I posted yesterday about the Council's decision to not go forward with a cell phone ban in school zones. And I've posted updates on the progress of the issue as it was considered (links below).
 
Mayor Ron Jones said other cities were considering such a ban and asked the Public Safety Committee to review it. As the chair, we did review it with Chief Mitch Bates and other Police Dept personnel. We were unable to find a single report anywhere of someone hitting a pedestrian in a school zone while on a cell phone. There were numerous reports of accidents in school zones being reported by cell phone owners.
 

Work session testimony by Police Dept

The Chief also reported that in Garland since 2005, there were maybe eight cases where a cell phone was suspected of contributing to an accident.
 
The Committee recommended to Council that no action be taken at this time. Everyone on the Council seemed to accept that recommendation.
 
Then Mayor Jones said he had received citizen requests, so he scheduled the item for a work session. Comments were made but no action was suggested by anyone. There did not appear to be support for ineffective but emotionally-directed ordinances.
 
Then the Mayor chose to have a public hearing. Only three people spoke: one for a ban, one against all cell phone use while driving, and one against. Speakers were questioned and Council members made comments, but no action was suggested.
 
Then in a surprise move, Mayor Jones asked the City Attorney to draft an ordinance and he placed it on last night's agenda. Two of the same people spoke again. When no other speakers were present for the item, in a space of about five seconds, he noted that no Council member had indicated a desire to speak and he moved on to the next item. I think reluctance to jump in and repeat all the previous comments once again, to recap at least two opinion pieces by Council members in the media, and several news articles and editorials, was not an attractive option when no one had expressed support for the proposal or advocated having another public hearing.
 
Over 25,000 people live in District 1. I heard from almost no one on this subject even though I've been very forward on reporting about it and about my concerns with the inappropriateness of a ban that addresses only a fraction of the possible distractions — and then carves down that one distraction to only those drivers that use the phone as a handheld, exempting hands-free and text-messaging. I also posted on my preference that we use proactive ways to protect our children from all distractions, which I think we are doing well presently, but I've suggested ways we can do more. No one has asked to explore those suggestions.
 
I have heard from a few people on the item that live in Garland and virtually all were opposed to the idea, with one even suggesting it was a plot to raise money for the budget.
 
I had expected to let this sleeping dog slumber but an article, currently posted online, will apparently appear in Thursday's Dallas Morning News, probably the Metro section. I was actually surprised to hear Mayor Jones express such strong sentiments about the ban because he did not express those same feelings to the Council during any of the times the item was discussed.
 
I'm also surprised that Mayor Jones, as reported, disparages the Council's actions. It is incumbent on all Council members to respect the actions by other Council members, whether we agree or not. Like in District 1, those other members sit as the representative of over 25,000 people. To disparage a member is to disparage those that selected the representative, the citizens we swore to serve.
 
I feel the Council showed a great deal of maturity and principle not acting on the ban at this time. Even though the DMN article lists other cities that have enacted bans recently, there are over 100 cities and towns nearby in North Texas. The vast majority have chosen to not enact such a ban. Enacting the ban just because others have invites the fate lemmings too often share.
 
I'll admit this for the record: I have no herd in me. I think the Council has demonstrated time and again that each member is an independent thinker that reports only to his or her constituents. You see friends on this Council but you don't see blocs. Having the principles and fortitude to resist passing "feel good" ordinances bodes well for Garland, that this Council will do the hard work and make the hard decisions so we can accomplish the work that we were elected to do.
 
The Council not reacting to this "hot potato" demonstrates leadership and I am anything but disappointed.
 

Garland steers clear of a cellphone ban in school zones

09:02 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 16, 2008
By FRANK TREJO / The Dallas Morning News
ftrejo@dallasnews.com
 
Garland isn’t jumping on the bandwagon to ban the use of handheld cellphones by drivers in school zones.
 
City Council members Tuesday night took no action on a measure brought to them by Mayor Ronald Jones, effectively killing the proposal for now.
 
“I was surprised and disappointed that eight people on the council chose to not even debate it,” Mr. Jones said, referring to the fact that no council member moved to vote on the issue. As mayor, Mr. Jones cannot make such a motion.
 
The failure to act on an agenda item was a rarity in Garland, he said.
 
The North Texas movement to ban the use of handheld cellphones in school zones began when Highland Park approved a measure in November, followed a month later by University Park. Officials in both cities stressed that the ordinances were aimed at improving public safety, though some critics noted that no major problems had been reported in school zones and that the laws did not address cellphone use in other parts of the cities.
 
Dallas and Duncanville approved similar laws in February, followed by Flower Mound in March, Highland Village in April, Rowlett in June, Wylie several weeks ago and Sachse last week.
 
Mr. Jones said he first brought the issue to the Garland council in April, when he referred it to the council’s public safety committee. He said numerous residents had expressed concern about the safety of children in school zones because of drivers distracted by use of handheld phones. And he noted that other area mayors also were looking into similar measures.
 
Last month, after the council discussed the matter in a work session and held a public hearing, Mr. Jones said that cellphone use in school zones was a major concern for him and that the best approach would be for all cities in the region to tackle the problem.
 
The mayor noted that the Garland school district also serves students in Rowlett and Sachse, cities that have approved bans.
 
But some Garland council members expressed reservations about how big a problem cellphone use in school zones was, and some questioned whether a ban only in school zones was the right way to deal with a distraction that happens on roads everywhere.
 
Council member Douglas Athas said it would be improper for the city to enact an ordinance to address a problem for which there is no documented proof.
 
“It was a preventative law at best, for something we apparently don’t have a problem with, which is cellphone users running over pedestrians in school zones,” he said.
 
Last month during a work session, Police Chief Mitch Bates told council members that in the last 2 1/2 years, the city had recorded eight traffic accidents in which cellphone use was a factor. None occurred in a school zone.
 
Mr. Athas also said the proposed cellphone ordinance would address only one of many possible distractions, from reading newspapers to putting on makeup while driving.
 
Fellow council member Rick Williams said last month that the proposed ordinance would address the problem only within school zones, and not outside them. He said the danger comes from drivers who are so distracted while using cellphones outside school zones that they speed through the zones without slowing down.
 
Mr. Jones expects the issue of cellphone use in school zones to come up again sometime.
 
“I think a future council, or maybe even this one, will approve such an ordinance,” he said. “It will happen one day. It just didn’t happen this time.”
 

2 comments

Comments:

Comment from: Scott [Visitor]

The city would be better served if it were able to better enforce the current law of 20 mph in school zones. I drive through several school zones each day and I would say that speeding, not cell phone use, is the most dangerous problem today. If the city can get the police department to more stringently enforce the speed limit in the school zones, the kids, crossing guards, and other adults will be much safer. Banning cell phone use will be another law that will be ignored by drivers, difficult to police, and probably do nothing to make people safer. Enforce the laws on the books now, don't create another useless law.

07/17/08 @ 16:28

Comment from: robert [Visitor]

Great job Doug. We do not need to create useless laws based on knee jerk reactions from other local governments to appear that Garland is joining up with the group to make life safer and secure themselves votes in a future election. The majority is not always right ie: George Bushes second term

07/17/08 @ 23:06

Comments are closed for this post.