The Council held a public hearing at its last regular meeting on the use of cell phones in school districts. Some Metroplex cities have banned the use of portable phones in school zones but have not banned hands-free use. Highland Park and Dallas seem to be the two cities that have garnered the most media coverage.
 
The subject was initially assigned by Mayor Ron Jones to the Public Services Committee, which I chair. After discussion with police and other staff members, the committee recommended to the Council no action at this time.
 
That recommendation elicited an article and editorial in the May 22 issue of The Garland News (available to logged-in online subscribers here). I posted a response to the editorial here, which was later reprinted (with permission) in the paper's June 5 issue (subscribers).
 
Mayor Jones told the Council that he had received numerous calls and e-mails on the subject and opted to discuss the issue at a subsequent work session and then the public hearing. Three people spoke at the public hearing: one in favor of a ban, one opposed to all cell phone use while driving, and a third opposing a ban.
 
The public hearing was covered in The Garland News here (subscribers) and in the Metro section of today's Dallas Morning News (apparently not available online).
 
In one, Mayor Jones is reported to favor a ban, to be consistent with what other area cities are doing.
 
I assume the theory for area-wide bans is to increase effectiveness through familiarity by local and area drivers. There may be precedents for this theory. When Garland first installed red light cameras, violations were numerous. As public discussion increased and other nearby cities added cameras, the number of violations fell dramatically. Credit to some degree may be due to wider awareness of red light cameras across the area.
 

Source: www.alphabetsigns.com

I am in favor of a similar approach to help curtail thefts of copper and other recycleable metals. Stricter limits in only one or two cities would only hurt local businesses as thieves and legitimate recyclers moved to those businesses that provided the easiest, least-restricted deals.
 
However, there is no indication that the cell phones bans that currently exist in a few cities actually have any effect.
 
First, they attempt to regulate what appears to be a non-existent problem, cell phones users running over pedestrians in school zones. I haven't been able to find a case and no one else has come forward with a case where a cell phone user struck a pedestrian in a school zone while on the phone.
 
Second, the premise is that cell phone users may be so distracted that they will unknowingly speed through a school zone, striking a pedestrian. There are studies that demonstrate cell phone users are distracted and I doubt any of us would disagree based on personal experience. But I know of no studies that show cell phone users are more distracted than all the other distractions that drivers experience, such as talking with passengers, listening to music or talk radio, lighting a cigarette, dropping the lit cigarette in your lap, worrying about being late, or putting on make-up or checking hair in the rearview mirror.
 
How is talking to someone out of the car more distracting than talking to someone in the car? For someone in the car, you might be tempted to turn your eyes from the roadway but not for someone not there. Which is the more dangerous?
 
I cannot recommend copying another city simply to be consistent. I'm happy to copy good laws but I'm not representing my constituents well if I subject them to bad laws or laws without effect.
 
The situation is emotional. Who wouldn't want to do all we can to protect children?
 
Garland does more than most cities to protect children in crosswalks. The city hires crossing guards, not the school district. We supply them with bright, florescent orange jackets and vests. We use large, bright, florescent signs to alert drivers that there is a crossing. We use flashing amber lights to get the driver's attention. The crossings are marked on the pavement.
 
I suggested exploring avenues to further educate drivers of the dangers of distractions, all distractions. I suggested using portable radar speed signs (in my post linked above) to give instant feedback to all drivers as to their speed.
 
Let's step back from the emotion for a moment. No guards or signs or warnings at crossings would be the worst scenario. Prohibiting cars in active school zones would be the ultimate solution but that would be the same as pulling up the draw bridge on almost every route through the city. Practical solutions must be found somewhere within that spectrum.
 
Prohibiting distractions sounds like a good idea but how do you enforce it? And if you are to prohibit distractions, why narrow it to just one? And if you are going to narrow to just one, why narrow it to just handheld phones, not to hands-free? How effective is that, a whole gambut of distractions narrowed to a partial one that is difficult to enforce and would distract officers from catching speeders?
 
A positive approach is to do all we can to alert drivers, to get their attention, to overcome distractions, which is what we currently do. For tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of pedestrians in school crossings every year, it works.
 
We can do more by educating drivers to make them aware of the distractions and by educating pedestrians to constantly be on guard.
 
I suggest the conversation of a ban is highly more effective than a ban.