05/27/08
My Editorial on Their Editorial -
Categories: I subscribe to The Garland News, print and on-line versions. I think it's great that we have a source of news dedicated entirely to our community.
This week's edition contains an article on cell phones in school zones and a related editorial. They address a report given by the Council's Public Safety Committee, which I chair. The headline of the article inaccurately states that "Cell phones in school zones get green light." The law has not changed and no one is urging cell phone use in school zones. Quite the opposite.
[First, I need to point out that I work in the wireless telecom industry, usually related to the infrastructure of cell phone companies. I have nothing to do with cell phones sales or marketing. I always avoid possible conflicts of interest but cannot make a connection this time that disqualifies me. Since I only deal with infrastructure, no ban constrained to a couple hundred yards of right of way could affect me. However, I still think it important that readers be aware and able to draw their own conclusions.]
A number of headlines have addressed a trend among Metroplex cities that are considerng banning the use of cell phones in school zones, and some have expanded it to construction zones. While we are now hearing about it locally, it is actually a nationwide trend.
Mayor Ron Jones assigned the question of passing a local ordinance to the Public Safety Committee. The committee met with Police Chief Mitch Bates and others and, after lengthy discussion, decided to recommend to Council that no action be taken at this time. As related in the article, Chief Bates reported that since 2006 there had been eight accidents where cell phone use was suspected as a contributing factor. None were in school zones. When doing on-line research for such accidents, I could barely find even anecdotal reports of such accidents, even though there were multiple reports of using a cell phone to report an accident in a school zone, a bus driver cited for using a cell phone, and numerous reports of drugs contributing to accidents in school zones, as well as distributing in school zones.
The committee agreed that cell phones could cause drivers to be less attentive. However, a long list of other distractions were identified: applying makeup, eating, reading the paper or a map or something else, changing radio stations or CD's, distractions from a spouse, children, or pets, operating a computer or the new navigation devices, getting something from the glove box or another area — and the list could be expanded. One suggestion by the paper was the distraction of lighting a cigarette.
The obvious problem is any distraction, not just cell phones. Many ordinances exempt hands-free use of cell phones, yet the use is equally distracting. Entering or reading a text message is probably much worse. However, neither could easily be detected by police and might be extremely difficult to prove without a search warrant to obtain cell phone records. Even then a discrepancy of even a minute would render the evidence useless.
|
To address the actual problem, avoiding distractions in school zones, the committee felt the best approach is stiff enforcement and more education. Fines are already escalated for school zone violations. Also, the Garland PD is enforcing school zones every school day. To make drivers more aware, all school zones have been clearly marked, one of Garland's recent accomplishments. Crossing guards are trained and clearly identifiable.
I pass through a minimum of two or three school zones almost every morning on school days, often as many in the afternoon. I always observe the speed limit (in school zones) and will often give a violator a "toot" of the horn to alert them. I don't remember any of those speeders being on a phone but I doubt it is too uncommon.
Another suggestion discussed in committee was to use small speed warning signs that would flash a driver's speed. If moved from school zone to school zone, they might make drivers more cognizant of their actual speed. The committee and staff agreed to study and identify further suggestions and present them at a future meeting.
The newspaper editorial referenced a University of Utah study that equated driving while talking on a cell phone as worse than driving drunk. The study clearly establishes that talking on a cell phone is a distraction. There are some problems applying the study to this discussion though. One is that all the driving tests were conducted in a simulator at speeds above 50 miles per hour. For example, I reviewed another study that found bicyclists do not suffer the same problems with distraction identified in the Utah study because they are moving much slower and have more time to react, not unlike the conditions in a school zone. Another consideration is that a cell phone user is distracted, not impaired. A cell phone user can immediately redirect his attention, a drunk driver cannot. Test subjects did not have the option to just stop talking or hang up. They were required by the test to talk first, drive second, which may not have been their normal way of dealing with the distraction.
I agree the study partially established what we all expected, that talking while driving can be a distraction, whether on the phone or to a passenger, but it's applicability to this situation is limited because all distractions are the problem. Attempting to regulate cell phone usage would have only minimal effect on the risks from distracted drivers. The number of accident cases nationwide caused by cell phone users in school zones appears to be less than the cities in Dallas County that have adapted such bans, not many.
The argument has been made that preventing any such accident is worth the effort. There is certainly an emotional component of that argument that is compelling. However, I don't support passing an ordinance at this time for three reasons:
- The problem is driving while distracted. A ban on cell phones would be only partially enforceable and would do nothing to address all the other sources of distraction. Education seems a far more effective tool, such as clearly alerting drivers to upcoming school zones and marking them clearly.
- While the problem of a distracted cell phone user is imaginable, there is hardly any evidence of the problem existing. It seems akin to the reports a few years ago of cell phones causing explosions at gas stations — not one such case worldwide was ever identified. It was another Urban Legend.
- An ordinance that gives a false sense of security, a "feel good" ordinance, is more harmful than no ordinance at all. Clearly no parent is going to tell their children that they no longer have to look both ways when crossing a street because 1) drivers can only go 20 mph, and 2) they can't use their cell phones. We must all remain diligent when traversing school zones! No law or ordinance will ever equal personal diligence.
We need to pass laws and ordinances that are effective. We shouldn't legislate against legends.
UPDATE: I've learned that Council member Darren Lathen also expressed his take on this question here.
