addressed is my original question...
Why not make enforcement of existing laws an issue rather than making new (arguably unenforceable) laws?
Forgive me for the lengthy double post, but I made this comment elsewhere in a thread that was on this same topic, and it is relavent to cheesy's comment:
On April 29th, 2008 at 09:49 AM, Dane said:
while running, I jog in front of a car, causing it to veer off the road and onto the sidewalk). Do the nanny-staters want to outlaw all of them?
This is already addressed in various laws concerning the conduct of pedestrians. Crossing in front of a car while jogging is not specifically addressed, just any crossing in front of an on-coming car.
This brings up the point that instead of a particular law addressing cell phone use, there could be, as is also discussed, a Distracted Driving provision or enhancement to driving laws. It would be subjective, but there are other laws like that already. Reckless Driving is loosely defined in law, and a little more specifically defined in case law. The final determination is to explain what happened and someone makes a decision based on the definitions and the actions and says, Yes, that was reckless. Distracted Driving could fit under the same umbrella. The problem is that the driver has to do the distracted thing first, which is potentially dangerous to others. There is a certain compelling argument to say that if one the most identifiable single causes of distraction does not occur in the first place, everyone is rendered safer. Laws like "recklessness" wrestle with this tension between prevention and definition all the time. There are no perfect arguments.
That the ordinance is wrong because there was a tragic and probably avoidable incident outside of the one jurisdiction does not negate the argument that no action is helpful. I need to jump off of the fence and say that I don't like the cell phone ban idea unless I can see some real, substantial and tangible proof that it helps-what has happened to accident frequency in those areas that bans are in place? Addressing individual behaviors makes more sense. And adjusting laws in a consistent manner, that is state wide, will have a greater effect. Just talking on the phone is not something I am willing criminalize, but letting your actions distract you into being unsafe in a demonstrable way while doing something as critical as operating car should be.
I ride a motorcycle a lot, which tends to make me extra defensive in/on whatever vehicle I am operating. I can't say that the many stupid things I have seen people do in cars are specifically related to cell phones anymore than many other causes. People who seemed perfectly attentive have pulled right out in front of me (that's illegal provided they impeded my progress or compromised my safety-both somewhat subjective) and I have seen people talking on cell phones waiting patiently for me to pass by.
So, I have a hard time making blanket statements that you can't drive while talking on your cell, but I can live with provisions of the law recognizing that if I am doing certain identifiable acts with demonstrated propensities for creating unsafe situations, and those actions on their face have contributed to that act, I am willing to let people deal with the known consequences of those specific acts. Other distracted driving issues will be treated the same (putting on make-up, reading, soda in one hand, burger in the other…)
As I said before Dane, too much sense in your post.
Never work in Urbana.
I have posted so many comments along the lines which you very eloquently write, that my fingers are calloused. I am sure you have read them or some of them. The Urbana Council is a knee jerk, short term, ineffective solution council that will never change until the people change them.
The get real skittery when the public reacts against them, and then form a committee to CYA. We have more committees than bricks on Illinois Street.
This Cell phone issue should have been shelved by the Mayor, long before it became public. But we certainly have no leadership at the top level, why should we expect, leadership from the lower levels.
Great idea, and well written. Nice to see them.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
"This Cell phone issue should have been shelved by the Mayor, long before it became public. But we certainly have no leadership at the top level, why should we expect, leadership from the lower levels."
This comment concerns me. The council does and should have the power to put something on the agenda for discussion. That's how this cell phone ban got started. As originally proposed it was an extremely draconian measure unparalleled in the country. Through discussion by the council and mayor the ban has been nearly killed, leaving a study in place to see if the idea has any merit, and a fine for distracted drivers who cause accidents. I think the system worked in this case.
I don't think the Mayor should be able to keep things off the agenda that the council wants to discuss. The Mayor has plenty of power in their direction of staff (I think you saw the result of that in that case with the city attorney). The Mayor can also lobby council members, rally citizens, vote in some cases, and veto in others.
