[MissoulaGov] cell phones

[Jed Taylor]

We need to make an important distinction between the severity of a
particular incident and the frequency of any given type of incident.  It
shouldn't be surprising that the level of distraction caused by deciding
it's necessary to reach for something while in motion is significantly
greater than the level caused by engaging in a conversation with someone who
isn't physically present.  The time spent reaching, however, and the number
of incidents of having to reach are, I'm sure, exponentially less in both
duration and frequency.  And that's a good thing, because if people were
reaching for things as often as they're gabbing on a cell phone while
driving, and spending as much time doing so, it would be a demolition derby
out there.
 
Anyone who's honest about the effect on one's focus when driving and talking
on a cell phone will stipulate that the mind gets pulled into the 'space' of
the conversation and away from what's happening around him.  Most of the
time, the ultimate results in terms of driving are the same as if there were
no cell phone usage.  I'd imagine that's also true for driving while
moderately impaired.  The problem is that for that slice of driving when the
results are different, the difference tends to be serious to catastrophic.
It's that slice that DUI laws seek to address, and increasingly, cell phone
laws, too.
 
I would happily bet on the proposition that the vast majority of cell phone
usage while driving is superfluous.  It's a rare situation when a call must
be conducted while driving, and even rarer when such a situation presents
itself that the driver can't pull over, handle the call, and then resume his
trip.  We've become a society that confuses the ability to instantly and
continuously communicate with the need to do so.  And for those professions
where driving and communication is part of the job, (a) the conversation's
likely topic involves the act of driving, (b) the driver has received
professional training, and (c) the conversation is short.  None of those
factors apply to the average person having a social conversation that could
easily wait another 10 minutes.
 
The question isn't whether talking on a cell phone while driving impairs
focus; of course it does.  The question is whether government should address
this relatively new phenomena at all, and if so, how?  Through restrictions
and sanctions?  Through education?  Through stiffer penalties only when
usage results in a collision?
 
Personally, when I see people yakking away on their cell phones clearly
oblivious to what's going on around them, I can't help but say, "Get off the
phone and drive."  Just today I was sitting southbound on Reserve first at a
red light at Mullan and watched some guy making a left turn to westbound
Mullan in a huge-ass truck clearly completely lost in a cell phone
conversation.  He was laughing and nodding his head as he held his cell
phone in his left hand and struggled to control the steering wheel with his
right because the turn required him to lift and grab the wheel a couple
times to make the turn with one hand.  Since he's pushing around 4,000
pounds of steel and glass that's likely to crush anything he comes in
contact with, I would appreciate it if he'd give that task his full
attention and wait until he gets home to talk to whomever had him engaged.
 
One other thing - driving is privilege, not a right.  If there are enough
people abusing the conditions of that privilege, they shouldn't be surprised
when government steps in.  Want to help keep government out of this
discussion?  Get off the phone and drive.
 
 
 

  _____  

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Paradigm1 at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 17:43
To: psopko at peoplepc.com; sayermon at yahoo.com; echilders at ci.missoula.mt.us;
BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us
Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] cell phones


Interesting... but i'm not sure we want our daily lives regulated by the
"Experimental Psycology" crowd. See the study below. It tells us that cell
phones increase risk by 1.3 times... and Cups in cars can increase risk by 9
times... I am wondering why we are banning the 1.3 times risk factor item,
instead of the 9 times risk factor item... anyone....?
 
 
"A study released in April 2006 found that almost 80 percent of crashes and
65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within
three seconds of the event. The study, The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving
Study, conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), breaks new ground.
(Earlier research found that driver inattention was responsible for 25 to 30
percent of crashes.) The new study found that the most common distraction is
the use of cellphones, followed by drowsiness. However, cellphone use is far
less likely to be the cause of a crash or near-miss than other distractions,
according to the study. For example, while reaching for a moving object such
as a falling cup increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by nine times,
talking or listening on a hand-held cellphone only increased the risk by 1.3
times. The study tracked the behavior of the 241 drivers of 100 vehicles for
more than one year. The drivers were involved in 82 crashes, 761
near-crashes and 8,295 critical incidents."

