Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPolicy Discussion regarding Cellular Phone - Distracted Driver Ordinance Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Ron Price, Chief of Police Dave McManis, Patrol Lieutenant SUBJECT: Distracted Driving MEETING DATE: October 3, 2011 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Policy Discussion RECOMMENDATION: Discuss issues surrounding distracted driving and the potential of an ordinance restricting cellular phone use. Provide direction to staff for future action as applicable. RECOMMENDED MOTION: No motion is necessary. This is a policy discussion that requires no formal action by the City Commission. BACKGROUND: In February 2010 The City of Bozeman 2010-2011 Work Plan was adopted and included a new policy initiative to “adopt an ordinance requiring all drivers to use hands-free devices while using their cellular phones and to prohibit texting while driving.” The issue was again placed on the 2011-2012 Work Plan as a 2nd Tier Initiative under the title of “Distracted Driver Ordinance.” During discussion of the 2011-2012 Work Plan, members of the commission directed the staff to survey and collect local data relating to reported cell phone use as the Bozeman Police Department investigated vehicle accidents. In addition, members of the Commission requested information as to the experiences of other Montana cities that have enacted ordinances that restrict cell phone use while driving. Municipal Ordinances The City of Missoula enacted an ordinance in 2009 that prohibits texting while driving. There have been less than 20 citations issued during that time and police officials stated that it is seldom enforced in great part due to the burdensome process of subpoenaing phone/text records. Ordinances in the cities of Whitefish, Butte-Silver Bow and Billings each contain very similar language. They prohibit the use (or actual physical possession) of a hand-held communication device while operating a vehicle. There are exceptions for persons reporting emergencies, authorized emergency vehicles, two-way radios and vehicles that are stopped and not in gear. The City of Billings Ordinance No. 10-5521, USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE, is attached as a representative sample of ordinance language. Below we provide a summary of the experiences of those three Montana communities that have adopted similar restrictions: Billings: The ordinance passed without significant controversy and has worked smoothly. It became effective in November, 2010 and since that time they have issued 322 citations and 94 warnings. Violations of this ordinance result in a civil penalty of $110. None of the citations have been contested. Butte-Silver Bow: This ordinance was enacted in May, 2011. During the first month the department issued 40 warnings. As of this date the department has issued six (6) citations. Violators of this ordinance are subject to a criminal conviction and a fine in the amount of $100. Whitefish: No enforcement action has taken place and the ordinance is not effective until September 20, 2011. Violations result in a civil penalty of not more than $100 for the first offense and not more than $300 for all repeat violations. Bozeman Traffic Study Officers of the Bozeman Police Department collected information pertaining to potential contributing factors in all reported accidents that occurred between February 1, 2011 and July 1, 2011. As part of their investigation, officers interviewed drivers and witnesses about causative factors and potential distractions including whether a cell phone was in use at the time of the accident. During the above time period officers responded to 558 reports of vehicle accidents. Driver carelessness was the single largest contributing factor (157) with unsafe backing being chief among them. Failure to Yield Right of Way (56) and Weather Conditions (56) were other significant contributors. Twenty (20) of the accidents resulted in arrests for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). During this study period there were twelve (12) instances where drivers were either talking on cell phones or were looking at them at the time of the accident. In two (2) of the cases the driver on the phone was identified as the non-fault driver. “Other Driver Distraction” was identified as a contributing factor in 29 of the accidents. These distractions included: reaching for item on seat or floor (9); other electronics (5); preparing to eat or drink (4); passengers (3); children (2); and others. Research In December 2010 I presented a memo to the commission that contained an overview of current research data as it pertains to cell phone use and distracted driving. The memo examined the body of research on distracted driving and presented a synopsis of some of the commonalities that were found. In July 2011the Governors Highway Safety Administration released the report, Distracted Driving: What Research Shows and What States Can Do. This report “reviews and summarizes distracted driving research…to inform states and other organizations as they consider distracted driving countermeasures.” The memo and the executive summary of the report are attached for review and reference. The issue of distracted driving, specifically cell phone use, has been part of the City of Bozeman Work Plan for the previous two years. At this time, and with the additional information provided, staff is requesting guidance on this policy decision. FISCAL EFFECTS: Although implementation of a Municipal Ordinance may have financial implications for the City and the community, this discussion phase has no immediate fiscal effect. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. Attachments: Memo to the City Commission, dated December 14, 2010 Distracted Driving: What Research Shows and What States Can Do City of Billings Ordinance No. 10-5521 Report compiled on: September 9, 2011 BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT RON PRICE, CHIEF OF POLICE 615 SOUTH 16TH AVE BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 (406) 582-2010 M E M O R A N D U M TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION FROM: RON PRICE RE: CELL PHONE ORDINANCE DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2010 In February 2010 The City of Bozeman 2010-2011 Work Plan was adopted and included a new policy initiative to “adopt an ordinance requiring all drivers to use hands-free devices while using their cellular phones and to prohibit texting while driving”. To date there has not been a policy discussion as it relates to this initiative. The intent of this memo is to provide a level of information and research data as it pertains to cell phone use and distracted driving. During 2009, cell phone distractions while driving hit our nation’s political and media agendas. Webster’s Dictionary named “distracted driving” it’s Word of the Year. Driver cell phone use has become symbolic of driver distraction—or arguably even of traffic safety in the eyes of the public. The call for legislative intervention, usually in the form of ordinances prohibiting use, continues to be raised. Currently there are nine states that ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. Additionally, use of cell phones by novice drivers is restricted in 28 states and the District of Columbia. There is an ever-growing body of research as it relates to cell phone use and distracted driving. There is some level of commonality found among the literature. It is generally accepted that a driver using a cell phone while driving is four times more likely to be involved in a traffic collision. Essential driving skills are degraded, including slower reaction time, diminished hazard perception and erratic lane positioning.1 Even though virtually all existing cell phone ordinances speak to 1 Caird, J. K., Scialfa, C. T., Ho, G., & Smiley, A. (2005). A meta-analysis of driving performance and crash risk associated with the use of cellular telephones while driving. http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/Resources/Documents/A meta-analysis of driving performance and crash risk associated with the use of cellular telephones while driving.pdf 200 hand-held devices, numerous studies have shown that there is no significant difference between using a hands-free or a hand-held cell phone.2 There is less data as it relates specifically to ordinances and their effectiveness at addressing distracted driving issues. The most significant research was published in December 2009 and examined collision claims and how those numbers were affected in jurisdictions that had enacted laws banning hand-held cell phone use. The research indicated that there was no indication of a decrease in crash risk when hand-held cell phone laws were enacted. An examination of the control states without laws had collision claim trends that were the same as those which had enacted hand-held bans. 3 The State of Washington was one of the first to enact a law addressing the use of hand-held cell phones. The Washington Traffic Safety Commission indicated that prior to the law, visual counts revealed cell phone use rates of approximately 6%. Shortly after the ban the rates were reduced to 4.5% and within several months had climbed back to their original levels. These numbers and trends are consistent with other state and national surveys4. Cell phone use is one of many activities that can lead to driver inattention. Research on distracted driving has indicated that it is often secondary to other activities such as eating or manipulating radios and other electronics5. There are existing laws that address distracted driving and improper operation of vehicles. These include careless driving, improper lane travel, and speed violations, to name only a few. These laws currently address the issues and are properly enforced. I have concerns about regulating only one component of the distracted driving issue and attempting to do so through an ordinance that is difficult to enforce and not shown to be effective. In short, I agree with a senior scientist that gave recommendations on the subject in a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Collect more data, punish violations of inattentive and reckless driving laws regardless of the causes of such behavior, and improve driver education. 2 National Safety Council (2010). Understanding the distracted brain: Why driving while using hands-free cell phones is risky behavior. http://www.fnal.gov/pub/traffic_safety/files/NSC White Paper - Distracted Driving 3-10.pdf 3 Highway Loss Data Institute (2009). Hand-held cellphone laws and collision claim frequencies. http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/resources/HLDI-CellPhoneLawStudy.pdf 4 Injury Prevention (2004). Longer term effects of New York State’s law on drivers’ handheld cell phone use. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/1/11.full.pdf 5 Highway Safety Research Center (2004). Distractions in everyday driving. http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Documents/Distractions in Everyday Driving.pdf 201 Distracted Driving What ReseaRch shoWs anD What states can Do ® This report was made possible by a grant from 202 3Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Dotexecutive summary This report reviews and summarizes distracted driving research available as of January 2011 to inform states and other organizations as they consider distracted driving countermeasures. It concentrates on distractions produced by cell phones, text messaging, and other electronic devices brought into the vehicle. It also considers other distractions that drivers choose to engage in, such as eating and drinking, personal grooming, reading, and talking to passengers. It addresses distractions associated with vehicle features only briefly. They have been studied extensively by automobile manufacturers, but states have little role in addressing them. What is distracted driving? There are four types of driver distraction: ●●Visual – looking at something other than the road ●●Auditory – hearing something not related to driving ●●Manual – manipulating something other than the wheel ●●Cognitive – thinking abut something other than driving Most distractions involve more than one of these types, with both a sensory – eyes, ears, or touch – and a mental component. For this report, distraction occurs when a driver voluntarily diverts attention to something not related to driving that uses the driver’s eyes, ears, or hands. how often are drivers distracted? Driver distraction is common in everyday driving and in crashes. ●●Drivers on the road: Most drivers in surveys reported that they sometimes engaged in distracting activities. A study that observed 100 drivers continually for a full year found that drivers were distracted between one-quarter and one-half of the time. o Cell phone use: In recent surveys, about two-thirds of all drivers reported using a cell phone while driving; about one- third used a cell phone routinely. In observational studies during daylight hours in 2009, between 7% and 10% of all drivers were using a cell phone. o Texting: In recent surveys, about one-eighth of all drivers reported texting while driving. In observational studies during daylight hours in 2009, fewer than 1% of all drivers were observed to be texting. Distraction occurs when a driver voluntarily diverts attention to something not related to driving that uses the driver’s eyes, ears, or hands. 203 4 Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Do4Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Do executive summary t●●Drivers in crashes: At least one driver was reported to have been distracted in 15% to 30% of crashes. The proportion of distracted drivers may be greater because investigating officers may not detect or record all distractions. In many crashes it is not known whether the distractions caused or contributed to the crash. how does distraction affect driver performance? Experimental studies show conclusively that distractions of all types affect performance on tasks related to driving. But experimental studies cannot predict what effect various distractions have on crash risk. how does distraction affect crash risk? The limited research suggests that: ●●Cell phone use increases crash risk to some extent but there is no consensus on the size of the increase. ●●There is no conclusive evidence on whether hands-free cell phone use is less risky than hand-held use. ●●Texting probably increases crash risk more than cell phone use. ●●The effects of other distractions on crash risk cannot be estimated with any confidence. are there effective countermeasures for distracted driving? There are no roadway countermeasures directed specifically at distracted drivers. Many effective roadway design and operation practices to improve safety overall, such as edgeline and centerline rumble strips, can warn distracted drivers or can mitigate the consequences if they leave their travel lane. Vehicle countermeasures to manage driver workload, warn drivers of risky situations, or monitor driver performance have the potential to improve safety for all drivers, not just drivers who may become distracted. Some systems are beginning to be implemented in new vehicles and others are still in development. Their ultimate impact on distracted driving cannot be predicted. Countermeasures directed to the driver offer an opportunity to reduce distracted driving incidence and crashes in the next few years. They have concentrated on cell phones and texting through laws, communications campaigns, and company policies and programs. Systems to block or limit a driver’s cell phone calls are developing rapidly but have not yet been evaluated. In summary, the limited research on these countermeasures concludes that: ●●Laws banning hand-held cell phone use reduced use by about half when they were first implemented. Hand-held cell phone use increased subsequently but the laws appear to have had some long- term effect. ●●A high-visibility cell phone and texting law enforcement campaign reduced cell phone use immediately after the campaign. Longer- term effects are not yet known. ●●There is no evidence that cell phone or texting bans have reduced crashes. Laws banning hand-held cell phone use reduced use by about half when they were first implemented. 204 5Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Do 5 executive summary t●●Distracted driving communications campaigns and company policies and programs are widely used but have not been evaluated. What can states do to reduce distracted driving? States should consider the following activities to address distracted driving. While each has been implemented in some states, there is no solid evidence that any is effective in reducing crashes, injuries, or fatalities. ●●Enact cell phone and texting bans for novice drivers. Novices are the highest-risk drivers. A cell phone ban supports other novice driver restrictions included in state graduated licensing programs and helps parents manage their teenage drivers. As of June 2011, 30 states and the District of Columbia prohibited the use of all cell phones by novice drivers and 41 states and the District of Columbia prohibited texting by novice drivers. But there is no evidence that novice driver cell phone or texting bans are effective. ●●Enact texting bans. Texting is more obviously distracting and counter to good driving practice than cell phone use. As of June 2011, 34 states and the District of Columbia had enacted texting bans for all drivers. But texting bans are difficult to enforce. ●●Enforce existing cell phone and texting laws. Enforcement will increase any law’s effect, while failing to enforce a law sends a message that the law is not important. But enforcing cell phone or texting laws will divert resources from other traffic law enforcement activities. ●●Implement distracted driving communication programs. Cell phone and texting laws should be publicized broadly to increase their effects. Other communication and education activities can address the broader issues of avoiding distractions while driving. Thirty- seven states and the District of Columbia conducted a recent distracted driving communications campaign. But distracted driving communication programs will divert resources from other traffic safety communications activities. ●●Help employers develop and implement distracted driving policies and programs. Many companies have established and implemented cell phone policies for their employees. Company policies can be a powerful influence on employees’ driving. But they have not been evaluated. States can and should take four steps that will help reduce distracted driving immediately and in the future. ●●Continue to implement effective low-cost roadway distracted driving countermeasures such as edgeline and centerline rumble strips. ●●Record distracted driving in crash reports to the extent possible, to assist in evaluating distracted driving laws and programs. ●●Monitor the impact of existing hand-held cell phone bans prior to enacting new laws. States that have not already passed handheld bans should wait until more definitive research and data are available on these laws’ effectiveness. ●●Evaluate other distracted driving laws and programs. Evaluation will enforce existing cell phone and texting laws ... But enforcing cell phone or texting laws will divert resources from other traffic law enforcement activities. 205 6 Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Do6Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Do executive summary provide the information states need on which countermeasures are effective and which are not. What should others do to reduce distracted driving? ●●Employers: Consider distracted driving policies and programs for their employees. Evaluate the effects of their distracted driving policies and programs on employee knowledge, behavior, crashes, and economic costs (injuries, lost time, etc.). ●●Automobile industry: Continue to develop, test, and implement measures to manage driver workload and to warn drivers of risky situations. ●●Federal government: Help states evaluate the effects of distracted driving programs. Continue tracking driver cell phone use and texting in the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS). Work with states to improve data collection on driver distractions involved in crashes. Continue to develop and conduct national communications campaigns on distracted driving. 206 Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version ORDINANCE NO. 10-5521 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BILLINGS, PROVIDING THAT THE BILLINGS, MONTANA CITY CODE BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW DIVISION TO ARTICLE 24-300 OPERATION OF VEHICLES, TITLED “DIVISION 5. USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE”, AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS TO BE NUMBERED 24-360, 24-361. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA: Section 1. That the Billings, Montana City Code be amended by adding a new division to Article 24-300 OPERATION OF VEHICLES, titled “DIVISION 5. USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE”, and by adding new sections to be numbered 24-360 and 24-361. Article 24-300 OPERATION OF VEHICLES DIVISION 5. USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE Sec. 24-360. Electronic Communications Device Usage While Driving Prohibited (a) No person shall use or have in their immediate physical possession a hand held electronic communications device while operating a motor vehicle, motorcycle, quadricycle, or a bicycle on a public highway within the city limits of Billings. (b) “Hand held electronic communications device” includes wireless or cellular phones, PDAs, Blackberries, smart phones, laptop and notebook computers utilizing VOIP (voice over internet protocol) technology, wireless and cellular phones utilizing push-to-talk technology, GPS systems, navigational systems, and any other mobile communication device that uses short-wave analog or digital radio transmissions between the device and a transmitter to permit wireless communications to and from the user of the device. (c) “Immediate physical possession” means touching the hand held electronic communications device, or physically holding the device in one’s hand or up to one’s ear. Simply having the electronic communications device on one’s person or in a motor vehicle does not constitute immediate physical possession. (d) Exceptions. (1) This provision shall not apply to any person reporting a health, fire, safety, or police emergency. (2) This provision shall not apply to governmental fire agencies, ambulance services, law enforcement agencies, emergency responders, or any other “Authorized Emergency Vehicle” as defined in Montana Code Annotated Sec. 61-8-102(2)(a). Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com207 (3) This provision shall not apply to passengers in a motor vehicle, or persons using a hand held electronic communications device while maintaining a motor vehicle in a stationary position, not in gear, while in a parking lane or space out of moving traffic lanes. (4) This provision shall not apply to persons using a “hands free device”. A “hands free device” is an external device that connects to a wireless telephone, wireless communications device or electronic communications device that allows use of the device without touching the telephone or wireless or electronic communications device with one’s hands, and includes voice- activated technologies that can be utilized without touching the device. Use of a hands free device is permitted while operating a motor vehicle provided the driver does not touch the wireless telephone or wireless or electronic communications device with one’s hands while operating a motor vehicle. (5) This provision shall not apply to drivers using two way radios while in the performance and scope of their work-related duties. (6) This provision shall not apply to drivers holding a valid amateur radio operator license issued by the Federal Communications Commission while using a two way radio. Sec. 24-361. Penalty. Persons found to have committed a violation of this division shall be subject to civil penalties as specified in Section 18-1304. Section 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective October 31, 2010. Section 3. REPEALER. All resolutions, ordinances, and sections of the City Code inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. Section 4. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which may be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. PASSED by the City Council on first reading this 26th day of July, 2010. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED on second reading this 23rd day of August, 2010. CITY OF BILLINGS By ___________________________ Thomas W. Hanel, Mayor ATTEST: By ______________________________ Cari Martin, City Clerk Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com208