Advocacy & Safety - Cell phone fines

Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.




View Full Version : Cell phone fines


LittleBigMan
08-23-06, 10:22 AM
Tuesday, a new law in Dekalb County (Atlanta area county) took effect allowing fines of up to $500 for drivers who crash while using a cell phone.

See article--

Wrecks by phone draw fines in DeKalb

By TY TAGAMI
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 08/23/06

Drivers who cause a wreck while yakking on a cellphone will face a fine of up to $500 under a law that took effect Tuesday in DeKalb County.

The law, likely the first of its kind in Georgia, sanctions drivers whose "improper" usage of a mobile phone was a "contributing factor" in a collision causing death, injury or damage.

Mahisha Patel, 23, chatting while safely parked in Decatur, said DeKalb is right to fine drivers who cause accidents while talking on cellphones.

DeKalb CEO Vernon Jones said the county can't ban cellphone use by drivers, but it can punish those whose careless yakking causes crashes.

It has the potential to change the way tens of thousands of drivers go about their business, even if they're simply passing through on the interstates and state highways that cross the county line.

County officials said the law applies in unincorporated DeKalb, not its cities. About 80 percent of the county is unincorporated.

The Board of Commissioners had been mulling a $100 fine proposed by county Chief Executive Officer Vernon Jones, but they upped the ante when they approved the higher maximum fine Tuesday.

Other Georgia communities, including Atlanta, have considered similar laws on talking and driving, but it appears that none actually has passed, said Jim Shuler, a spokesman for the Governor's Office of Highway Safety.

"We cannot find anything like this in the state of Georgia," he said.

Jones said he proposed the legislation after driving past a wreck several months ago in which cellphone use reportedly played a role. He said he also talked to a county traffic court judge who told him cellphones were a factor in as many as 700 collisions in a year.

"It's becoming more and more of a problem," Jones said. He said the law does not target drivers who use headsets or hands-free devices.

Jones said he preferred a fine in DeKalb to an outright ban because it would be inappropriate to expect drivers to watch for the county line sign while carrying on a conversation. He said if there were to be a ban, it should be statewide. A state ban has been proposed in the Georgia Legislature but has never gone far.

Three states — New York, followed by New Jersey and Connecticut — and cities such as Washington and Chicago have banned the use of handheld phones while driving.

Shuler said no study has shown definitively that handheld cellphones are more dangerous than headsets or speakerphones.

What the industry says

A spokesman for the wireless industry said drivers face more serious distractions than talking on a phone. A recent federal study found that drowsiness and objects moving around in a car were more of a risk than talking on a phone, said John Walls, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association. He said dialing a phone while driving is also more dangerous than talking on one.

"Any legislation that is aimed at one specific behavior doesn't put the whole issue of distracted driving in the proper light," Walls said. "We were the most common distraction, but we were not the most dangerous distraction."

Still, reaction to DeKalb's legislation was favorable during Tuesday's rush hour.

"I think that's a good idea because there're a lot of wrecks while talking on a cellphone," said Mahisha Patel, 23, who was talking on her phone while parked in downtown Decatur. She said she usually uses her speakerphone while driving.

Caroline Wood, who drove into the parking lot while talking on her cellphone, also didn't have a problem with the law. "I think it's probably a good rule," said Wood, 43, adding, "I shouldn't do it."

One metro Atlanta cellphone provider wasn't bothered by the news, either. "We have no problem with that," said Michael Johnson, a vice president with MetroPCS. He said the company offers a free headset with every phone sold.

A spokeswoman for Atlanta-based Cingular said she couldn't comment on DeKalb's legislation before reading it. She said her company also promotes safe use of phones.

The vote on the legislation was 5-1, with one commissioner absent.

Elaine Boyer could not be reached to explain her "no" vote.

Commissioner Kathie Gannon said she supported the ordinance because drivers who talk into a handheld phone are dangerous, cutting across lanes and speeding up or slowing down unexpectedly. She admitted that she herself had used a handheld phone while driving.

Jones said he doesn't expect a backlash, "because everybody has a cellphone, and they know one time or another they could have caused an accident."


jimmuter
08-23-06, 10:34 AM
Good luck proving that. If someone is involved in a crash, there is no way they would admit to talking on the cell phone. I guess in a dispute they could check call logs or something, but this will probably be unenforceable. Hopefully just having the law will have a deterrent effect though.

DieselDan
08-23-06, 11:15 AM
Good luck proving that. If someone is involved in a crash, there is no way they would admit to talking on the cell phone. I guess in a dispute they could check call logs or something, but this will probably be unenforceable. Hopefully just having the law will have a deterrent effect though.
Exactly. A woman on Hilton Head Island, SC was only charged with reckless driving when she struck and killed a cyclist. The officer had orginally put in the report she was using her mobile phone when she hit the cyclist, but phone records proved otherwise. She just didn't wait to pass and ran the woman over. $76 fine and 4 points, but she's having to answer for it in a civil motion.


Ed Holland
08-23-06, 11:30 AM
In my opinion, its too late to fine someone for using the 'phone after they have already crashed or contributed to an accident. In my version of an ideal world (;)) it would be illegal to use a hand held 'phone whilst driving. Anyone caught doing so would have the option of paying a heavy fine or having the 'phone shoved up their arse.

Ed

Wulfheir
08-23-06, 12:28 PM
This is how they should have drunk driving laws. Only charge drunk drivers if they CAUSE an accident. Until then, they are just another car on the road. :beer:

ChezJfrey
08-23-06, 01:01 PM
Good point there Wulfheir.

nelson249
08-23-06, 03:10 PM
In my opinion, its too late to fine someone for using the 'phone after they have already crashed or contributed to an accident. In my version of an ideal world (;)) it would be illegal to use a hand held 'phone whilst driving. Anyone caught doing so would have the option of paying a heavy fine or having the 'phone shoved up their arse.

Ed

I think most people would elect to pay the fine rather than the alterative which may, in fact, be considered a 'cruel and unusual punishment.' ;)

Carusoswi
08-23-06, 03:35 PM
Personally, I think the hype and focus on cell phone use while driving is ridiculous. It's true that plenty of drivers are not capable of driving and talking at the same time - probably those same drivers are even more dangerous using their onboard GPS or adjusting their car stereo/radio or what have you.

The point is that there are laws against inattentive or careless drivers on the books that should cover cell phone use. I just think it ridiculous that we have to draft special laws concerning these sorts of issues. I am also against click-it or ticket seat belt laws and helmet laws and you name it laws.

As for cell phone, if someone causes an accident, that alone is cause enough to meet out punishment to the limit of the law. What will happen is that, eventually, someone causing a minor fender bender will be treated more harshly than someone whose excessive speed or reckless driving causes an even worse accident.

Sorry, I don't like it.

(there, my rant is over, thanks)

Caruso

Ed Holland
08-23-06, 05:45 PM
Seriously now - I think the issue over the dangers of cellphone (CP) use whilst driving really do require attention. The argument that careless/dangerous driving covers this instance is OK, up to a point. In fact though, it might be considered that the rapid onset of CP useage constitutes a whole new safety phenomenon virtually overnight - in such a case, specific legislation is justified, in my opinion.

Many times I have seen drivers using a handheld CP in such a way that their control of the vehicle is impaired e.g. they have only one hand available to manouver the vehicle where two would be required. This is what needs attention. If a call is so important, then either pull over and talk, or get a hands-free kit.

Ed

trackhub
08-23-06, 05:55 PM
I don't think this will stop people from using cell phones when driving, any more than increasing the price of cigarettes (over five bucks a pack in some areas now? Egads!) has stopped anyone from smoking. Remember, this is the culture of "Nobody tells ME what to do!"

Ed Holland
08-23-06, 06:29 PM
I don't think this will stop people from using cell phones when driving, any more than increasing the price of cigarettes (over five bucks a pack in some areas now? Egads!) has stopped anyone from smoking. Remember, this is the culture of "Nobody tells ME what to do!"


trackhub, I think you are absolutely right. This is something I meant to raise, but it slipped my mind at the last moment. Another point is that we are in the present situation because no little/no effort has been made in the past to clarify the legal position on CP usage whilst driving . In the UK, for example, the legal position, after much media coverage of the issue a few years ago has been left (deliberately?) ambiguous i.e. it is an offence to use the device if it is considered that it impairs ones ability to operate the vehicle in a safe manner - or words to that effect. So for starters, there is no clear ruling & thus no clear message sent to the public regarding acceptable behaviour. Many, perhaps even a majority, believe that this was the wrong outcome.

Ed

yak
08-24-06, 09:10 AM
I think most people would elect to pay the fine rather than the alterative which may, in fact, be considered a 'cruel and unusual punishment.' ;)

That would really kick-start the market for tiny cellphones:eek:

rajman
08-24-06, 10:09 AM
This is how they should have drunk driving laws. Only charge drunk drivers if they CAUSE an accident. Until then, they are just another car on the road. :beer:

I can't agree. Charging drunk drivers after they cause an accident is punitive only, and would not have the deterrent effect of roadside testing. Would you also reccomend that trucking safety regulations only apply AFTER an accident? Or any other case where unsafe operation of machinery is regulated?

Perhaps you would, but I disagree. I have been hit by drunk drivers in the past, and I strongly believe that the effect of the law against driving while intoxicated has been generally positive. I suggest you look up the statistics on traffic fatalities where alcohol was a contributing factor over time. You will see a significant reduction in these types of fatalities, correlating with stricter enforcement of DUI laws, public health campaigns, and so on.

The issue with hazardous operation of a vehicle is that the risks, while substantial, are low enough that people can pretend that they are effectively zero. If there was a 100% chance of death each time you drove while intoxicated no-one would do it more than once:) However, the actual risk is relatively low, just much higher (10x or more) than driving when not intoxicated. You could drive drunk 1000x and not cause an accident yourself. However given the MVA's cause as many deaths each year in the US as the Vietnam war did, AND they are a major cause of death, and lost years of life/earning potential/etc., laws that reduce drunk driving (including the charging of people who were not in an accident) have a large effect in increasing lifespan, reducing health costs, etc.

Would you really be comfortable sitting in a car (or bus or plane) operated by someone who was visibly intoxicated? Does it not make it easier to say "hey, I haven't had any drinks, let me drive you home" given the fact that the intoxicated person is aware that they could be charged?

You may disagree with me, but I'm quite happy with the current law on DUI

Going back to the cell phone thread, in the absence of ticketing people who are talking on the phone (hands free or not), I think having an after the fact fine is a good idea. I suspect the reason that there is little will to enforce a ban on talking on the phone while driving is due to the fact that the police do it all the time, as well as taxidrivers, EMS personnel, etc. as part of their jobs. A state wouldn't want to have a ban on phones and then have a clever lawyer bring that up if a bystander gets hit as part of a police chase while the driver is radioing for backup.

ChezJfrey
08-24-06, 10:49 AM
However, and the reason I state Wulfheir made a good point, is that virtually nobody considers themselves impaired -- by either cell phone or booze. Many people that have been drinking think that they're OK to drive, yet they sometimes subsequently find out, tragically, that they were not. This is why a law that penalizes only for a collision will ultimately fail to deter -- no one thinks they will crash because of the phone. How many times do you hear/read, "Oh, well I'm a responsible cell phone user while driving. I do x,y and z, while just about every other knucklehead but me is just careless and reckless, blah, blah, blah?" Nearly everyone is deluded about their own impairment.

So, in the case of this law, if cell users are not technically impaired until they are involved in a wreck, then the equivalent would be that no drunk driver is impaired until they crash. Yet, we obviously fear that drunks are impaired and quite the threat, so our law reflects that. Thus, if those that have consumed alcohol beyond a point are considered in violation of the law, even without crashing, then perhaps cell users should be considered likewise?

LittleBigMan
08-24-06, 10:52 AM
Some states have laws banning cellphone use while driving, according to the article. Dekalb County, Georgia, is apparantly trying to get tougher without actually banning cellphones. That's pretty much the attitude in these parts, "let them be," as long as there's not a big problem.

This law seems to be a result of an apparant problem:

[Dekalb CEO] Jones said he proposed the legislation after driving past a wreck several months ago in which cellphone use reportedly played a role. He said he also talked to a county traffic court judge who told him cellphones were a factor in as many as 700 collisions in a year.

"It's becoming more and more of a problem," Jones said. He said the law does not target drivers who use headsets or hands-free devices.

BroMax
08-24-06, 10:57 AM
I think most people would elect to pay the fine rather than the alterative which may, in fact, be considered a 'cruel and unusual punishment.' ;)

Yes, let the punishment fit the crime. Remove the battery first then shove...

Wulfheir
08-24-06, 03:19 PM
I can't agree. Charging drunk drivers after they cause an accident is punitive only, and would not have the deterrent effect of roadside testing. Would you also reccomend that trucking safety regulations only apply AFTER an accident? Or any other case where unsafe operation of machinery is regulated?

Perhaps you would, but I disagree. I have been hit by drunk drivers in the past, and I strongly believe that the effect of the law against driving while intoxicated has been generally positive. I suggest you look up the statistics on traffic fatalities where alcohol was a contributing factor over time. You will see a significant reduction in these types of fatalities, correlating with stricter enforcement of DUI laws, public health campaigns, and so on.

The issue with hazardous operation of a vehicle is that the risks, while substantial, are low enough that people can pretend that they are effectively zero. If there was a 100% chance of death each time you drove while intoxicated no-one would do it more than once:) However, the actual risk is relatively low, just much higher (10x or more) than driving when not intoxicated. You could drive drunk 1000x and not cause an accident yourself. However given the MVA's cause as many deaths each year in the US as the Vietnam war did, AND they are a major cause of death, and lost years of life/earning potential/etc., laws that reduce drunk driving (including the charging of people who were not in an accident) have a large effect in increasing lifespan, reducing health costs, etc.

Would you really be comfortable sitting in a car (or bus or plane) operated by someone who was visibly intoxicated? Does it not make it easier to say "hey, I haven't had any drinks, let me drive you home" given the fact that the intoxicated person is aware that they could be charged?

You may disagree with me, but I'm quite happy with the current law on DUI

Going back to the cell phone thread, in the absence of ticketing people who are talking on the phone (hands free or not), I think having an after the fact fine is a good idea. I suspect the reason that there is little will to enforce a ban on talking on the phone while driving is due to the fact that the police do it all the time, as well as taxidrivers, EMS personnel, etc. as part of their jobs. A state wouldn't want to have a ban on phones and then have a clever lawyer bring that up if a bystander gets hit as part of a police chase while the driver is radioing for backup.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek, trying to draw parallels between the 2 issues. I personally believe that charging someone for talking on a phone ONLY when they are responsible for an accident, yet not charging them for driving using one, is ludicrous. They should be charged either way. I view drunk driving the same way.