backtop

Print 44 comment(s) - last by caernarfon.. on Mar 28 at 10:18 PM
Police chief says ban will be difficult to enforce

If you live in Chapel Hill, North Carolina starting June 1 the city has become the first in the U.S. to completely outlaw talking on a mobile phone while driving. The ban within the town covers calls made when holding the mobile phone or when using hands-free Bluetooth devices. The Bluetooth ban also covers newer vehicles with integrated hands-free systems.
 
News Observer reports that the city has been discussing the issue for two years and the city council finally passed the ban 5-4 this week. The ban had previously been voted on and ended up in a 4-4 deadlock with one council member absent. That council member returned and cast the deciding vote for the ban. The total ban on making phone calls while driving was opposed by Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and council members Gene Pease, Laurin Easthom and Matt Czajkowski.
 
The council member who cast the deciding vote was Ed Harrison, who also happens to be an avid bicyclist. The ordinance applies to all streets in the town including those owned by the state. There are a few caveats that allow people to place phone calls, which seemingly defeats the entire purpose of the ban. Drivers would be allowed to make emergency phone calls and to make phone calls with their spouse, parents, or children.

"I wish it was coming from the state, but it doesn't seem like the state is going to do it at this point, and if they take on the example of little Chapel Hill, I'll be perfectly happy with that," said council member Donna Bell.
 
Drivers caught violating the ban will be fined $25. Local Police Chief Chris Blue has stated that the ban will be very difficult to enforce since catching a driver violating the ban would require the police to search the motorist’s cell phone. Presumably, the search would have to be conducted to prove the driver wasn't talking to a spouse or child. 
 
The bigger issue is that North Carolina state assistant attorney general Jess Mekeel notified the city previously that it was not legal for the town to set its own ordinance on the matter. Mekeel noted that the state intended to provide "a complete and integrated regulatory scheme." Mekeel wrote in response to Chapel Hill town attorney Ralph Karpinos, "An ordinance by the Town of Chapel Hill regulating motorists' use of cell phones is preempted by State law, and therefore, unenforceable."
 
Similar laws in other states have been struck down in the past. Many states and cities across the country have laws on the books banning texting and driving, and talking and driving without a hands-free device. The NTSB has recommended that states ban hands-free cell phone use in cars in the past. However, transportation Sec. Ray LaHood does not support that goal.
 
There have also been some studies that claim texting and driving bans are not working.

Source: News Observer


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Ban everything!
By tayb on 3/27/2012 10:12:43 AM , Rating: 3
If a hands free call is too distracting then surely the following, legal, in-car distractions must be banned as well.

-Passengers
-Children
-Air Conditioning Controls
-Radio Controls
-Eating
-Drinking
-Billboards
-Roadside Signs
-Being tired
-Reading (Anything from signs to books)
-Music (In general. Singing along? I think not!)
-Anything in the car that you can reach for and pick up
-Playing a trumpet (google it and find the video)

Once again common sense has been defeated in the name of "safety." Thankfully the citizens of Chapel Hill have their legislative overlords there to protect them from themselves.




RE: Ban everything!
By EasyC on 3/27/2012 10:42:35 AM , Rating: 1
This isn't about safety. It's about creating a revenue stream. Most people will just pay a ticket. Those who fight will have their word against the cops. Guess who wins that battle?


RE: Ban everything!
By tayb on 3/27/2012 10:44:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those who fight will have their word against the cops. Guess who wins that battle?


That won't be the case. Cell phone records will clearly show whether an individual was on the phone near the time of the ticket. It's no longer a he-said-she-said case. Beyond that though is the simple fact that even if I challenge the ticket and lose the city has still lost. It costs far more than $25 to defend an idiotic ticket. It's all about safety and they'll hoping it will simply be a deterrent.

In the end though this piece of legislation will get challenged and overturned at the state level and the city will be left with a bill for the lawyers.

These guys are all elected though so I can't 100% blame them. Power comes from the consent of the governed.


RE: Ban everything!
By Lerianis on 3/27/2012 5:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not too sure about that. They have proven that red light cameras do not have any impact on safety and, in some cases, even make it MORE likely that people will have accidents so.... I doubt this is about safety and deterrent.

The first poster also makes a good point.... what are they going to ban next, talking to someone beside you in a car?

This is NOT about safety. It never was. This is about a power-grab and attempting to criminalize people even more than we already are today.

Hell, I cannot even step outside my home sometimes without breaking 50 laws that are still on the books from 200 years ago.

They should focus on getting rid of those old and unnecessary laws.


