/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
During the Jan. 22 meeting of the Holbrook City Council, Councilman Adam Marsh proposed an ordinance regulating portable communication devices and texting while operating a motor vehicle within city limits.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
“In light of Officer Townsend’s death of Salt River Tribal Police on the 5th of January at the hands of a distracted driver I think it’s been on a lot of people’s minds,” began Marsh. He went on to cite how limitations to the use of handheld devices while driving has led to a significant decrease in crimes related to distracted driving. “A lot of our kids walk to school. We have people walking through town to get to the Navajo County Complex and back.” He noted that as a major thoroughfare a lot of people drive and walk through the community.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Quoting from research he had gathered, Marsh stated that distracted driving due to talking on a cell phone is the equivalent of driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent, the legal limit. Texting increases the likelihood of an accident or near accident by 23 times.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
“Sending or receiving a text going at 55 mph takes your eyes off the road for five seconds, which is long enough for you to cross a football field,” explained Marsh. He noted several more statistics that explained the dangers of being distracted while driving. He also noted that Arizona is one of only two other states, Montana and Missouri to still allow this.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
He proposed a ban similar to that in Coconino County where drivers are not allowed to use a portable communications device while operating a motor vehicle, unless the device is configured to allow hands-free talking. Also, calling 911 for emergency situations or for law enforcement and first responders while in the course of their duties would be permitted. Also permitted would be those with an FCC license and for those driving on private property. Pulling off to a safe place and putting the vehicle in park would be the option to using a device while driving.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Marsh proposed that the penalty of using a communications device in violation of the proposed ban would be $100. If such use results in a collision the fine would be $250 for that offense alone.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
“I forwarded a copy of this to the police chief and he is in support of an ordinance like this,” noted Marsh. It was also noted that if the ordinance is enacted, the first six months would be warnings by police to those in violation of the ordinance in order to educate the population. The first offense after the six months would result in a $100 fine.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Councilman Mike Nilsson was in support of the ordinance with the education implemented. Councilman Tim Dixon was also in support and noted that there are currently bills in the Arizona House and Senate but that such bills could take years to enact. “We just make certain it passes Constitutional muster. I don’t think it’s unduly restrictive,” Dixon stated.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
He felt that the six-month waiting period should instead be that after an initial warning a fine be issued regardless of the time frame.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Councilman Richard Peterson spoke out in opposition to the proposed ordinance. He stated that he did his own research and learned that approximately 10 percent of all accidents are caused by distracted drivers. “Only 14 percent of that 10 percent involve cell phone usage so it’s not exactly an overwhelming part of those distracted drivers, that’s actually pretty small,” he said.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
“That means 86 percent of distracted driver accidents are caused for other reasons such as eating and I suspect we don’t want to have an ordinance to say you can’t have nachos in the car. It even involves talking to somebody… animals moving in your car, we don’t want to have an ordinance for that. If the kids are rowdy could we have an ordinance that says you’ve got to pull over until your kids calm down?” asked Peterson. He went on to list other reasons that cause distraction while driving. He also noted that handheld devices are just as distracting according to the research he found.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
He also noted that in California the banning of making cell phone calls while driving has increased the use of texting. He also noted that his research showed that teens who were found to be texting and driving would also be violating other laws such as drinking and driving or driving without a seatbelt, making it unlikely they would follow any restrictions as others are already being ignored.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Peterson also had concerns regarding visitors to the community who may not be aware of the ban on cell phone use. “Are we going to put up five or six or seven well lit signs so people are warned that if they come in here don’t use your cell phone or you’re going to get a $100 fine? I don’t think that’s the way we want to greet people coming here. I don’t think that we need to have more negative interaction between our citizens and the police,” he said, adding that he wondered how an officer would be able to ascertain that what he saw was actually a cell phone if one wasn’t present when he approached the vehicle. “Do we have cell phone sniffing dogs? Does he have the right to take a phone to see if someone was texting?”
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
He felt an education program would be more beneficial to the citizens and their relationship with the city. “I think this law is unneeded, ineffective and an overreach,” Peterson concluded.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Councilwoman Francie Payne stated that she herself has driven distracted and found it frightening. She felt education was also key. “I would like to see us move on and get started on the education portion and go ahead and put this on the next meeting’s agenda as a proposed ordinance for first reading.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Marsh thanked Peterson for his comments then added, “This is a commitment to safety; this is not a law to punish people. This is not a system to make money. This is a commitment to the safety of our citizens and anybody who passes through here,” stated Marsh, adding that he would be in favor of signage. “Most citizens are doing the right thing, that is probably true. Most citizens also don’t murder people. Yet all it takes is the distraction of one text to be equal to involuntary manslaughter.” He reiterated that there is nothing so important that would require phone usage outside of an emergency situation.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Peterson stated that he didn’t believe a law would have any effect until after a collision would have occurred. He asked, “If the research shows that handless devices are equally as distracting as handheld devices then why wouldn’t we say you can’t use any of these at all for the same reason?” He felt that if people were going to text and it was against the law, they would hold the phone lower to avoid being seen and cause a greater hazard.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Councilman Phil Cobb said that he felt texting and driving was equal to being under the influence of drugs or alcohol and driving. “We have laws about drinking, we have laws about drugs and driving, he said, adding that the use of cell phones have been added to that. “We need to start educating people intensely about what is happening on our roads. Although this is an extra law in some cases it’s a requirement until people can learn. Who knows what can happen for those lives that are saved. Even one is important.”
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
“Always when it comes down to it we go for more laws. We talk about these bad events but there’s no indication that more laws are going to stop them or reduce them. Yes, it’s a tragedy if someone dies because someone was texting and they ran over a kid. That’s a tragedy but there’s no indication that it being against the law would have stopped the guy from using his phone and running over a kid anyway.”
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
It was decided that the item would be placed on the next agenda in the form of an ordinance for consideration.
/wp:paragraph
