No need for Rep Owen's DWT law
JS Online Editorial: No need for DWT law - driving while talking
Driving and talking on a cell phone can be risky. But given other distractions and the benefits of cell phones on the road, it doesn't make sense to ban them or single them out for special enforcement. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Posted: Feb. 3, 2007
When Dennis Hughes climbs behind the wheel, he makes sure his cell phone is off. And it stays off until he gets to where he's going. That makes sense, right? After all, just the other day, there was that guy in the blue SUV ahead of you, his cell phone pressed to his ear, blabbing away, not paying attention to his driving. At least that's how it seemed.
There oughta be a law, you say?
Well, not so fast. First off, you should know that Hughes is the chief of safety policy analysis for the state Department of Transportation. But you should also know that despite his job title and his personal feelings about cell phones, Hughes does not think people should be prohibited from using them while driving.
And neither do we. At least not without a lot more information and further studies conclusively showing that cell phones are causing more accidents than other distractions.
As Hughes notes, talking on cell phones is only one of many things distracting drivers, and, so far, he has not seen any "good data" to suggest that phones pose more of a problem on Wisconsin roads than other distractions to warrant a ban or other regulations. In fact, he and others say other distractions are more common.
What's more, there already is a state law against inattentive driving, whether the driver is weaving across lanes or, worse, the center line because he or she is talking on a cell phone, reading a book, eating a cheeseburger or, yes, shaving or applying makeup.
We do believe that inexperienced young drivers should not be allowed to talk on cell phones while driving, and we have supported a proposal by Rep. Jerry Petrowski (R-Marathon) to ban drivers younger than 18 from doing so. Statistics show that inexperienced younger drivers are more susceptible to distractions, which is why the state already imposes restrictions on them.
After trying unsuccessfully in the past to get a statewide ban on cell phone use by all drivers, Rep. Carol Owens (R-Oshkosh) is proposing a law to create penalties for using a cell phone if it contributes to an accident. Last year, Glendale directed police officers to ticket drivers talking on cell phones if they are involved in an accident or stopped for another violation.
We supported that measure because we thought it would provide a useful test. City Attorney John Fuchs says no such tickets have been issued yet, adding that the ordinance is very new. At the very least, Owens should wait and see how this law works.
Based on comments from State Patrol officers, we believe the law Owens proposes would be impractical to enforce because it can be difficult to determine beyond a doubt that use of the phone contributed to the accident or whether the driver was even on the phone at the moment he or she lost control of the vehicle.
A far better alternative would be to update the current law on inattentive driving to address the many distractions now posed by changing technology.
Other law enforcement officials - including two members of the State Patrol with whom we spoke, Maj. Dennis Lonsdorf, state director of transportation safety, and Casey Perry, executive director of the Wisconsin Troopers Association - don't think it's a good idea to single out cell phones.
They point out that while some drivers abuse cell phones - troopers annually issue about 9,600 violations for all forms of inattentive driving - cell phones also make roads safer by allowing responsible motorists to quickly alert law enforcement to emergencies and traffic hazards. That includes everything from drunken and reckless drivers to accidents, stranded motorists and debris in the road.
In fact, Perry and Lonsdorf say that when drivers using cell phones alert law enforcement to a drunken driver, oftentimes the dispatcher will suggest the drivers stay on their cell phones behind the vehicle to help a state trooper or sheriff's deputy pinpoint the location.
In short, both said the advantages of cell phones for drivers outweigh the disadvantages, a position we have long taken on this admittedly controversial issue.
Some safety experts say that if drivers have to use their phone for something important, such as reporting an accident, they should pull over to the side of the road. But Lonsdorf says the State Patrol doesn't recommend doing that on busy highways or freeways because that can pose an even greater risk
This, of course, does not mean that talking on a cell phone does not take at least some of a driver's concentration off the road. Common sense tells us yes, and most studies back that up. And we would certainly agree that as cell phones become more common, they are undoubtedly being abused by a growing number of drivers who use the phones for prolonged, clearly non-critical conversations. Some firms have even told their employees not to conduct business on their cell phones while driving.
Four states - New York was the first - and the District of Columbia have banned the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. The results have been mixed. After the first year in New York, many drivers went back to using hand-held phones. Some studies indicate that talking on a hands-free phone is just as risky because the driver is concentrating on the conversation rather than the road.
Furthermore, some research shows that talking on a phone is not even the most dangerous distraction. A study last year, conducted in part by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that cell phones were the most common distraction but by no means the most dangerous.
Reaching for a moving object increased the risk of a crash nine times while talking on a cell phone increased the risk only three times. Eating, drinking, grooming, adjusting music or audio controls and reading all were riskier than talking on a phone.
All the more reason not to single out cell phones. Rather, update the existing inattentive driving law to, among other things, identify which electronic devices are safe to use in a car. Legislators are attempting to do that, and it should be the priority.
For more information, go to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Web site at www.aaafoundation.org and the Federal Highway Administration Web site at www.fhwa.dot.gov
Driving and talking on a cell phone can be risky. But given other distractions and the benefits of cell phones on the road, it doesn't make sense to ban them or single them out for special enforcement. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Posted: Feb. 3, 2007
When Dennis Hughes climbs behind the wheel, he makes sure his cell phone is off. And it stays off until he gets to where he's going. That makes sense, right? After all, just the other day, there was that guy in the blue SUV ahead of you, his cell phone pressed to his ear, blabbing away, not paying attention to his driving. At least that's how it seemed.
There oughta be a law, you say?
Well, not so fast. First off, you should know that Hughes is the chief of safety policy analysis for the state Department of Transportation. But you should also know that despite his job title and his personal feelings about cell phones, Hughes does not think people should be prohibited from using them while driving.
And neither do we. At least not without a lot more information and further studies conclusively showing that cell phones are causing more accidents than other distractions.
As Hughes notes, talking on cell phones is only one of many things distracting drivers, and, so far, he has not seen any "good data" to suggest that phones pose more of a problem on Wisconsin roads than other distractions to warrant a ban or other regulations. In fact, he and others say other distractions are more common.
What's more, there already is a state law against inattentive driving, whether the driver is weaving across lanes or, worse, the center line because he or she is talking on a cell phone, reading a book, eating a cheeseburger or, yes, shaving or applying makeup.
We do believe that inexperienced young drivers should not be allowed to talk on cell phones while driving, and we have supported a proposal by Rep. Jerry Petrowski (R-Marathon) to ban drivers younger than 18 from doing so. Statistics show that inexperienced younger drivers are more susceptible to distractions, which is why the state already imposes restrictions on them.
After trying unsuccessfully in the past to get a statewide ban on cell phone use by all drivers, Rep. Carol Owens (R-Oshkosh) is proposing a law to create penalties for using a cell phone if it contributes to an accident. Last year, Glendale directed police officers to ticket drivers talking on cell phones if they are involved in an accident or stopped for another violation.
We supported that measure because we thought it would provide a useful test. City Attorney John Fuchs says no such tickets have been issued yet, adding that the ordinance is very new. At the very least, Owens should wait and see how this law works.
Based on comments from State Patrol officers, we believe the law Owens proposes would be impractical to enforce because it can be difficult to determine beyond a doubt that use of the phone contributed to the accident or whether the driver was even on the phone at the moment he or she lost control of the vehicle.
A far better alternative would be to update the current law on inattentive driving to address the many distractions now posed by changing technology.
Other law enforcement officials - including two members of the State Patrol with whom we spoke, Maj. Dennis Lonsdorf, state director of transportation safety, and Casey Perry, executive director of the Wisconsin Troopers Association - don't think it's a good idea to single out cell phones.
They point out that while some drivers abuse cell phones - troopers annually issue about 9,600 violations for all forms of inattentive driving - cell phones also make roads safer by allowing responsible motorists to quickly alert law enforcement to emergencies and traffic hazards. That includes everything from drunken and reckless drivers to accidents, stranded motorists and debris in the road.
In fact, Perry and Lonsdorf say that when drivers using cell phones alert law enforcement to a drunken driver, oftentimes the dispatcher will suggest the drivers stay on their cell phones behind the vehicle to help a state trooper or sheriff's deputy pinpoint the location.
In short, both said the advantages of cell phones for drivers outweigh the disadvantages, a position we have long taken on this admittedly controversial issue.
Some safety experts say that if drivers have to use their phone for something important, such as reporting an accident, they should pull over to the side of the road. But Lonsdorf says the State Patrol doesn't recommend doing that on busy highways or freeways because that can pose an even greater risk
This, of course, does not mean that talking on a cell phone does not take at least some of a driver's concentration off the road. Common sense tells us yes, and most studies back that up. And we would certainly agree that as cell phones become more common, they are undoubtedly being abused by a growing number of drivers who use the phones for prolonged, clearly non-critical conversations. Some firms have even told their employees not to conduct business on their cell phones while driving.
Four states - New York was the first - and the District of Columbia have banned the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. The results have been mixed. After the first year in New York, many drivers went back to using hand-held phones. Some studies indicate that talking on a hands-free phone is just as risky because the driver is concentrating on the conversation rather than the road.
Furthermore, some research shows that talking on a phone is not even the most dangerous distraction. A study last year, conducted in part by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that cell phones were the most common distraction but by no means the most dangerous.
Reaching for a moving object increased the risk of a crash nine times while talking on a cell phone increased the risk only three times. Eating, drinking, grooming, adjusting music or audio controls and reading all were riskier than talking on a phone.
All the more reason not to single out cell phones. Rather, update the existing inattentive driving law to, among other things, identify which electronic devices are safe to use in a car. Legislators are attempting to do that, and it should be the priority.
For more information, go to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Web site at www.aaafoundation.org and the Federal Highway Administration Web site at www.fhwa.dot.gov
Labels: Carol Owens, Gordon Hintz
posted by Vincent at 7:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home