I have no doubt that everyone on the Council and in the city wants to protect our residents and especially our children. At Monday's work session, Mayor Ron Jones chose to place an item on the agenda to again discuss whether the city should erect signs at school zones prohibiting the use of cell phones. Once again, by a 6-3 consensus the Council chose to not do so. Those choosing to not place the signs are as emphatically pro-safety as anyone else and I believe have the superior argument for safety.
 
I've posted on this exact subject a number of times—before there was a state law and after. The Council has held numerous hearings and discussions. Each time the Council has looked at the data and chosen to not bring forth an ordinance.
 
Today was a bit more unusual than those previous times as I was contacted by the Dallas Morning News and TV channels 4, 8, and 11. In the sound-bite era of news, it is impossible to give a clear message on why most of our Council and I don't think the signs are effective.
 
With the exception of Fox 4 News, which was live, you won't see it in print or hear it in the interviews but I told each outlet that Garland does more for child safety and to protect children than any other North Texas city, and probably most in the state:

• Garland is the most proactive checking on registered sex offenders and verifying their whereabouts, four times more so than most cities. We have police officers that spend most of their time visiting and checking on RSO's. Up-to-date information on each one is posted on the police department website.
• Garland was the first city in the state, and probably the nation, to establish no-loitering zones for registered sex offenders around all areas where children typically congregate.
• Garland is unique in that Garland Police Officers, our school resource officers, are in the schools instead of security officers. When security in most schools has to stop at the property line, Garland officers have much more legal power and can pursue to the state line and keep going.
• Garland clearly marks each school crossing, places large, florescent signs pointing to the crossing, has flashing amber lights when the school zone is active, and has crossing guards that are dressed to be seen, including flashing lights on their vests.

All this is at city expense, not the school district, although GISD does pay 50% of the salaries for the officers.
 
What is the effectiveness of the signs? We do know:

• No one, from the police to the media, has shown one report of anyone being struck in a school zone by a driver that was using a cell phone, anywhere in the country.
• That while cell phones can certainly be a distraction—and one study showed them to be the most common distraction—that same study placed them at 7% of the common distractions to drivers. Fully 93% of the common distractions wouldn't be affected, like changing radio stations or eating or putting on makeup or shaving or talking to someone else in the car. Yes, another study showed that talking to someone else in the car was equal to the distraction of talking on a cell phone.
• Another study showed that in several states that have banned all cell phone use while driving, there was no decrease in accidents.

Local police can enforce any law that threatens our children and other pedestrians, whether it is speeding or any reckless driving. With the signs, police are suddenly obligated to chase cell phone users that might be in perfect control of their vehicle. While issuing that ticket, there is no one looking for speeders and genuinely reckless drivers.
 
Most people don't know it but the signs don't make using a cell phone illegal. The signs only make using hand-held phones illegal. State law provides that anyone using a hands-free phone is perfectly legal. Yet if using a cell phone should be banned because it is a distraction, why is it okay to be distracted in one case and not the other? Add hands-free phones to the list of unregulated distractions and suddenly far more than 93% of the common distractions are all okay.
 
One headline, from the online Channel 11 story, says that Garland allows texting in school zones but that is completely untrue. Every Council member has expressed concerns about the dangers presented by people texting yet police have virtually no way of knowing someone is texting. No one holds the phone to their head to text. Texting is the newest worry of insurance companies and should worry all of us, especially those in a crosswalk.
 
At the work session, both Police Chief Mitch Bates and City Attorney Brad Neighbor testified that enforcement would be problematic. How do you prove someone was talking on a cell phone? What if someone just said they were listening to music? Today's cell phones are multifunctional, with plenty of legitimate uses besides talking. Texting is probably the most dangerous and the least detectable.
 
Garland was the first city in Texas to install red light cameras. They very successfully changed driver behavior so that today Garland pays as much to operate the cameras as we collect in fines because violations have dropped so drastically. Similarly, if the signs incite drivers to change their behavior and switch to hands-free calling, soon there will be the same number of drivers using cell phones in school zones 100% legally as there are today. What will the signs have accomplished but to sell bluetooth devices and to make it harder to spot drivers that may be distracted?
 
Some say, what can it hurt putting up the signs? It increases the odds of a child being hurt. The signs send a message that a school zone is suddenly safer. Clearly from all the data above that is not true. As drivers switch to perfectly legal hands-fee devices, the danger is as great as ever. Even if all drivers voluntary refrained from using a cell phone at all, the danger from distracted drivers would only drop a few percentage points.
 
Perhaps these facts are counter-intuitive to some. If asked which children are more at risk, those on a through street with intersections at the ends of the block or those in a cul-de-sac, most people would probably guess the cul-de-sac children are safer. After all, less traffic and slower, right? In fact, a study shows that children on cul-de-sacs were more likely to be injured by a moving vehicle. No real conclusions were made but it was suggested that parents thought their children were safer and probably took less caution, often with deadly consequences, especially children under five.
 
It would be reckless and irresponsible to tell people that school zones are safer because there are now cell-phone signs. It would be a lie, too.
 
Everyone needs to remain as diligent as ever when crossing the street anywhere. Fortunately, because drivers drop their speeds to 20 mph, because there are signs and markings to indicate where there is a school zone, because there are brightly-dressed crossing guards, the safest place to cross a street is a school crossing.
 
I was asked by Fox 4 News if I ever use a cell phone when in a school zone and I answered, "Of course not." Never? "No." I went on to say that I'm one of those people that will give other drivers that are going too fast a quick, friendly honk to alert them of where they are. Most seem to appreciate it because I doubt anyone wants to be speeding through a school zone. Of the many, many times I've honked, I don't recall one driver obviously using a cell phone. Most speeders are speeders and if they are distracted it is statistically most likely to be from the 93%-side of distractions.
 
Even with extensive safety devices and markings, and personnel, school zones remain dangerous places. I don't want to give any impression otherwise. Please drive safely; please avoid all distractions when near a school zone; and please help educate others.