| UPDATED: Distracted driving legislation planned in BG |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by HAROLD BROWN/Sentinel City Editor | |
| Monday, 18 June 2012 21:55 | |
The decision followed a meeting of council's Transportation and Safety Committee Monday night. The session was attended by all seven council members. Committee Chairperson Daniel Gordon is promoting the proposal, saying he does not believe the state's recent ban on texting while driving is enough. He also said that many other communities in Ohio and across the country already have the legislation. "This has been on the books a long time. We just don't have it in Bowling Green," Gordon said. "This is a broad statute that is used in many other places," City Prosecutor Matt Reger said. "It is self-explanatory. It requires the full time and attention in the operation of any vehicle. It has been found constitutional." Reger said the measure would be a non-point violation and would cover all vehicles, including bicycles. "I did not support the texting ban. It is not enforceable. I do support this," Police Chief Brad Conner said. In more than 30 years of police work Conner said he has seen drivers putting on lipstick, shaving, fixing their hair and having intimate relations. "It may just be used as an educational (traffic) stop. It will be up to the officer's discretion." Conner said traffic warnings issued by BG police "far outnumber citations." Some council members expressed concern about people being stopped for eating, disciplining a child, changing the radio or talking to a passenger. Conner said the law would be a tool for police officers but would not be used as a targeting device. Gordon said he sees the proposal as a combination of education and law enforcement. At-Large Council Member Bruce Jeffers said discussion with Gordon in recent months has led him to pay attention to distractions while he is driving. "I notice when I am not paying attention." Jeffers said he would feel more comfortable if it were a statewide law. "I think it is better not to go from town to town and have different laws. That's just a strong feeling I have." Gordon said more communities having a law should help make it a state law. "At least 22 towns in Ohio have the law." Council will not meet July 2, at the suggestion of Mayor Richard Edwards, meaning citizens will have a month to comment before council officially takes up the issue. Council plans to give just one reading per meeting, meaning no vote would be taken before the Aug. 20 meeting. Council also: • Approved a resolution opposing the central collection of municipal income taxes by the state. • Approved an ordinance granting a parking easement and an access easement to Vehteck Systems Inc. The firm, located in WoodBridge Business Park, will use the land to help handle parking for employees as part of its expansion project. The city will have access to maintain Poe Ditch north of the plant. • Approved interim zoning of B-2, general commercial for annexed property at 17411 N. Main St. |
|
| Last Updated on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 09:38 |
Front Page Stories
| BG schools to discuss redistricting 05/21/2013 | MARIE THOMAS BAIRD Sentinel Education Editor  Bowling Green School District plans to change the boundaries for its elementary school [ ... ] |
Perrysburg school forecast predicts budget surplus 05/21/2013 | PETER KUEBECK Sentinel Staff Writer  PERRYSBURG - The school district is expected to run a budget surplus for the next four [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles | ||
Comments
This is completely un-necessary!
I'd hate to be pulled over because I take a swig of soda. And I'd really hate to be lectured by a police officer because I enjoy a soda on my drive. Especially if I have not done anything to cause them to believe I was "distracted".
Again, if one is following all the rules of the road (minus this ordinance), has someone committed a crime? If there are no victims, is their a crime?
I appreciate your sentiment and your observations as to people weaving all over the road. However, statistics based on police reports and individual research from many organizations, including government departments do NOT conclude the same as you.
What "feels" right, isn't always the right thing to do. Countless hours of research is being dismissed.
If you would like, I will gladly provide all links to such research for you to draw your own conclusions on the data.
Also....when did I mention a straw involved with my soda? Sorry I wasn't more detailed, but I tend to drink 20oz Diet Cokes, which have screw tops. Slightly more "distracting" than some fast food cup with a straw.
Please don't attack me, with "made up" percentages, without at least trying to debate what I actually state.
Again, if there are no victims, there is no crime. Basis of Law.
Nathan: The flaw in your argument is that you make the incorrect assumption that a person can look away from the road for 5-10 seconds while trying to send a text, and still maintain the precise control that you mention. Try it once. Head down the road at 65 MPH, look at your phone and send a text message, then tell me that there was absolutely NO change in your driving pattern. It's virtually impossible to do. I'm sure you will tell me that YOU can do it, but from what I see on the road, no one else can say the same!
Now, I have texted while driving. However, I did not direct all my attention to the text. I had a blackberry which has a very easy to use qwerty keypad. Anyone with advanced typing skills does not need to look at the keyboard or keypad to write. I had spelling mistakes, but I didn't take my eyes off the road. Now that I have a different phone, which is all touch screen, I can not do so.
Problem is people lack real driving skills to begin with. And now they can learn online.
Our police force are not educators. They are there to enforce real laws, and to solve crimes. They are not there to stop people and tell them that picking up the cell phone is a bad idea.
We have too many other REAL crimes and REAL victims in our city to dedicate time away to have cops on the force acting as teachers.
distracting thing while Driving puts you and everone else in grave danger,,,,
However, that chance is not like 95% higher, 80% higher, or even 50% higher chance. Further, the actual chance is much lower than one may think.
Trying to put together the NTSB (government sponsored research) to have for presentation. Many will be surprised. The money it will take to enforce will definitely require additional revenue and appropriations. I know many may wish for police to be used for solving crimes and being on watch for theft, burglary, and vandalism. Especially since those things happen much more often than car accidents.
I give you this question: How many accidents in BG have occurred in the last 12 months? Out of those, how many were caused by texting?
The first statistic will be easy to find. However, the second one, magically, does not have an answer from the BGPD.
How do we know this is a problem about recent burglaries and vandalism? How do we know that the BGPD should be stopping people to teach them a lesson as opposed to securing neighborhoods from recent break-ins?
Having had family involved in serious car accidents, I don't take distractions or driving drunk lightly.
However, I don't see value in spending money we DONT have as a city on cops spending their days stopping people who are not causing any accidents.
As to your expertise at texting while driving, please explain how you can open up your communicator, select a recipient, then type text without taking your eyes off the road for more than 1 second. Maybe you do it over the course of several minutes. Fine. Keep in mind that most people are way too impatient for that method. They want to get it done NOW. And that means taking their eyes off of the road for much too long. If a hefty ticket waits in the wings for them, maybe they will think twice!
Think of it this way. Before one might have the phone up near the steering wheel, so line of sight was still on the road. Now, due to this ban, they will try to hide their use of the phone, prolonging time and eyes off the road.
This is what the study found. The intended behavior to be changed didn't change, but rather became more dangerous.
A heavy ticket doesn't work, nor does taking their license away. If that were the case, we wouldn't have drunk drivers.
Point is, look at the Blotter. I see more break ins and burglaries in town than accidents.
I say as a home owner and resident, I would hope resources would be more on basic patrol. Not spent telling someone on a bike that they shouldn't use their phone (read the article, as applies to bicycles).
We have enough waste of money and resources in town. Why allow more. Why not allow private companies to continue their messages and education against driving and texting? Those that choose to text will do so with or without the ban and danger (like I have).
Sometimes that means more likely accidents, and in other times it means absolutely nothing.
Be aware, unless you are studying all cars on the road, and the activites of those drivers, saying "too often" means nothing. The vast majority of drivers do not cause harm or drive wrecklesly.
ENFORCING laws actually does alter behavior. Unfortunately, there will always be a segment of society who believe they can and will do anything they please. Regardless of how serious people view the law broken.
PLease, I ask that you study the issue further, and be open to all sources of information.
This issue is too important to be based on emotion and what you think (as it was with City Council. They did everything based on what they thought, rather than data).
The proof is there. Yes, some will cause an accident because they are unwise and text while driving and take complete eyes of the road for more than 1 second. However, the ban causes people to hide their activity, causing their eyes and attention to be further from the road. Simple logic points to that leading to worse issues.
There will be worse accidents due to the state and BG ban. Not less per se, but definitely worse. But the ban won't be blamed.
This is the approach we need to take with texting. We won't pull people over because you might be texting, but if you are in an accident and you are texting - kiss you license and your car away for a long, long time, and be prepared to pay a 4 (maybe 5) digit fine. It might also be a good way to raise some revenue for the city. We need some money to pay for the lazy river!
Same goes for putting on your makeup or talking on a cellphone. Driving a car is a dangerous activity - 12 deaths in Wood County already in 2012. It should be treated as such.
I like you thought. It should be based on action, not what might happen.
To do anything else takes resources away from crimes being committed and people being harmed.
RSS feed for comments to this post.