RE: Ban everything!
By CanadianMind on 3/27/2012 1:12:04 PM , Rating: 3
Do you often reach for and adjust the air conditioner while you are making a left hand turn at a busy traffic signal? If you are driving and you need to make an adjustment, you know the road conditions and can plan your actions accordingly, when it is safe to do so.

But if you are in the middle of a cell phone conversation, hands free or not, the person on the other end of the line has no idea what is happening on the road where you are, and may try to engage you in an important point or ask you a complicated question just when the road condition suddenly becomes busy.

The potential is that your attention is now divided between what that person is saying, and noticing the young boy rushing to cross at the approaching intersection in front of you. That is not the same as driving while passively listening to music or talking with a passenger who is equally aware of the traffic going on around you.

And yes, driving while tired or reading a book is equally dangerous. Why would you even include those in your argument?


RE: Ban everything!
By Arsynic on 3/27/2012 1:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The potential is that your attention is now divided between what that person is saying, and noticing the young boy rushing to cross at the approaching intersection in front of you. That is not the same as driving while passively listening to music or talking with a passenger who is equally aware of the traffic going on around you.


So a screaming baby or toddler in the backseat is aware of traffic conditions? Give me a fucking break. Then there are the idiot drivers who have to maintain eye contact with every passenger they're speaking with. What about the bitches that put on makeup while driving?

You're trying to justify something that just isn't justifiable. At the end of the day, we have to rely on people being responsible drivers. Let it be.


RE: Ban everything!
By MrBlastman on 3/27/2012 3:06:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So a screaming baby or toddler in the backseat is aware of traffic conditions? Give me a fucking break.


Speaking from experience here, the only solution when they pop off a tantrum or screaming volley is to turn up the music and keep on driving. Easier said than done for sure, especially if the wife is in the car. When she winces, tell her, "I checked my mirror and they looked okay." Toddler/baby mirrors, they serve a purpose.


RE: Ban everything!
By MrBlastman on 3/27/2012 3:47:45 PM , Rating: 3
Whoever rated me down is either:

1. A hippy
2. An over-coddling freak
3. All of the above

Coddled kids hurt America. Back when I was a kid we played hot potato with live hand grenades. When the cafeteria lady asked us what we wanted for lunch we simply held out our trays and let her slop on it whatever was in her ladel, and we liked it! When we were told to run laps around the track in gym class, if one kid slacked off and walked we all got yelled at and suffered by having to do a multi-mile run the next day!

Those were good times. They bred strong people. Not pussies--like society is full of these days.


RE: Ban everything!
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/27/2012 4:06:04 PM , Rating: 1
I have no idea what any of this has to do with Cell Phones, but it made me laugh! I wouldn't say society is breeding a bunch of pussies though. There's definitely enough "tough guys" out there (and girls too... you see all these girl fights on YouTube)? But society in general is much more stupid. Only in America is Snookie the role model of success and the 9-5 white collar workers of Wall Street are despicable villians and scum of the earth. OK.. also not having anything to do with Cell Phones. So here's my assessment:

Shouldn't audio books be banned as well then? If listening to a voice over your car's speakers is a driver distraction, then basically all talk radio, audio books, and/or blutooth phones should all be banned.

Music is OK because we as drivers don't put all of our focus into songs to the point where it becomes a distraction.


RE: Ban everything!
By Boze on 3/27/2012 5:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
I love you, MrBlastman.


RE: Ban everything!
By kfonda on 3/27/2012 7:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
It was so bad when I was a kid I had to walk a mile to school, in foot deep snow, up hill both ways. One day I had to fight off a polar bear with my loose leaf notebook and still got yelled at for being late to school.

Damn kids these days have no idea how easy they have it...

Hey you kids, get off of my lawn.


RE: Ban everything!
By jRaskell on 3/28/2012 10:11:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So a screaming baby or toddler in the backseat is aware of traffic conditions? Give me a fucking break. Then there are the idiot drivers who have to maintain eye contact with every passenger they're speaking with. What about the bitches that put on makeup while driving? You're trying to justify something that just isn't justifiable.


Every time I see any sort of 'Baby on Board' sign, I silently thank the driver for letting me know they very likely are not paying attention to what they're doing behind the wheel.

quote:
At the end of the day, we have to rely on people being responsible drivers. Let it be.


I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, quite the opposite in my book. At the end of the day, beginning of the day, and at all times throughout the day I rely on everyone else to be as completely irresponsible as possible. I expect everyone around me to do the worst possible thing they can do at every moment I am near them.

the bottom line is, there are far too many people out there that aren't even remotely responsible when it comes to driving. On the flip side, all the driving regulations in the world isn't going to change that.