 
In a message dated 3/19/2009 4:28:32 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
psopko at peoplepc.com writes:


Here's an abstract for another peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of
Experimental Psychology:
 

"Drivers talking on cell phones are more distracted and more prone to error
than if they were speaking with a friend sitting next to them in the car, a
new report finds. A recent study, published in the December 08 issue of the
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, involved 41 men and women
ranging in age from 18 to 26. Each participant was paired with a friend and
asked to navigate a 24-mile multi-lane stretch of highway with "real"
highway conditions represented on a simulator. Participants were presented
with three scenarios: driver talking on a hands-free cell phone, driver
talking with a passenger, and no conversation at all. Half of the drivers
talking on cell phones missed a designated exit, while only 3 of 24 drivers
missed the exit when talking with another person sitting next to them. 

Talking with a passenger is considerably less hazardous than talking on a
cell phone. 

A driver talking on a cell phone is four times more likely to get in a crash
than a driver who is not. The risks of talking on hands-free cell phones are
the same as those talking on hand-held cell phones. More information is
available at  <http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=621873>
http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=621873. "

 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jim  <mailto:sayermon at yahoo.com> Sayer 
To: echilders at ci.missoula.mt.us ; BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us ;
Paradigm1 at aol.com 
Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:01 AM
Subject: [MissoulaGov] cell phones

FYI, I've seen a lot of comments and speculation about the cellphone ban but
not as much hard information. Here's a list of data from this website --
http://www.nationwide.com/newsroom/dwd-facts-figures.jsp: 




*	Distraction from cell phone use while driving (hand held or hands
free) extends a driver's reaction as much as having a blood alcohol
concentration at the legal limit of .08%. (University of Utah) 

*	The No.1 source of driver inattention is use of a wireless device.
(Virginia Tech /NHTSA) 

*	Drivers that use cell phones are four times as likely to get into
crashes serious enough to injure themselves. (NHTSA, Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety) 

*	10% of drivers aged 16 to 24 years old are on their phone at any one
time. 

*	Driving while distracted is a factor in 25% of police reported
crashes. 

*	Driving while using a cell phone reduces the amount of brain
activity associated with driving by 37%. (Carnegie Mellon) 


Also, here's a short news summary from cnet on a study from the University
of Utah comparing driving with a cell phone and driving drunk:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html

BTW, there's also a story in today's Independent on Dave Strohmaier and the
local debate:
http://www.missoulanews.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=1B1A1542-14D1-13
57-9CA97A6558961B35



--- On Thu, 3/19/09, Paradigm1 at aol.com <Paradigm1 at aol.com> wrote:


From: Paradigm1 at aol.com <Paradigm1 at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-18-09
To: echilders at ci.missoula.mt.us, BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us
Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 9:52 AM



Hi Bob... These updates are great-- thank you very much! 
It will be interesting to learn how talking on a CB  or Two way Radio while
driving, is less dangerous than talking on a phone ?
 
Carl P.
 
In a message dated 3/19/2009 9:39:22 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
echilders at ci.missoula.mt.us writes:

Thanks, Bob. Wonderful job. As I mentioned on the Council floor, I wish John
H. would do one.
The leash conversation is likely to be spirited. Judging from public
comments and from my previous experience,  we'll also discuss dogs in-town.
And probably leashing cats, before we're done. :)


Ed Childers, City Council, Ward6

Bob Jaffe wrote: 

Greetings,

We changed things up today and started with Public Works this morning.  We
discussed the situation with the right of way vacations on Miller Creek
road. Here is a very brief synopsis for folks who are unfamiliar.

We are doing a project to rebuild the intersection between upper and lower
miller creek on down to the Walmart.  The project requires some right of way
acquisition. During the process of researching the right of way boundaries
it was discovered that over 100 years ago additional right of way was
established that no one was aware of.  This additional right of way expanded
the public property right through some of the homes on the west side of
miller creek road. It goes without saying that the folks affected were not
so happy. What was a negotiation to sell us right of way turned into a
negotiation to ask us to vacate right of way. The City was not to hot on the
idea of vacating right of way that we would have to buy back later the next
time the road needed to expand.

So the engineering folks drafted up what the anticipated future needs would
be and we will vacate the balance.

 

In Conservation we had interviews and made appointments to the greenhouse
gas committee. We had four applicants for one position. We picked one but
were so impressed with the other applicants that we want to talk to the
committee about expanding their membership so we can also appoint the
others. Recently this committee has become much more active and is actually
taking on work projects. It seems wrong to turn down such qualified people
who want to volunteer.

 

In PAZ we did six interviews for three spots on the historic preservation
committee.  For the first time since I have been chair of the committee we
have an open PAZ schedule. We may actually skip PAZ for a few weeks until
the zoning update stuff makes it through planning board. I assume this is
indicative of the building slowdown.

 

In Public Safety we discussed the driving with cell phone ordinance.  CB and
two way radios have been removed from the proposal. Discussion focused on
having different rules in Missoula from the rest of the state; Primary or
secondary offence; are the reckless driving laws already adequate. We set a
public hearing for I believe April 13th.

 

Then we had a joint Public Safety and Conservation meeting to discuss the
conservation land leash laws.  The press was there for that one. We had TV
cameras and Missoulian photographers and a bunch of public comment. We
mostly just walked through the history of the subject from the last five or
so years. The likely outcome of all this is that there will be work done in
the context of our conservation lands management plan to establish a policy.
Then we will modify ordinance as needed to memorialize that policy. A great
deal of the public comment received to the council and in conversations I
have had with people is in regards to dogs in parks and on the commuter
trails. Dogs are required to be on leashes in these places. The current
issue before council pertains only to the north hills, mount jumbo, and the
kim Williams trail east of the university.

 

We finished the day with committee of the whole to discuss the revisions to
the ward boundaries and a resolution regarding transportation funding. By
law we are required to keep the wards equal to maintain equal rights of the
electors. The courts have set the bar at around 10% variance between wards.
Based on our best estimates we have a 13% variance with ward two being too
large. The best way to fix it is to shift the population clockwise around
the map. So part of ward two goes to one, part of one then goes to three,
three then to four. Five and six are about right the way they are. 

So the proposal has all of the northside now part of ward one.  If Mr.
Hendrickson is considering another term this is good news for him. The
University becomes part of ward three. I plan to run again so this is
probably good news for me. Unless I end up running against someone more
liberal than me. I believe I have become more conservative during my term.
There is something about this experience that pulls you towards the middle.
The area southeast of Arthur and Beckwith goes to ward four. I'll miss Molly
but probably not Philip. The Wapikia neighborhood goes to ward five. I don't
think ward six changes.

 

The transportation funding resolution came out of TTAC. It outlines the
various ways we are being screwed on transportation funding by DOT and the
state.  John Hendrickson, Dick, Renee, and Lynn voted against the
resolution. Mr. Hendrickson suggested that he would like to put forth a
minority report countering the request for more equitable distribution of
funds to Missoula. I look forward to seeing this minority report because I
am a little baffled by the suggestion. I encourage folks to read the
resolution. We are being robbed to support incredibly irresponsible funding
priorities and bloated DOT bureaucracy. 

ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2009/2009-03-23/TransportationRe
solution.pdf

 

 Thanks for your interest,

 

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3




_______________________________________________
-----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But
posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 



  _____  

Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops -
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029050x1201385914/aol?redir=htt
p:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B212974460%3B34272906%3Bh> Starting at
$479
_______________________________________________
-----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But
posts
to this list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.

 




  _____  




_______________________________________________
-----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But
posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.


  _____  

Great
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029050x1201385914/aol?redir=htt
p:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B212974460%3B34272906%3Bh> Deals on Dell
15" Laptops - Starting at $479 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090319/ec041e96/attachment.htm>