If you don't like what the council discusses and passes then by all means run candidates against them. But Rex, I'm surprised by your comment that seems to be saying the Mayor should supress discussion. Is this what you meant to say?
That's a fantastic idea - piggybacking cell phone violation onto traffic violations. I'm 100% for that.
Curious,
Thanks for the question, maybe a little clarity is in order.
Certainly my comments on all my blog posts never encourage the disguise or outright denial of public participation in matters that deserve such attention. I have thrown up enough reading about Jones and Blago's successful efforts to do exactly that.
Also, I have repeatedly previously posted the 4 steps for responsible legislation at any level which this type of legislation fails miserably.
What I am saying is that if ANY council member, or the Mayor has an idea concerning something such as this, then in accordance with the open meeting act the Mayor should encourage all council members to privately discuss what could or should be done to express Urbana's concerns about that issue BEFORE heading into the public forum. And certainly the Mayor should take the lead, a phone call or meeting with each council member to ascertain their thoughts on the issue and also suggest all the other possible remedies or proper legislative paths to properly express or properly legislate the will of the people.
The Mayor then has all the necessary facts and can direct the council toward the proper path to properly and intelligently approach the problem.
I am sure you will agree from the content of all the posts made in the blog and others concerning this problem, that local legislation cannot effective solve this problem, this is a matter for other elected officials to properly solve so it failed the first step of the 4 steps.
What would I have done?
Certainly, because of the tragic circumstances something expressing the concerns of Urbana was necessary. I would have tried to direct the Council to propose a resolution to the local State Legislators and Governor asking them to properly address this issue at the State level. That resolution would contain strong language of Urbana's sincere and demanding desire to see proper legislation addressing this type of issue. Additionally, it would ask the Legislators to provide the Council or Mayor with a regular report of the status of those efforts, with the additional requirement the Council address the regular report or lack thereof on a monthly basis.
This type of action places the issue in the proper legislative forum and additionally places the necessary political pressure on local State Legislators (and the Governor) to address the will of the people of the City of Urbana, a City with thousands of voters. Placing the glare of the public spotlight on legislators is the most effective way of successfully legislating effective laws.
This ordinance was put on hold because the Council realized they were pissing off a lot of people by trying to deal with something that they should not have been dealing with, a lot like snow.
If you are going to be the leader, then, by God, clang the leader's Bell and lead.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Rex, thanks for the clarification. I like your suggested alternative on how you might have dealt with the same situation.
One other question: if you had not been able to come to an agreement with the council on how to proceed in that case, and one or more members of the council wanted to debate a cell phone ban at the committee of the whole, would you have tried to stop it? I agree with you that the Mayor should do their best to broker and lead behind the scenes but also don't want to see a Mayor who keeps the council from debating issues in public if they insist on it---even ones that the Mayor doesn't agree with.
Curious,
If the representatives who were elected by the general public choose to publicly discuss a problem, then that is the will of the people. However, I would not want to have just one, be the controlling determination. If a quorum said they believe it would be in the best interest, then it should be public and immediately commence the process of the other 3 steps of responsible legislation. Again, if that quorum existed it could be determined in a work session or by the phone calls or individual meetings with the Mayor keeping a tally.
The introduction into a public forum, however would not preclude me from issuing a strong statement pro or con on the issue and making sure all of the general public knew my thoughts and the reasons for those thoughts. Also according to Hoyle, suggest or introduce any amendments or clarification necessary to alter the legislation to best serve Urbana.
I understand that all good ideas begin with a single thought, and that just because one individual wants to discuss something does not make it a bad idea. However the formulation and nurturing of that idea, should take place long before and in considerable detail before time is wasted in the public forum. For instance, formulating whether or not the all 4 parts of responsible legislation can be satisfied.
(Incidentally, a single Council member controlling the flow and accomplishments of the meetings is a real problem now and has to be addressed. Only Abbot and Costello know who is on first.)
Thanks for the compliment.
So now, if I may exercise my right of curiosity, is your introduction picture, you?
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield