Lawrence cell phone ban would be strictest

Local news

Lawrence cell phone ban would be strictest

Prohibition would include even hands-free devices

Thursday, June 1, 2006

New York, you’ve got nothing on Lawrence.

New York state made national headlines four years ago for becoming the first state to ban motorists from using cell phones. But a proposed cell phone ban in Lawrence would be tougher than that law or any other cell phone ban in the country, a national group that studies cell phone usage said.

The proposed Lawrence ordinance — up for discussion Monday by the Traffic Safety Commission — would ban the use of both hand-held cell phones and hands-free cell phone devices by motorists.

“That would be a first in this country,” said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Other bans generally prohibit only hand-held devices, with some banning hands-free devices for certain types of motorists, such as teenagers or school bus drivers.

The Lawrence ban on hands-free devices would apply to all drivers, and some cell phone researchers said it was about time for a city to adopt such a ban.

Karl Gehring/Journal-World Graphic

“If you pass a ban that just prohibits the hand-held devices, you’re sending a message that the hands-free devices are safe, and that is false,” said Paul Atchley, an associate professor of psychology at Kansas University and one of the leading researchers of cell phones and motorists.

Rader said he agreed the research backs up claims that hands-free devices are no safer for motorists than hand-held ones. He said the institute — which is funded by the insurance industry to conduct studies on ways to improve driver safety — did an extensive study in Australia using cell phone records of people involved in accidents. The study showed people using a cell phone were four times as likely to get into an injury accident, regardless of whether they were using a hand-held or hands-free device. A Canadian study produced similar results.

“I think, initially, people assumed that the problem with using a cell phone while driving was the holding of the phone and the dialing of the phone, but now the body of research is suggesting that the conversation itself is the major distraction,” Rader said.

More about the cell phone ban

Cell phone companies, though, have disputed the dangers of hands-free phones.

“We would certainly oppose a complete ban,” Jamie Hastings, director of government affairs for T-Mobile USA, previously told the Journal-World. “We think there are distractions just as great. I suppose if you also want to ban McDonald’s coffee and kids in the back seat, then we wouldn’t oppose it.”

Rader said the fact that the hands-free research — conducted in 2004 — is relatively new is probably one reason communities haven’t started adopting hands-free bans. He also said some communities may be concerned about how to enforce the ban.

Enforcement challenges have been the issue that city staff members have cautioned traffic safety commissioners to consider. Scott Miller, a staff attorney for the city who handles many police related matters, said it likely would take an aggressive enforcement strategy for any ban to improve safety or reduce accident rates.

“I’m not saying we would have to have more police officers — that’s not my job to make that determination — but we would need to allocate police resources so they could spend time doing intensive enforcement for it,” Miller said.

Studies have suggested that the effectiveness of cell phone bans are related to the amount of enforcement and publicity that communities direct toward them. A study of the New York state ban found that hand-held cell phone use by drivers dropped by about half during the first months following the ban. But one year after the ban had been in place, hand-held cell phone usage among drivers had climbed to virtually the same rate as before the ban.

In Washington, D.C., though, hand-held cell phone usage went down about 50 percent following its ban and has remained below pre-ban levels. But enforcement activity in Washington, D.C., is aggressive. Tickets for cell phone violations there represent 8 percent of all moving violations compared with 4 percent in New York, according to studies compiled by the institute.

When traffic safety commissioners review the proposed ordinance at their Monday meeting — which begins at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall — it will be the second time in as many months that they’ve discussed cell phone bans.

At their May meeting, traffic safety commissioners considered an ordinance that would have banned the use of cell phones by drivers younger than 18. Instead, a majority of commissioners directed staff members to come up with a proposal that would ban cell phones for all motorists.

The ordinance commissioners are now set to consider has but one exception: Motorists could use a cell phone to make an emergency call to police, fire or other agencies.

The proposed ordinance lists a maximum fine of $100 for violating the ban, but lists no minimum fine.

In addition to the cell phone ban, traffic safety commissioners also will consider an ordinance that would double the fine for inattentive driving — from $60 to $120 — for any motorist involved in an accident while using a cell phone.

Any decision by the Traffic Safety Commission must be approved by city commissioners before it is final.

Comments

Note: LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.

Posted by The_Voice_of_Reason (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 4:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets see... In the past four or so years the so called "leaders" of Lawrence have ban fireworks, smokeing in public buildings, and are now trying to ban cell phone useage in OUR cars! All while we have kids getting injured and killed at intersections due to problems with the roads, we have major problems with the growth of the city along with a mounting sewer problem, we have the scum of Topuka coming over and shooting up our clubs and bars, we have huge traffic congestion problems, problems with the homeless, and a lack of funding for public schools. Is it just me or do these "leaders" have their priorites so far out of wack and their heads so far up their a$$es that they could wear themselves as hats. Hey city comission... DO SOMETHING USEFUL!!!

Posted by Ragingbear (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 5:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, if you would hang up and drive instead of gabbing to whoever, you would notice how many people you nearly hit on a regular day.

Posted by rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) on June 1, 2006 at 5:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to agree with reason....They have been quite ban happy......Once again i state that things like this should be voted on.

Posted by truthlawrence (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 5:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

merrill//richard heckler is on the traffic board go figure

Posted by enforcer (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 5:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree people should not talk on phones while driving, but " The roughest in the Country" says it all . This commission/City is out to take a safety issue and turn it into a complete and utter control and money making endevor for them. Laws are suppose to keep order not line the the lvish coffers of the City, while they continue to ignore major problems such as the condition of the roads and sewers.. 10 t01 they are generating revenue for the grand new library.

"The Judge in the Town has Blood Stains on his Hands"

Posted by Informed (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They gotta catch me first.

Posted by BrianR (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another idiotic ban. Apparently these people don't learn from past mistakes.

Restrict hand-held, go with hands-free divices, anything else is an outrage. Basically no ban is really enforcable, I see hand-held phones all the time in NY and NJ.

At any rate, this will give the LPD something else to do rather than catching the thieves who are slowly, piece by piece, stealing EVERYTHING out of my neighborhood. Nice work, commission, now, get real.

Posted by enforcer (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Will The City be providing Direct Deposit forms for the residents to have their checks Direct Deposited? It will save time and money!

Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on June 1, 2006 at 6:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is the sort of thing that you get when you have "Progressives(Read:"REPRESSIVES") on your Kommission.

ALL HAIL BOOG, SHAUNER AND RUNDLE!

Thanks.

Marion.

Posted by 75x55 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"wearing themselves as hats"

Humorous, and yet absolutely on-target!

Posted by ben_ness (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The banning of hand free devices while driving is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. What is next? No talking to your passengers while you are driving.

Posted by Marshalus (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Will this apply to police as well? I see more police officers driving around talking on cell phones than I do anyone else.

As soon as I can I'm getting out of this town.

Posted by LivedinLawrence4Life (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hand free devices absolutely should not be banned! Those of us who can actually talk and drive at the same time and have never had an accident should have the freedom to use a headset connected to our phone. However, if someone has a cell phone related accident, then ok, ban them from using cell phones in cars.

Posted by tanzer (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just want to know how talking on the phone is any different from other dissociative states drivers find themselves engaged in - such as daydreaming, practicing speaches to the board, etc. now there is a test for the prof. I can't wait for them to also ban daydreaming while driving.

Just my curios observation tells me - those who drive and talk on hand-helds are more problematic in town than the highway - ever sit at a 4-way and watch everyone on hand helds go out of turn or not completely stop? Wait - maybe this ban is really just a form of road rage for the commission.

Posted by demsducks (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ben_ness, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Posted by tanzer (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ben-ness the prof says that talking on the phone is more distracting than talking to people in the car. something about imagining them talk perhaps makes it more distracting. daydreaming is pretty similar... but he hasn't tested that one.

on another note - i know a lot of folks around town that do crisis calls while in the car - using hands free devices... i guess the crisis calls will have to wait.

Posted by punkrockmom (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not for a ban of any sort. I've been run off the road by people with and without phones. I think it would be ok to charge more for violations committed while using a phone. Speeding, wrecks, whatever, make the fines more if a phone is in use. I AM a phone user. However, my son throwing things and kicking my seat and such things are way more distracting. I avoid both in the car as much as possible.

Posted by blue73harley (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ban bans.

Posted by 1DJMjas7 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can talk on the phone and drive at the same time. It has never caused a near accident, or an accident. I think what they really need to ban is idiotic drivers. The people that slam on the brakes to turn & use no turn signals. The people that drive in the dark/rain without headlights. The people that talk on their phones & can't pay attention to the road at the same time. The people that are eating & not paying attention to their driving. I also agree with The_Voice_of_Reason that there are many more useful things the city could do rather than worrying about cell phone usage.

Posted by poolside (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to agree with T-Mobile- ban eating McDonalds, or kids fighting in the back seat if you want to be fair. And let's add car stereos to that ban. Better yet, control the number of 15-24 year olds in one car at one time.

I bought my cell phone so I COULD talk in the car. When my kids are stranded somewhere with a dead battery, or something like that I want them to find me, and me them. A cell phone with prepaid minutes is cheaper than a CB radio. (Which is also used most often, in the car, WHILE driving.)

I believe hands free devices are much safer than holding the phone. And I think with a hands free set it is more difficult to text while driving, something that absolutely must be stopped!

Posted by jetgirl (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Next they'll try to pass laws so we can't talk to the passengers in our vehicles because those conversations are also too distracting.
While I believe that holding a phone while driving can be risky, I think that first passing a law limited mobile phone use to hand free devices is the better way to start.
For being the most liberal city in Kansas, Lawrence sure has passed many more laws limiting our choices more so than in other areas in the state. It's almost like our leaders are looking to the state of New York as an example of what laws we should have.

Posted by geekin_topekan (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with the McDonald's ban.But Please,don't ban BurritoKing!!

Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is absolutely no doubt that talking on a cell phone, hand-held or hands-free, while driving is a dangerous distraction. What makes it different from other distractions mentioned is that it can be rather easily banned. The only question is whether the ban will be enforced enough to make it work.

Posted by satchel (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Unbelievable.. Well, this has sealed us not moving to Lawrence.. ALL HAIL BOOG.. and the Liberal 'regressives' who run Lawrence. Let's make it o.k. to smoke pot in the car, but not talk on hand free phones.. We can turn up the radio and dance while driving, while talking to our passengers and eating a sandwich.
This is totally ridiculous.. BUT YOU LIBS IN LAWRENCE VOTED THESE IDIOTS INTO OFFICE.. TRY VOTING IN A REAL CONSERVATIVE AND YOU WILL GET YOUR RIGHTS BACK.. I.E. SMOKING RIGHTS, FIREWORK RIGHTS AND EVEN CELL PHONE RIGHTS..

Posted by crono (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed---if "the body of research is suggesting that the conversation itself is the major distraction”, then it seems *logical*, not just *possible*, that the city ought to ban talking to other passengers, singing along to the radio, or any other activity a driver might do that could maybe possibly be slightly distracting. This obviously is ludicrous.

Give us a ticket if we're driving recklessly. I think we already have a law for that.

Posted by cowboy (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

100 years ago.....the stocks were placed all over the town square as the kommission had sentenced those evil cell
phones users to public humiliation sessions. The new shipment of torture devices has arrived so they can also punish those makeup appliers , roundabout jumpers , and the satanic ones caught listening to Barry Manilow music in their cars.....

LJW , how about full disclosure...who are the petitioners on this ?

Posted by YourItalianPrincess (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay....here we go again.

I have a cell phone, but I only answer it when I'm driving if my son or another family member is calling me. If there is an emergency I want to know about it then and not later. I don't answer anyone elses call until I get to where I'm going.

If they are going to ban cell phones then ban them from everyone. Don't pick and choose who can and can't use one. You simply can't choose who can and can't use one. We have doctors, lawyers, police, etc.......I could go on and on who need them I would imagine. You can't pass a law that says.......Okay, since you are a doctor you can use your cell phone, but since you are just a mom or dad I guess you are not that important.

If they are going to try to ban cell phones while driving.......heres a list of other things that people shouldn't do either:

Putting on make-up while driving
Changing you radio station while driving
Those pesky little dogs in drivers' laps while driving
Eating while driving
Drinking any type of berverage while driving
Smoking while driving
Did I mention those pesky little dogs?

I'm sure I and others can think of more things that would distract you from driving. I don't want to give anyone any ideas, but it all barrels down to the same thing.

Pull over and answer your phone if needed. There are parking lots all over the place. If you phone rings, just pull over and answer it, its simple.

Posted by ksmattfish (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see, convenience or safety? Hmmm, what would a good American do? Pick convenience every time! Who cares if talking on the phone while driving has been shown to be just as dangerous as driving drunk? Who cares if quick, easy lines at the airport allow terrorists to get through? Who cares if fast food is making the nation obese? Who cares if there's going to be no gas left for our children? GIVE ME CONVENIENCE OR GIVE ME DEATH! The new American pledge.

Posted by superduper (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's great stupid idea :) Maybe we can have cell phone hot spots. They just remove all of the cell towers that cover the whole city and you have to drive to some designated parking lot to talk on the phone. They can put $1 per minute parking meters in that lot and make a lot of money. The only major city and university on the planet where talking on the phone is banned. That ought to make CNN right? I wonder how the cell phone companies would feel about that.

Posted by superduper (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What's funny is the banner ad on the upper right where I just posted my comment was for a cell phone :))

Posted by KsTwister (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Punish the whole for the sake of a few,this is definitely Lawrence Stupid Kansas. More frivol legal battles please! Now,what can you do about a mother-in-law in the back seat before its inside vehicular homicide?

Posted by Informed (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Welcome to Lawrence; the answer is 'no'.

Posted by lunacydetector (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gee, i'm surprised they don't ban the sales of cell phones or make it illegal for car dealers to sell cars with blue tooth technology. what about the voice command navigation system in some cars, where the computer talks to tell where to turn? what if someone from out of town is caught using their cell phone while driving? does this mean all these young college student drivers will be exempt from the ban using their cell phones while driving or will lawrence have to expend a boat load of money for little street signs placed EVERYWHERE saying "it is illegal to use a cell phone while driving (even hands free)?" that in itself will be dangerous just trying to read it while driving.

since richard heckler "merrill" is an expert in traffic safety and since this ban will be the strictest in the country, i think we need to get used to the idea of the total ban - because surely it is going to happen. after all, it will be for our own good. utopia here we come, and they did NOT have cell phones in the 1880's! smart growth at work - turning today into what the 1880's coulda been.

Posted by melott (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

two big research studies have shown that hands-free devices increase the accident rate just as much as hand-held devices, which is about the same as being drunk.

Posted by blessed3x (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People! Life will be so much easier when you just realize that the "progressives" know exactly how your life should be run. Please just hand over all control to them. Relax, the progressives are here to help. Now hand me that joint while the light's still red.

Posted by neopolss (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Years ago, I used to love Lawrence. It most certainly is NOT the town I lived in ten years ago. To those who say, if you don't like it, leave - I did.

Posted by takeastand (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BOOG, SHAUNER AND RUNDLE NEED TO RECONSIDER STARTING THEIR MEDICATIONS BACK UP AGAIN

Posted by ben_ness (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not pass an ordinance requiring all drivers to wear a gag-ball when behind the wheel.

Posted by Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a motorcyclist, I applaud the cell phone ban. I've had too many close calls with people gabbing on the cell phone who suddenly change lanes without paying attention. Many cell phone users also fail to use turn signals because that hand usually holds the phone to their ear. If you need to make a call, please pull over.

Posted by spamqueen (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Have traffic accidents GONE UP in Lawrence in the last 5-10 years due to cell phone usage while driving? I've seen people reading while driving, eating, drinking, kissing, hitting each other, smoking, yelling, singing, dancing, entertaining pets ON THEIR LAPS, doing their hair, applying makeup, and picking their noses. I think all these things need to be banned. Please wise commission, PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES!!!!!!!!! IT'S YOUR JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The vast majority of drunk drivers are never caught. Does that mean there should be no laws against drunk-driving?

Posted by dudesmithy (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is so funny! Everyday on this board someone seems to be complaining about drivers with cell phones. Now the commission is thinking about doing something about it and everyone complains!!!

I know...Lets blame it on roundabouts. That's everyones favorite scapegoat! So I'm sure it has to fit into this discussion somewhere.

-DS

Posted by lunacydetector (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

they should pay more money for a study of your very question spamqueen. have accidents gone up in lawrence since the introduction of the cell phone? i see a professor getting some federal grant money in the very near future and i see some east coast firm getting hired by the city to do another study.

Posted by spamqueen (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, repeal drunk driving laws. I need a friggin' drink after reading what some of you "progressives" have to say. (We need more laws--who cares that much of the time, those laws we do wisely have aren't enforced. . .)

Posted by compmd (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am going to refute all of the studies that say hands-free kits are as bad as handsets right here.

Handset: Requires you to use one hand to hold it against your head.

Handsfree: Does not require you to hold anything against your head.

Holding something requires motor control which requires brain power. QED.

Yesterday I almost got killed by an oblivious older woman with a phone planted against her head. No joke, red ford escort zx2, short woman, light hair, and yes I know her plate number. She turned left in front of me without signaling or yielding to oncoming traffic (me). She had no idea that a car was coming towards her with horn blaring, tires screeching, trying to slow down and get out of the way. No, I was not on the phone at the time.

What's worse is this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Anyone here drive stick and use a handset? Hard isn't it? A bluetooth headset lets you focus much more on driving since you've got your hands freed up and no wires dangling around you. Best investment I made for my phone.

If the city wants to charge people with inattentive driving if they are in an accident while talking on the phone, maybe the city should consider actually proving that the driver was not attentive at the time of the accident. I can't wait for one of those trials.

Ban the handsets, fine with me. But the headsets too? Typical backwards Kansas move.

Posted by spamqueen (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I disagree, compmd, about one thing for sure: Lawrence is NOT typical Kansas. :-)

Posted by DaREEKKU (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would have to agree with most of you. Ban Handheld, but not hands free.

Posted by bmwjhawk (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Well, this has sealed us not moving to Lawrence."

Wow! You must have very important cell phone conversations that can't wait the no more than 15 minutes it takes to get somewhere in this town.

This potential ban makes more sense than the smoking ban, because I can't make the decision to stay off those roads that are travelled by inattentive phone-callers.

Posted by mom_of_three (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Like princess, I will answer my phone will driving if it is the hubby or the kids. If no one is bleeding, broken, or the house isn't on fire, I will call them back when I get to where I am going.
I don't know if cell phones make people more inattentive than anything else does. I have almost been mowed down in the last two weeks by people who are just bad drivers - no cell phones in sight.
The proposed cell phone ban is ridiculous. Just fine the drivers who cause accidents by inattentive driving, and pull those over who may be driving inattentively (whether it phones, kids, dogs, food, dancing, etc).
P.S. I miss the fireworks on the 4th.

Posted by tyger_lily (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I say it is about time. This wouldn't affect me at all since I NEVER talk on the phone while driving. Almost on a daily basis I get the jacka** behind me, gabbing on the phone and almost smashing in to me because I used my turn signal and slowed down to make a right turn. Then they speed up past me and flip me off. I have a bright yellow car so I am not that easy to miss, they are all upset because the world isn't revolving around them at that moment. I think the cell phones should be banned and then everybody in Lawrence needs to be sent to driving school to learn that turning into the wrong lane is supposed to be illegal. I know it is a concept for most people around here, but there are other people in the world.

Posted by jayhawks71 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here we go again, I love it when I see those "I can actually drive and talk on the phone" posts. By what criteria are you not impaired; that you haven't been in an accident while talking on the phone?

The hard-nosed nature of such posts is so fascinating. I suppose 90 percent of the people that post here are also "better than the average driver", a number slightly higher than the general population, where 80 % of people believe they are better than the average driver, huh!?

Compmd, the issue here is attention. Holding something doesn't necessarily require attention. Shifting your car is also a well-learned response that requires little if any attention. Driving your car in response to a new threat, doing something out of the norm, is NOT well-learned and therefore will demand your attention (or you fail the task.) Response is delayed beacuase talking on the phone requires attention to process and respond; Each conversation is different, and therefore you can't go on auto; if you are on auto (e.g., uh-huh-ing everything said by your wife and not really listening then why is that phonecall so important?)

The issue here is attention, which is drawn away by the conversation; the conversation is what also takes up most of the time spent using the phone... dialing while driving isn't a good thing, but it isn't the primary issue. It takes very little of the time and seems to have very little overall impact on the driving situation. That's why hands-free devices are the biggest joke; allowing of hands-free devices was a legislative way of appeasing people who THINK the problem is the fumbling with the phone (the same people that think that "well isn't this like a car conversation" or "isn't this like playing with the radio" NO, IT ISN'T!). Perhaps it doesn't make obvious sense why these are different, but I will take the research over the scoff of "I can drive while using the phone, while some others clearly cannot." How do you know you can? If you are so sure, you are probably the scariest driver on the road, dividing attention among driving, talking and ASSESSING your driving ability (in addition to the myriad other things the average car trip entails).

And BrianR, because something is difficult to enforce, you propose that as a reason for having no law? Well, I suppose murder needs to be taken off the books as do MOST other crimes where the catch and convict rates are less than 50%; wouldn't that be a good measure of enforcement difficulty? Get rid of those silly civil rights laws as well (most cases of racism and sexism go unenforced). Speeding would certainly go; I bet 99.9% of speeding incidents (but at least 50%!) are not caught and therefore the law is unenforceable. Remember that when your kid gets hit in the street by someone going 45 in a 25 talking on the cell phone assessing his driving as "hey I can talk on the cell phone."

Posted by BJ (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A study in Europe resulted in banning cell phones in cars, but not handsfree devices. It is working very well.
But why listen to Europeans? They have roundabouts that actually work. We don't want that to happen in Lawrence, do we now?

Posted by offbrand1 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is something to be said for this ban when I repeatedly see people talking on the cell phone while driving and completely oblivious to what is going on. I've seen people run red lights, stop lights, change lanes and almost hit someone, etc., Bottom line- when you drive a car and aren't watching or paying attention to the road, you are an accident waiting to happen. I watched a guy run a red light while he was text messaging- totally ridiculous. I didn't think hand held cell phones needed to be banned, but after seeing this and adding it to the number of times I've nearly been mowed down in parking lots because some SUV mom is too busy gabbing on her cell to pay attention to where she's going, I changed my mind.

I don't know that bans would even be effective, but if they want to ban something, ban the hand held phone and nothing else. Make people put their phones on their dash with a little attachment so they can have both hands on the wheel or let them get an ear bud. It's cheap and easy, people, and it makes sense. Surely that's not infringing on anyone's civil rights, now is it? And for those of you that say talking on the cell phone isn't any worse than putting makeup on or eating in the car, I agree. You shouldn't do that stuff either.

Cell phones are practically surgically attached to people nowadays. Can we roll it back a little and agree that we don't need to have the dang thing attached to our ear when we are operating a vehicle? Can we agree that using a hands free device like an ear bud or attaching the phone to the dash and using the speakerphone might - just might- save a few accidents?

Posted by spamqueen (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goddess some of you are hilarious. I say just ban STUPID people driving. That's a great law! I'll volunteer to help enforce that one. Hey Jayhawks71 (a.k.a. ATTENTION BOY or GIRL): There are many things that distract drivers or divert their attention while driving besides cell freakin' phones. Lack of brain cells probably adds to the risk for accidents as well. . .

Posted by conservative (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This has got to be the dumbest thing I have seen from this commission, and that is saying a lot. I understand the idea that they want to make the roads safer, but trying to ban specific behavior isn't the right way to go about it. Double, triple, quadruple or whatever the fine for inattentive driving, and then actually start ticketing for it. Don't worry about the cause of the bad driving, just start ticketing the bad drivers. Because yes, there are a lot of bad drivers out there, some are on cell phones, other's aren't.

Posted by takeastand (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

conservative

good post

Posted by Reality_Check (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Studies have suggested that the effectiveness of cell phone bans are related to the amount of enforcement and publicity that communities direct toward them."

I spend about half my time in Santa Fe, NM, and they have a ban on handhelds....and they rarely enforce it. It's a dumb law if it doesn't get enforced.

Still, anyone who has talked on a cell phone while driving MUST admit that they are inattentive while doing so. I find my speed varying, I sometimes miss turns, etc. Regardless if I am using a hands free set or handheld.

The weird thing is: The same is not true when driving while talking to a passenger next to you. Why?

Posted by 75x55 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"What's worse is this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Anyone here drive stick and use a handset? Hard isn't it?"

Absolutely - which is why I won't answer the stupid phone without a hand-free setup.

And what's up with this "they do it in Europe", "European", Europe this, Europe that... It's like some kind of pathetic mental condition - Europe-envy. Ah, but it is the living hope of the socialists, isn't it? Ok, never mind - answered my own question.

Posted by storybook (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, So this ordinance may be a good thought, but goes a bi tto far. I do think that use of hand-held cellphones should certainly be banned, but would be virtually impossible to stop and enforce completely. But I'll get to that in a bit.

On the other hand, using a hands-free device is no more of a distraction to the driver than countless other distractions from the road in front of them. Many have been posted here in the commnets already, but here are a few.

Admiring your little lap dog while you drive.
Changing the station or volume on your radio
Changing a CD in the CD Player.
Telling your kids to be quieter or behave when fighting while you drive
Talking to someone else in the car
Using a GPS device to find your way around or a touch screen panel.
Singing along with the radio

etc. etc. etc.

Anyways, banning the use of all cell phones while driving would be almost impossible to inforce for just Lawrence. What, will signs be posted at every possible roadway entracne to Lawrence that you can not use cell phones in any fashion while driving within our city? Probably not. So although the ordinace make try to reduce accidents it would most likely be just another ordinace that never gets enforced.

Posted by i_have_only_valid_opinions (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

so, maybe we have fewer accidents in town with a partial/full ban on cell phones. but, i would bet my life that accidents on K-10 and I-70 increase because people who do have important business requiring cell phone use while driving would have to pull onto the shoulder to stop and talk and would get rear ended by someone not paying attention. i know this because i have a friend that was hit from behind doing exactly this.

plus, you would greatly increase the number of people making last minute decisions to turn (probably without using turn signals) as they are trying to hurry and catch important incoming calls. so, i guess we wouldn't have fewer accidents in town.

Posted by Reality_Check (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with the Right Wing Extremists on this one:

1. Enforce existing inattentive driver laws laws first.
2. But any sort of ban on behavior to a public vote.

Posted by BunE (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Storybook, the government knows best.

We must ban car radios and conversation in cars as well. NO SINGING IN CARS!

C'mon, this is for your own good. We want to protect you from yourselves.

By the way, we are going to listen in to your international calls and keep records of your calls so that we can make things safer for you too.

Posted by Kline (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Beautiful women who jog do not distract my driving.
Beautiful women who jog do not distract my driving.
Beautiful women who jog do not distract my driving.
Beautiful women who jog do not distract my driving.
Beautiful women who jog do not distract my driving.
Beautiful women who jog do not distract my driving.
Beautiful women who jog do not distract my driving.
Beautiful women who jog do not distract my driving.
Beautiful women who jog do not distract my driving.
Beautiful women who jog do not distract my driving.

Posted by dorothyhr (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think there needs to be a ban, but if an accident is caused by doing stupid things while driving, people should lose their driving privleges or even serve jail time. I do get sick of people thinking their conversations are more important than their driving. Last night a man ran a red light, because he was only aware that the car turning left next to him was moving. He was too busy talking to notice that the light was only for the left turn. Fortunately the driver who should have been turning left in front of him was driving defensively. I also was almost run over by a girl downtown one afternoon. She was turning right on a red, but didn't see the pedestrian getting ready to cross the street. She never knew I was there even after she had turned. Next time I'll slam my fist down on her hood or trunk to get their attention.

Posted by macon47 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ban driving on paved roads

Posted by rhd99 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's have another ban: BAN the city commissioners from being PAID for doing NOTHING BUT BANNING!

Posted by CanadianPassport (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you can't talk and drive at the same time, you should have your driver's license taken away. In fact, the DMV should give people cell phones to use during tests.

Posted by mseybold (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People, People, People! I have not heard any mention of using SPEAKERPHONE in the ban! There is no hands free, and there is no hand to your head.

Posted by gaiapapaya (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My kids and I were almost hit yesterday by a lady who turned into the parking garage downtown without looking to see if there were pedestrians in the way. She was trying to downshift, turn, and talk in a busy area during the noon hour with lots of construction and busses around. She then yelled "Watch it!" as if we were supposed to realize she was zooming into the garage without a turn signal. A half block later, someone actually pulled into the intersection at 9th and NH while we were crossing, on a phone, and waited in the middle of the intersection for us to cross, waving his hand at to get out of his way.

Of course some people don't or won't yield to pedestrians without a phone, but I know phones contribute to it. And before people start going on about kids in the car, I do pull over if my kids won't cut out the bickering and tell them they can stop or we can be late. I also wait to turn a song for them until we get to the light and are stopped. We need stop this lifestyle of entitlement that we should be able to do whatever we want, when we want, consequences be damned.

And we would still have fireworks if people would have just picked up their trash. I miss them, but driving or riding anywhere on the 4th meant avoiding people launching rockets in the streets and tons of trash. Once again, if people would just be responsible...

Posted by gl0ck0wnr (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope they also plan on banning eating, drinking and smoking while driving as those are equally dangerous if not more so. Ever seen someone try to stay on the road after they've dumped a cup of hot coffee on their lap?

I sure hope they complete the SLT if they pass this so people have yet another option for bypassing Banville on their way to more friendly environs.

Posted by mseybold (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I suppose SPEAKERPHONE is "hands free" but who's to say if you are not just talking to yourself. There is no cord hanging from your ear! Enforcement of this ban is a joke!

Posted by formerlyKS (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Voice of Reason,

I know what you mean about problems. Topeka has the scum of Lawrence coming over and stealing our jobs.

I guess people in Lawrence have to be critical of Topeka because they're insecure about themselves: the fact that Topeka has posted bigger population increases than Larry the last two years, remains a far bigger city with a much healthier economy than Lawrence, and essentially supports your lazy a$$es by our jobs.

If you hate Topeka so much, quit your jobs in Topeka and stay out!

BTW, Hasn't it been Olathe residents that have caused most of the recent violence in your city? But, let's not blame Jo because secretly everyone in Lawrence wants to be like Jo.

Posted by bretherite (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok let's ban kids in the backseat of cars. We all know what a distraction a 3 year old throwing a fit or a couple of pre teen arguing can be. Mediating those things are a bigger distraction because most people turn around to yell at their kids rather than watch the road.

Posted by Liberty (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lawrence is once again publicly demonstrating that they have a bad case of the stupids.

Plus the city has no authority to ban cell phones. Let alone enforce it.

Posted by BrianR (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawks71,
Nice straw man, next.

Posted by METALQ2 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I now realize communism is real in Lawrence Ks

Posted by Informed (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Get yourself a Bluetooth headseat and people will think you're talking to yourself. (Like the speakerphone scenario.)

Face it, this will be a largely unenforceable ban -- like the fireworks. Darn! I should have bought a bunch while I was in MO yesterday.

Posted by justsomewench (michelle m.) on June 1, 2006 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

can they just ban my daughter from reciting entire episodes of random cartoons while i'm driving?

please?

Posted by METALQ2 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If the police can't use cell phones, that means they will have to broadcast accidents over the air. That would enable Transmasters to chase redlights again.

Posted by mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

no ban cars they are the evil that the commision should protect us from we should all just go back to horse and buggy, but the commision should be made to clean up after the horses. I think if people just use commen sense and pull off the road and stop to talk it would help but distration happens in to many ways to ban just one thing..... and the motercycle guy i hate to say this but most people do not look for motercycles or bikes cell phone or not so stricter enforcment is what is needed and paying attention. I also think the commision should be followed and video taped while driving so we can see what they do when driving I bet more than one talks on the phone while driving, does not yield at a round about, fully stop at a four way and speeds a little. How about sueing the commision for being dumb and self absorbed and not truely haveing the city and her people at heart and taking the wishes of all of us in mind when they make stupid choices and fastly spend all our money on things that do not matter in the long run. I know 90,000 dollers for new flowers downtown is not real high on my list of must but hey it is just our money I bet they could have had all the elem. students all buy seeds at a store and go downtown olay in the dirt for a couple of days learned some things and made beutiful little gardens but no that would be teaching our children something not on the "no child left behind" list oh well what to do.

Posted by jrlii (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ban Bans.

As the acts of Government become more and more intrusive, Government is rapidly approaching the point of qualifying as a crime against humanity.

Posted by warthog (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure... ban cell phones... then ban radios, cuz we know how distracting that is... first thing ya know, they'll be banning sex while driving, too.

Posted by mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry warthog already a no no just sue them all for being dumb

Posted by warthog (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SEX is a no no while driving??? Ooops...

Posted by jimincountry (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ban phones and sex while driving.........pull over first!

Posted by usaschools (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "What is government but tyranny?" Well spoken indeed.

That being said, I am in favor of a ban on the use of hand-held cell phones while driving for these reasons:

1) No one can drive safely with one hand. This is why in 100% of driver's education classes, 100% of drivers are taught to drive with both hands on the wheel. The fact that some of us endanger ourselves and others by driving with one hand does not make this a safe practice, nor does it make it right. Accidents happen when the unexpected occurs - a pot hole, a bump, someone changes lanes without signaling, a car you didn't see, a child you didn't see, an animal in the road- you need to react quickly and you need both hands. You cannot make a sharp right holding a cell phone in your left hand or vice versa.

2. It has been my experience over the last several years that the vast majority of inattentive drivers that I observe in my daily travels are talking on a cell phone. This includes people who run right through stop signs and lights as though they were not there, people who pull out in front of oncoming traffic, people who drive really slow, people who change lanes erratically, and so on. Sorry for those of you who can handle it, a great many people cannot. Enough people cannot handle it to make it a significant safety risk.

3. By now, we all know someone who has been in a fender bender with a person talking on a cell phone. The anecdotes from my friends usually include a denial from the other driver that they were talking on the phone at the time of the accident. In other words, even those who drive with cell phones realize that it detracts from their attention to the road. They know it would seem to contribute to their negligence in an accident. Ask a police officer about this.

A legitimate function of the government is to protect us from a reasonble threat of harm in a reasonable way. A ban on non-hand-held devices seems to me to be unreasonable, but a ban on hand-held devices seems quite reasonable. I see little difference between talking on a non-hand-held device and conversing with a passenger.

Posted by craigers (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Write tickets to the individuals that cause accidents while on cell phones. This ban is dumb. Most phones have speakerphone capability so I guess I will just leave my phone in the cup holder and talk really loud without the hands-free device. As long as I don't see any cops doing it, I won't have a problem with it.

Posted by jayhawks71 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BrianR- straw man? Hah, then dispose of it empirically, should be easily done. Nice attempt at ad hominem/ non-sequitor though! Try again!

Posted by southerngirl (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What about engaging in "Clinton sex" while driving, is that illegal too?

The military has banned cell phone usage without a hands free device on all bases worldwide, but our base commander went a step further and just banned cell phone usage while driving.

Posted by OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to admit two things. One, I sometimes talk on my phone while driving (maybe once a week, I'm not using my phone as a prosthesis). Two, I completely agree with this law and wish it were nationwide. Looooong before cell phones I was sick of all the bad drivers. The distractions of phone has made it worst. We all need to hang up and drive.

And, as the story says, hands-free devices do NOT change the risk factors. That is a fact. It's the amount of distraction involved in carrying on an engaging conversation while driving.

Posted by OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In reference to the photo on the front page, since when are 13 year olds allowed to drive?

Posted by blue73harley (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't agree with a ban but I do think people should shut up and drive...

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...

Local news