RE: Ban everything!
By tayb on 3/27/2012 2:10:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do you often reach for and adjust the air conditioner while you are making a left hand turn at a busy traffic signal? If you are driving and you need to make an adjustment, you know the road conditions and can plan your actions accordingly, when it is safe to do so.


What a silly argument. As if I can pick and choose when something will unexpectedly happen. What if I am driving down a road I recognize but I'm fiddling with the AC, fail to see that a car is stalled, and slam into the back of it? A distraction is a distraction is a distraction.

quote:
But if you are in the middle of a cell phone conversation, hands free or not, the person on the other end of the line has no idea what is happening on the road where you are, and may try to engage you in an important point or ask you a complicated question just when the road condition suddenly becomes busy.


Do you know what cause and effect is?

quote:
The potential is that your attention is now divided between what that person is saying, and noticing the young boy rushing to cross at the approaching intersection in front of you. That is not the same as driving while passively listening to music or talking with a passenger who is equally aware of the traffic going on around you.


How, exactly, is that any different from me talking to a passenger, dealing with a child having a temper tantrum in the back seat, or thinking of the lyrics of a song so I can sing along? My attention is divided between the road and the person I am having a conversation with. The passenger might stop talking but by that point who cares? I'm already in a wreck if I'm not paying enough attention to the road.


RE: Ban everything!
By CanadianMind on 3/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Ban everything!
By tayb on 3/27/2012 3:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you fiddle with the AC? Do you duck your head down from the front window and lean into the AC with your nose two inches from it while you try to twist the controls with a wrench or something?


Ever seen a car with touch screen controls?? Guess not.

quote:
Try paying attention to the damn road.


You can't do that with a hands free cell phone call? But you CAN with a passenger. Does not compute.


RE: Ban everything!
By Flunk on 3/27/2012 1:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Some of that stuff you mentioned is genuinely quite dangerous and banned in many foreign countries.

For Example in the UK you must have both hands free to drive which would make these illegal:

Eating, Drinking, Reading (You really shouldn't be doing this while moving), Trumpet, Reaching for stuff.

There are countries with tired driving laws too.


RE: Ban everything!
By tayb on 3/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Ban everything!
By jimbojimbo on 3/27/2012 2:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
How about smoking? Why is it society makes an exemption for everything if it's related to smoking? Nobody seems to give one crap about somebody throwing a cigarette on the ground but if anybody throws anything else it's littering? How many times do you see smokers holding their cigs getting high but that's OK?


RE: Ban everything!
By tayb on 3/27/2012 2:36:51 PM , Rating: 3
I think non-smokers just don't think about smoking. I certainly didn't when compiling that list but it's a definite distraction. If DT could fast forward in time from 2002 and add an edit feature I would certainly add it.

I was yelled at the other day for throwing an apple core into a forest. Some lady was just screaming at me. I told her an apple was bio degradable and an animal would probably pick it up anyway. She was convinced with the thought that me wrapping the apple in plastic and shipping it off to a landfill was a far superior idea.


RE: Ban everything!
By TSS on 3/27/2012 7:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was yelled at the other day for throwing an apple core into a forest. Some lady was just screaming at me. I told her an apple was bio degradable and an animal would probably pick it up anyway. She was convinced with the thought that me wrapping the apple in plastic and shipping it off to a landfill was a far superior idea.


Ok that deserves some kind of award. I've seen and heard some stupid things in my lifetime, mostly men doing dangerous stuff without any prior thought, but this has to take the cake.

I'll mark this up under the very short list of things so monumentally stupid, i can't comprehend it in any way because i simply think too much.


RE: Ban everything!
By TSS on 3/27/2012 7:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yknow the sollution isn't banning things in the car. There's no end to that.

Instead i suggest we put all cars on rails. Yknow, like those electric racetracks kids have. Put in an automatic braking system and no need to worry about any distractions anymore.


RE: Ban everything!
By Jaybus on 3/28/2012 11:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
Especially politician's roadside campaign signs.


Enforcement
By FITCamaro on 3/27/2012 10:00:44 AM , Rating: 2
Is impossible. How do you prove I wasn't just talking to myself or singing along to something if I'm using a handsfree system to make a call?




RE: Enforcement
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/27/2012 10:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
Speaking of NC and driving, how do you feel about this one, Fit:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10907942/


RE: Enforcement
By FITCamaro on 3/27/2012 11:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's a stupid law but within the rights of the state. Just creates a nightmare for cops with parents who'll get upset at having to go get their kid out of jail just for speeding. It sounds like the purpose of the law though was to fight street racing.


