[MissoulaGov] cell phones

[hdgray at modwest.com]

Hi Everyone,

These last two responses were sweet bliss in this discussion.  Laura's
comments fall in line with accidents my friends and acquaintances have
been involved in but, I would have to add "singing with the radio" to the
list. Carl brings up a very good point with what he found as well.

I find it remarkable that laws are being proposed to address minor issues
while larger issues, distractions in this case, are completely ignored
because they are not "soup de jour" in political circles.

I realize that many of our council leaders are doing their best to help
the citizens of Missoula. Sometimes we all get to close to an issue and
should step back from it and reevaluate if it is the most important issue
to be spending our money and time on. With everything happening around us
today I just don't see banning cell phones while driving making the cut.

Sincerely,

DVG


> all right...I'm jumping in.  My name is Laura Rettaliata and I am an

> accident investigator for the Missoula Police Department.  I have not done

> any studies, nor have I read any (other than what other people have

> cited).  My experience is anecdotal and not scientifically quantified.  I

> have investigated over 10,000 accidents...probably at this point over

> 20,000 accidents.

>  

> With that said, I can only say that cell phone usage as a CAUSE of

> accidents, in my experience, is very limited.  When I investigate an

> accident resulting from inattentive driving, I ask that driver what

> distracted him/her.  I want to document that for the report and,

> ultimately, for the court trial if necessary.  Most of the time, the

> answer involves the radio/CD player.  I mean, a disproportianate (sp?)

> amount.  The other "excuses" given are looking away at something or

> someone to the side, SPILLING COFFEE, and yelling at the kids.  When I do

> not get an definative answer from the driver, I'll specifically ask "were

> you talking on a cell phone...it's not illegal, you know" and that person

> will most always answer in the negative.  When the other driver "reports"

> that the driver was on a cell phone and I ask if this is true, that driver

> most always says "yes, I was calling 911" (which makes sense, when you

> think about it). If a cell phone is

>  involved, it's the answering of a ringing phone that distracts the

> person.  I have had a texting accident.  I am aware that people will not

> always be forthcoming with cell phone as an excuse, for whatever reason. 

> But I do not think this number would be statistically significant.

>  

> I would like to add that CB's and 2-way radios are probably being excluded

> because so much of the working public, including all emergency responders,

> use radios for communication from dispatch.  Some government agencies use

> the cell phone for dispatches from the main office (animal control,

> specifically).  I do not know what the alternative would be if people that

> work out of an office could not rely on phones or radios for contact with

> that office. There really is little difference between my concentrating on

> what 911 is telling me via a radio and my concentrating of what they send

> to me on my mobile data transmitting unit (MDT).  At this moment, police

> officers use the radio, cell phone and a computer in their cars for

> communication with other officers, 911, shift commanders and other

> personnel in city and county government. With all this distraction, it's

> amazing that the accidents they are involved in are rarely careless

> driving on their parts. 

>

>  

> We already have a law for cell phones, distractions outside and inside the

> vehicle and just driving with your head you know where...it's careless

> driving.

>  

> Thank you for your time.

>

>

> --- 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] cell phones

> 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

> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 5:43 PM

>

>

>

> 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. "

>  

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Jim 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=1B1A1542-14D1-1357-9CA97A6558961B35

>

>

>

> --- 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:

>

> #yiv252593963 UNKNOWN {

> FONT-FAMILY:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}

> #yiv252593963 #yiv323751490 #yiv323751490 P.MsoNormal {

> FONT-SIZE:11pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri", "sans-serif";}

> #yiv252593963 #yiv323751490 LI.MsoNormal {

> FONT-SIZE:11pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri", "sans-serif";}

> #yiv252593963 #yiv323751490 DIV.MsoNormal {

> FONT-SIZE:11pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri", "sans-serif";}

> #yiv252593963 #yiv323751490 A:link {

> COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}

> #yiv252593963 #yiv323751490 SPAN.MsoHyperlink {

> COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}

> #yiv252593963 #yiv323751490 A:visited {

> COLOR:purple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}

> #yiv252593963 #yiv323751490 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {

> COLOR:purple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}

> #yiv252593963 #yiv323751490 SPAN.EmailStyle17 {

> COLOR:windowtext;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri", "sans-serif";}

> #yiv252593963 #yiv323751490 .MsoChpDefault {

>

> }

> #yiv252593963 UNKNOWN {

> MARGIN:1in;}

> #yiv252593963 #yiv323751490 DIV.Section1 {

>

> }

>

>

>

> 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/TransportationResolution.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 - 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 Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479

> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> -----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.