RE: Enforcement
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/27/2012 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
The purpose of this law actually, is for stupid ass teens (actual street racing isn't much of an issue here). There have been dozens of cases of kids just out speeding on backroads and killing themselves and/or others by running off the road and striking trees or other vehicles.

It seems as though at least once every couple weeks there's a story in the news about another dead teen.


RE: Enforcement
By MrBlastman on 3/27/2012 2:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
The solution to the problem isn't a police state, though. It can be partially solved by just raising the driving age from 16 to 18.

I'm sick and damn tired of one freedom after another being trampled on by giving police more and more power.

As for the cell phone issue--it will be hard to enforce. The other day I honked at a woman in front of me repeatedly as she nearly ran off the road or swerved into the oncoming lane several times because she was too busy and "bothered" to pay attention and drive due to more important texting that she had to tend to while in the driver's seat.


RE: Enforcement
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/27/2012 3:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, I'm not saying I agree with the law, I was merely stating the "reasoning" behind it.


RE: Enforcement
By Lerianis on 3/27/2012 5:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
Raising the driving age? How about a better solution: teaching children VERY YOUNG how to drive a car so that they are E X P E R I E N C I E D when they actually start driving a car alone?

WOW! I took me a grand total of...... .05 seconds to think of that much better solution.

Raising the ages for everything does NOTHING at all but inconvenience adults (who have to ferry their children everywhere when they are damned well 'mature' enough to do it themselves) and brings NO additional safety.


RE: Enforcement
By FITCamaro on 3/27/2012 10:19:27 PM , Rating: 1
Because 12 year olds are totally mature enough to drive cars. Kids these days know how to drive long before they're 16. The problem is that they're not mature enough to drive. So teaching them the rules of the road earlier won't do a thing to make them better drivers.


RE: Enforcement
By Reclaimer77 on 3/27/2012 3:49:32 PM , Rating: 1
I think that law is terrible and should be struck down for one simple reason: It's prejudicial based on age. So if two drivers are doing the exact same thing, one driver gets arrested and is hauled before a magistrate because they're younger than the other one? That's not my America, no sir.

To say this law runs afoul of the Constitution is an understatement. Selective enforcement, discriminatory enforcement, not to mention the lack of equal protection to boot. It's a no brainer really.


RE: Enforcement
By danjw1 on 3/27/2012 10:11:05 AM , Rating: 3
Who needs to prove it? Most people will just pay the ticket.


RE: Enforcement
By tayb on 3/27/2012 11:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
Would you? I certainly wouldn't. Even if I was guilty I would go to court just to waste time and money.


RE: Enforcement
By jimbojimbo on 3/27/2012 2:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly for you $25 is worth more than several hours of your time and all to go somewhere to basically lie. I don't know about you but even an hour of time during working hours is easily worth $25. Therefore I conclude you're worthless and you have no integrity.


RE: Enforcement
By tayb on 3/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Enforcement
By Adonlude on 3/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Enforcement
By jimbojimbo on 3/27/2012 2:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding. Now if you want to use a handsfree just nod your head as you talk.


How long is it going to take?
By Ristogod on 3/27/2012 9:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
Before all the ignorant people in this country finally die off so they stop making idiotic laws.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/27/2012 9:59:57 AM , Rating: 5
It's Chapel Hill... you can almost smell the smug as you come close to the city limits.


What -
By Dr of crap on 3/27/2012 10:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
"Presumably, the search would have to be conducted to prove the driver wasn't talking to a spouse or child. "

WHY does this need to be checked? If the call was to either of these two does the fine not apply?




RE: What -
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/27/2012 10:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's stupid all around. Even if it WAS to a spouse or child, it's still contributing to "distracted driving".


By corduroygt on 3/27/2012 11:06:00 AM , Rating: 3
The 5 people who voted for this should be exposed, and banned from holding public office ever again.




Chapel Hill drive for freedom
By jharper12 on 3/28/2012 10:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
I really want to be the guy who organizes the UNC Marching Band, and gets volunteer trumpeters to agree to drive around the city while playing Don't Tread On Me by Kit and the Outlaws. Piecemeal banning of random acts doesn't make driving safer. Safe drivers make driving safer, and if we can't get people to drive safely, then the government should support measures to keep people from driving altogether:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Fxp3HK6DI




Texting while driving
By caernarfon on 3/28/2012 10:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
Too late for the young woman who was run over by the UNC student athlete texting and driving. The driver was too busy texting to notice she had run up on the side walk and over a student. The victim is now disabled. The UNC campus police apparently did not feel a crime had happened.




"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki