Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2009 Public Safety Energy IGR Committee Minutes MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY(ENERGYI INTERGO~rERN11~IENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE December 9, 2049 A meeting of the Public SafetyJEnergyJlntergovernmental Relations Committee of the Council of the County of Kauai, State of IJawai`i, was called to order by Councilmember Derek S. K. Kawakami, Chair, at the IJistoric County Building, Room 201, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, December 9, 2009, at 1:35 a.m., after which the following members answered the call of the roil: Honorable Dickie Chang Honorable Jay Furfaro Honorable Daryl W. Kaneshiro Honorable Lani T. Kawahara Honorable Derek S. K. Kawakami Honorable Bill "I~aipo" Asing, Ex-Officio Member Honorable Tim Bynum, Ex-Officio Member DEREK S. I~. I~:AWAI~:AMI: Public SafetyJEnergyJlntergavernmental Relations Committee is in order, all members are present and this Committee is now in recess. There being na objections, the Committee recessed at 1:35 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 3:39 p.rn., and proceeded as follows: Mr. Kawakami: Okay the Committee is now called back to order. The first item on the agenda is Minutes of the November 25th sa can I get a motion to approve. Minutes of the November 25, 2009 Public SafetyJEnergyJIntergavernrnental Relations Committee 11~Ieeting. DICKIE C~IANG: Move to approved. JAY FURFARO: Seconded. Mr. Kawakami: Any apposition? Seeing nave the oration is carried unanimously. Upon oration duly made by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Furfaro, and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the November 25, 2009 Public SafetyJEnergyJlntergovernmental Relations Committee Meeting was approved. The Committee proceeded an its agenda item, as follows: Mr. Kawakami: Could I get the second item read please. Bill No. 2336 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO A.,MEND CFIAPTER 16, ARTICLE 20, KAUAI COUN'T`Y CODE 1987, AS ~~~IENDED, RELATING TO THE TRAFFIC CODE [This item was deferred.) Mr. Kawakami: Igo we have any written testimony that was submitted? For the retard I think we have like what two We have two (2} written testimonies, we have a registered speaker? DARRELLYNE M, SIMAO: Larry Littleton. Mr. Kawakami: The rules are suspended. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Kawakami: Good afternoon Mr, Littleton, the floor is yours. LARRY LITTLETON: Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Councilmembers. Larry Littleton for the record. Last week I was here and I testified in apposition to Bill 233E on the grounds that discriminated against people who has hard of hearing. But today I realize there was a much bigger picture. This bill is about safety and making our county roads safe. People who like to use mobile electronically devices are often distracted from driving which may cause accidents. I have not found any statistics that proved that accidents an the island of Kauai were directly related to messaging devices or cell phones. As a matter of fact, we can say that eating, drinking coffee, applying makeup ar actions that people are doing while they're driving (inaudible} distracting. So I think it's with speculation for the Council to focus just an cell phones and paging devices, The two (2} known {inaudible) of a driver, of a vehicle is what causes accidents, not the device. Our society today has become one of instant gratification. Instant messaging and instant response. Many people here an Kauai have (inaudible} that depend an instant response, for example taxi drivers, delivery people but they contact to the operators, truck drivers, {inaudible} and yes Councilmembers often require instant communication. If this bill is passed it will force people to pull to the side of the road to answer their device. Ta get back onto to the road... our county roads are not designed far people to pull off the road, get back in, pull off the road and get back in, it is not safe to da that. And that's what is required if you pass this bill. I am in favor of a mobile free zone like a school zone ar a hospital zone, if that's what you're striving for, but to say the entire island, every road on this whole island should not be allowed to use a mobile device, I think it's not only unsafe but economical poor decision. Thank you. Mr. Kawakami: Thank you. Councilmembers, any questions? Cauncilmember Bynum. Mr. Bynum: So Larry thank you for your thoughtful testimony and so I understand you're just suggesting that we not pass the bill at all? You're not asking us to amend it in any way? Mr. Littleton: I'm asking you not to pass it as it's written today, Mr. Bynum: And would you have suggestions far amendments that would make it more acceptable? Mr. Littleton: In the bigger picture of things, if we are thinking about sites on the island, where safety is a concern, then yes I will suggest you make it a cell phone free zone by a school, by a hospital, if that is the intent. But to say something... {inaudible} west side is not safe when it's a straight stretch for ten {l.0} miles, I just think it is not a good decision either. (inaudible} so to say that we have to pull off the road is not fair. Mr. Bynum: Thank you, Mr.I~awakami: Any other Councilmembers? Seeing none. Thank you l1~Ir. Littleton for your testimony. Alright we have in the audience Christina Pilkington, the rules are still suspended so if you could come up, we have some Councilmembers with some questions. CHRISTINA PILKINGTC}N: Aloha Council Chair and Councilmembers, Christina Pilkington for the record. Mr. Kawakami: Thank you Christina for coming, Lani, you had some questions? LANI KAWAHARA: Thank you Councilmember Kawakami. My question was actually related to Mr. Littleton's previous testimony on the possible discriminatory nature of the bill regarding his being able to text because of his hearing disability and my question was just was there a standard in place already or is there no standard for that? Ms, Pilkington: I can't speak... Ms. Kawahara: by law. Ms. Pilkington: for Larry if he feels it's... the bill is discriminatory against people who are deaf but I'm not aware of any other state or any other island in the State of I-Iawai`i that feels that this bill is discriminatory. It's... {BC: excuse me, I have to stop} Mr. Kawakami: Why don't we take a recess. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 3:48 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 3:55 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Mr. Kawakami: The meeting is now called back to order and the rules are suspended, please proceed, AL CASTILLO {CC7TJNTY ATTORNEY): Excuse me. Al Castillo, can you hear me, County Attorney. The question posed by the Councilmember raises a constitutional question and I would think it would be unfair for her to be asked that question because it's a legal matter. Mr. Kawakami: Um. Would you like to talk to the County Attorney or would you like to ask a different question? It seems to me that the advice is that's a question that's more properly to be asked to our County Attorney. Ms. Kawahara: Yeah I think I'd like to talk to the County Attorney and I would like to thank Ms. Pilkington for being here and we might have questions later. Mr. Kawakami: Do you have any other questions for her now while she's up there? Ms. Kawahara: No it was that, it was the ADA related requirements, I think. Mr. Kawakami: Okay is there any other Councilmembers have a question for Ms. Pilkington? Seeing none. Christina thank you so much for coming. County Attorney. Mr. Castillo: Al Castillo, County Attorney. Good afternoon everyone. Ms. Kawahara: Good afternoon. Mr. Castillo: So I'd just like to say that the... these types of bills or ordinances obviously popped up across the nation and the constitutionality regarding the equal protection clause of our constitution has been tested and this is a safety issue and this measure is being done in the best interest of the safety, health and welfare of our community. Based on that this legislative body has the power to promulgate laws such as this one. Ms. Kawahara: Okay thank you. I wanted to be sure we got a response to that and have it on record. Would it be safe to say then that... that there is no ADA requirement foreseeing us to make a exception or. Mr. Castillo: See the ADA requirement falls on a different set of criteria. Right now basically the discriminatory angle or perspective of your question, when you talk about discrimination and say discrimination for any type of class per say, you are basically talking about the equal protection clause... Ms. Kawahara: Okay. Mr. Castillo: And therefore based on that constitutional question, it has been challenged and because this is a safety issue, the constitutional challenge did not survive. Ms. Kawahara: Okay thank you. Mr. Castillo: In the cases we know of. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you very much. Mr. Kawakami: Councilmembers, any other questions for the County Attorney? If not, thank you Al, Meeting is now called back to order. Do we have a motion and seconded on the bill? We do. At this time, I'm going to entertain a motion to approve to get the bill on the float and what we're going to do, we're going to have a discussion, um there is going to be an amendment, oh you know what? Sorry about that Lani, you know what.,, the rules are suspended, we have the Police Department, I know Councilmember Kawahara had some questions. Can we get the Police Chief and Police Department up. Sorry Lani, I forgot about you. Councilmember Kawahara the floor is yours. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you Chair Kawakami. Thank you Chief and officer for coming, I appreciate it and I also appreciate you and Councilmember Kawakami introducing this bill. I just wanted to go over some basics because it's been done in Honolulu and as a test course, I guess, I've been able to find out things that I would have questions for you about. So they did theirs in July and it went into effect in July and I understand that they had warning session first.,. warning period first and then they ticketed people. And are you... after that they did a second one because they found that they were people relapsing on that, did you find that, is that correct'? DARRYL PERRY (ChIIEF flF FC~LICE}: Darryl Perry, Chief of Police, Kauai Police Department. Ms, Kawahara: So that's pretty much accurate, do you think we would have the same issues here and what kinds of effects would it have on your beats and forces? Mr. Perry: Generally when a new law comes into effect, there's compliance immediately because of the enfarcements efforts and then as time goes on, people get comfortable and they become complacent and it's not unlike any.., our seatbelts laws where people stop wearing their seatbelt... they used it at first and then they stopped using it and then we again our enforcement efforts and then it went up but it goes up or down. Sa in Honolulu situation there's a lot of publicity, the media got a hold of it and they were able to get the message out and but after awhile people gat complacent so the enforcement number of actual violators went up. Ms. Kawahara: Right. Mr. Perry: But then they had to step up their enforcement efforts sa I would see the same trend for here on Kauai. Ms. Kawahara: And also in the testimony or some of the concerns of their public safety committee was haw enforceable would it be for you to... far them they're asking (inaudible} how enforceable would their ordinance be? i And there were concerns about it being enforceable, so I would like to ask the same question of you. Mr. Perry: It would be like any other violation that we see like a seatbelt violation, speeding violation. Seeing same body on a cell phone, it's very obvious in fact as I'm driving here, there were at least four (4} people that I saw on the cell phone. Sa it wouldn't be a difficult to enforce the law but we want the people to be in compliance so I don't know if that answered your question but it wouldn't be difficult. Ms. Kawahara: It's not difficult for you to enforce? Mr. Perry: Not at all. Ms. Kawahara: Okay. Mr. Perry: Unless people have tinted windows and we can't see inside but that's another violation, we'll have to stop... Ms. Kawahara: Okay and the overriding issue 1 guess I had was the question and that's why I asked you to came also was do we have a distracted driving law in place already on a state level and I believe you handed something out to us sa if you could share that with us. Mr. Perry: Yeah. Currently on our HRS it's... HRS 291 (].2} which is entitled inattention to driving and what it states is whoever operates any vehicle without due care or in a manner as to cause a collision with, or injury or damage to, as the case may by, any person, vehicle or other property shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisoned not more than thirty (30} days, or both, and what this states is to cause collision ar injury or damage in cell phone bill if I used that as an example, what we're trying to da is prevent injuries or damages to persons and property. Ms. Kawahara: Okay. Mr. Perry: Sa you really can't imply this law until one of these situations occur. Ms. Kawahara: You can't apply the state law. Mr. Perry: The intention. Ms. Kawahara: Oh the intention? Oh okay the intention sa it's just to prevent, I see. Okay. Um so you can't ticket anybody for, unless they cause an accident. Mr. Perry: Yeah they... Ms. Kawahara: But when you see them before they cause an accident, that's what this bill is for. Mr. Perry: This bill is preventive measure, like seatbelts unlike any other violation that had occurs including speeding and running a stop light... running a stop sign, it's a preventive measure. I Ms. Kawahara: okay. The other question I had was about handheld versus the actual, what is it... free... hands-free, the study show that they are actually are the same... you know they're not that different in causing the accidents, they're equally dangerous but this one only causes for handheld so we're going to allow hands-free? Mr. Perry: Yes. Ms. Kawahara: given though the study show they're kind of the same, that would be my.,, Mr. Perry: Yeah and I think the jury is still out on those studies and I understand that you're still distracted, your reaction time I think cuts to four (4}, you're actually while you're conversing on a cell phone, your reaction time is equivalent to somebody who's the average of a seventy (70} year old, so it's really cut down. I can't say whether or not ane (1} would be in favor of the other but what I do know is studies that were had... that were taken place... that was the one 1 gave to the Council about seven (7} years ago, twenty-six hundred (2,~i00) people were killed and it could be contributed to the use of cell phones and over five hundred thousand (500,000) collisions took place that resulted in injury, minor or major injuries. And also if I could and I know I'm getting a little bit off the subject but um, I think it relates, if you look at the second page there's this organization called the CTIA, CTIA and if you look in the back of your page, I think it's like the third (3rd) page from the end and it describes who CTIA is and it's an International Association for Wireless Telecommunications and their mission is to expand the wireless frontier and they're a major proponent of wireless communication but even within there, precautionary tips that there given, driving tips which is the next page, they say be responsible behind the wheel, don't text and drive. And they also say don't place calls.., place calls... dial sensible and assess the traffic and place calls when you are you not moving. And so those are... these are experts in the field and they understand the ramifications of the use of cell phones so you can read this at your pleasure. Ms. I~awahara: I wanted to say, this is the exact same article I printed aut earlier, so I was happy to see this. And you're absolutely right, there's growing evidence and it's been growing for a long time so it's not really a new thing, there's a hundred fifty (150} studies that listed in the I~Tational Highway report that says its dangerous to operate a car with cell phones. 1VIy concern was whether or not and you answered it, the distracted driving law which is called Inattention to driving and this is different, this ordinance is different because it's a prevention thing. Mr. Perry: Right. Ms. Kawahara: LJm the other question I had was, did the studies show that it's the conversation, the intensity of the conversation and the length of the conversation that are very large factors in accidents and Mr. Littleton brought up other issues like whatever else you're doing too, putting on make-up, eating your egg mcmuf~iin whatever, how can we balance that out so that this bill isn't just doing cell phones, or do we say it's cell phones because we want to focus on that primarily? Mr. Perry: How do we stop people from doing all the other things? Ms. Kawahara: Yeah that are just the same... like talking... I have people asking well what if I'm talking to somebody in my car, it's the same thing as like talking to someone an the phone, sa I'm just saying, asking what I'm hearing about asking to you. Mr. Perry: I don't know if studies have been done on those types of behaviors and from a law enforcement perspective, I am against any type of distractions but you're right I believe it's in the intensity of the conversation that takes place. And the person°s ability to drive and to multitask, and this is just an anecdotal thing, an the Hl I saw this driver, not the same gender as me, was a going down the road when she was eating, fixing her hair and an the cell phone at the same time and going about sixty {~0} mile an hour and if I was a police officer I certainly would have pulled her over and talked to her about her driving habits. So I don't know... Ms. Kawahara: Sa there's nothing... you could pull them over for now without the bill. Mr. Perry: You could pull them aver and talk to them and just express your concern about them being safe on the road. Ms. Kawahara: But that's it? Mr. Perry: That's about it. Ms, Kawahara: That's it? There's na citation you could give? DICKIE CHANG: For speeding? Mr. Perry: No citation. Ms. Kawahara: Yeah. Okay. Mr. Perry: And you ask for their cooperation. Ms, Kawahara: Yeah okay. Okay great thank you. I appreciate you coming in and answering my questions because I think where we're going with this, this is a good thing but the questions that I had were questions that people were asking and that I heard asked previously sa I wanted to be able to have you address those. Sa thank you very much. And thank you Chair Kawakami, I really appreciate. Mr. Kawakami: Cauncilmember Bynum Mr, Bynum: Hi Chief, as long you're here I'll ask this question, this... I certainly share the concern about being distracted in driving and you know same of us spend time an the side of the road waving, a certain portion of the year and it's amazing haw many people are on their cell phones as a routine and I'm certainly guilty of being distracted and just bringing Councilmember Kawakami... bringing this bill forward has changed my behavior some just the awareness of that I'm engaging and things that are probably not wise but the bill that's written as I understand it would allow hands free use for telephone Conversations, right? And you know other things that eomplitates this is these devices are being advertised now as driving Ad's because they have GPS and you knaw directions and so when I read this bill through, it's mobile electronic devices so even this GPS units that are probably a popular Christmas, maybe not so much on an island where we knaw where all the roads are but they would make those illegal as well? Mr. Perry: I'm not sure about. MARK SCRIBNER: Unless it's equipped in the vehicle. Mr. Bynum: Equipped in the vehicle, yeah because they're also building right into the current vehicles right, screens and GPS... Mr. Scribner: But does not include any audio equipment or any equipment installed in the motor vehicle for the purpose of providing navigation, so it has to be installed in the vehicle. So these portable ones would not be exempt but if the manufacture with it as the law reads, it would be acceptable. Mr. Bynum: Right and just to clarify the... you're supporting this bill, is that correct? Mr. Perry: Yes we are. Mr. Bynum: Okay I just wanted to hear that loud and clear. Thank you. Mr. Kawakami: Any other Cauncilmembers with any questions? BILL "I~:AIPO" ASING: I can say I have a... what's the track record now? When I say track record, I'm saying do you have records... records that reflect accidents caused by a cell phone user? In other words what I'm saying is, do you have retards of accidents and in these records you have I guess notations of accidents Caused by inattention to driving ah due to use of tell phone, as an example. Sa how much of that do you have with you to prove that it is unsafe on this island because we had x number of accidents to show that in fart it is a problem and this is why we need to pass this bill to assist us, do you have anything of that nature? Mr. Perry: Just a (inaudible} we don't have... we da not have in a system to flag report that say the contributing factor was a cell phone. Nat unless the individuals involved in the traffic Collision self reported by maybe a witness or somebody saying that this person was on the cell phone but currently we don't have any data to support this bill. We are basically looking at data from national studies that have otturred in other jurisdictions and in anticipating that it would be impattful over here. Now it's not to say that we didn't have any Collision as a result of somebody using the cell phone, we just don't have that data available. But we're in the process of looking at flagging that because we knaw we need that data set to support future laws that maybe enacting, but we don't have that to answer your question right now. Mr. Asing: Okay, I have to tell you that you know I have a problem if there is no supporting data to tell me as a law maker that there are problems, here the data that shows the problems and the legislative body is notify that there is problems and therefore if you pass this legislation, it will help us, the Police I)epartrnent to have the public drive safely so that it would be goad for the community as a whole. Mr. Perry: I understand your position and we are... again we're using the statistics from other organizations or other jurisdictions and see the thing about this it's a preventive measure and we're the ones that you know I hate to put it this way but investigate the cases after the fact and we have to make the notifications to the families when these types of situations occur now again I don't have the data but I'm pretty sure based an the years of experience that there have been collisions here on Kauai as a result of inattention with the use of the cell phone. If I were to research and I guess we could da that, to satisfy the Gouncil but we could do research, we're going to lank through thousands of reports but I'm sure that there are reports in there that indicate that there inattention to driving as a result of using the cell phones but again I don't have that data with me right now. Mr. Asing: Tied to that there is... when we use the term using the cell phone, now that term using the cell phone, needs a definition because I could probably be using a cell phone and not holding the cell phone as an example and talking by using a head set so there is to me, a difference between holding the cell phone and talking as a distraction versus I not holding anything. I am partly concentrating on my driving and at the same time I am talking to someone because I have a head set phone so there is a difference between those two {2} operations and I would say and I am not a professional so I don't know how to differentiate between to the two {2}, but I would say that there is a distinct difference in terms of safety an one versus the other. The one with the head phone would be safer I would say to operate than the one that you have that you have to talk directly into. Mr. Kawakami; Gouncil Ghair if I may though but um the definition of the use is on the second page of the bill and basically just means holding it, and as far as one being safer than the other um we purposely took out any reference to hands free devices because we didn't want to market hands free devices as being a safer alternative because it's the distractive driving that's at the rant of you knave the hazard so we didn't... we took that out, it was in their hands free devices, we took it out once we found out eh you know using a hands free devices is not necessarily safer. I just wanted to inject I guess since I'm introducing this bill the rhyme and reason behind this so the picture becomes clearer. When I first thought about this I was watching Oahu and what they were going to da and for me, I'm riding my bike a lot more, I'm walking around a lot mare and it's funny when you walk ar when you ride your bike you start to pay attention to what other people are doing a lot mare carefully, and I can tell you Oahu tried to band texting, which is {inaudible} I think mare horrendous results than talking on the cell phone because far one the driver is reading their text message and two {2} they're texting back. Gity and Gounty of Honolulu tried to introduce the bill banning texting which was met opposition from a various numbers of departments, the Police Departments including saying that they couldn't enforce it, so what happened is they went back and introduced a ban on handheld mobile devices. Now the data as far as data goes I mean yeah you know their not tracking data because from what I understand we didn't have a law you know to the effect, it wasn't an issue because there was na ordinance but moving forward you look at I mean national data and you know we got to take national data with a grain of salt because we're different, we're Kauai yeah we're not Los Angeles but still as we're growing and becoming mare urban, and with you know our hours of the day becoming mare limited we're multitasking in places that we shouldn't be, sa as far as data we have you knave the Idarvard Center of Risk Analysis you know sa I'm just going to repeat the data, there's twenty-six hundred {2,600} fatal crashes a year and this is in 2002. ~o between 2002 and 2009 there's even mare people driving on the roads using cell phones, and now texting I mean texting is bigger now than it was in 2002, I mean it's blowing up right now with faceboak, twitter, I mean it's even more of a concern, sa twenty-six hundred {2,600} fatal crashes in 2002, five hundred seventy thousand {570,000} accidents that range in injuries from minor to serious, so that's in 2002. They did a study, I guess this could be the same study, but drivers talking on the cell phone is four times likely to crash and that kind of statistic and that kind of data for me it doesn't matter where you live you know, it doesn't matter if you're Las Angeles, they're saying that if you're on a cell phone, you are four times as likely to crash. Sa what I'm basing this bill on is on that kind of national data because we didn't have data on Kauai. We didn't have an ordinance or a reason to kind of track that data until you know perhaps now, if this bill should pass. So that was the rhyme and reason and the intent of bringing this bill forward, and I know it's hard to make a decision if we're saying eh we don't know on Kauai, we don't track it, but I can tell you the intent is to make our roads safer you know and it's from personal experience like anything else. Mr. Perry: Excuse me on the last page if you look at the cell phone laws as of December 2003 California, Connecticut, New ~Tersey, New York, Qregon, Utah, Washington and District of Columbia all have passed cell phones restrictions and also local jurisdictions and there's a list of them over here, and there's more but these are some that's.. and some of these communities are small, small too so. Mr. Asing: Yeah I'm looking at it right now Chief, I think though you know at the top of the page it says cell phone laws and a jurisdiction ban a wide ban an driving while talking an a hand-held cell phone, so you know again the defa.nitian what is it and you know I can see texting I mean there is no question in my mind, I'm not sure about hands free, so I guess you know here's where I come from, I came from a company that I work far that we you know it's been a long time now but we had a special radio system communication, we were a communication company, a telephone company and that's sounds means of communicating between supervisor and working personnel from supervisor to others from the mechanic shop to mechanic driving out to location to where you going you know that's communication, we need that in our work, performing our work and without that tool yeah it is a restriction and it makes it very difficult far us to work, similarly used by trucking companies, you know the mail companies, that's their tool to communicate and do their work and I think it's a matter of you know the degree of what exactly are we going to be restricting and that's the portion that is a little ticklish for me an exactly, as an example I put down texting as completely out. I don't think that we should allow that, I would not have any problem with something like that but I'm not sure about hands free you know and then I think about the trucking industry, gosh I mean you know a truck traveling here and then the office says eh I want you to divert your route and I want you to go to Koma Road instead of you going to you know Kawaihau because of you know the work that's being done and when we start to affect businesses and communications between parties and communications that are needed and necessary to da their work in a reasonably safe environment and I just had same questions to what degree are we moving to, so that we will start infringing upon areas that would make it difficult for businesses ar anyone to be using and communicating with one another for any reason at all. Mr. ferry: Yau know, I agree. I mean you have to look at it as a benefits but a law enforcement perspective, the cost versus the benefits, we're looking at it in terms of casts of people getting injured and property damage and I understand this is a hundred fifty billion dollar industry and they were aware back in the sixties of the potential problems that they may have had back then, but they never anticipated that the technology would be advanced as far as it has today. So um from our perspective and I can understand the economics of companies but we will stand fast that we want to look after our, and you to look after the safeguarding our citizens that it may be inconvenience for trucks to pull off the side of the road or call every maybe every half an hour you call back but in situations that I've been exposed to, think that's a small price to pay for something that may last individuals a life time of misery and sa I stand firm an my apposition. Mr, Asing: Thank you, I appreciate that. Mr. Kawakami: Any other Cauncilmembers? Na'~ Ms. Kawahara: Councilmember Kawakami. The bi11 may I ask you, does it have? Mr. Kawakami: Do you have anymore questions for them? Ms. Kawahara: It might be for both. The bill as you see it, does it allow you to stop on the side of the road and have your car running and talk on the phone, is that still considered in an operating vehicle if the car is running and your on the side of the road? I mean it came up, it actually came up in the Oahu County Council meeting, sa I was just wandering far us to be careful. Mr, Perry: Yeah in the definition of a motor vehicle considered in motion would be an engine is on and running so, they would actually have to turn off the engine because it cannot be running. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you. Mr. Bynum: Mr. Chair, I mean I have seen the testimony and a potential amendment, can we talk about that or ask them questions about that now or wait. Mr. Kawakami: No. Na. Mr. I~aneshiro: It's not on the floor. Mr. Kawakami: Nat yet. Mr. Bynum: I'll wait. Mr. Kawakami: It hasn't been introduced but what we can da is, we can get it on the floor and if yau have questians we can suspend the rules and call them back up at the appropriate time. Mr. Bynum: Okay. Mr. Kawakami: Anymore questians for Police Department, if Wane thank yau. Mr. Perry: Do you want us to hang around, Mr. Kawakami: For a few mare moments. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Alright Cauncilmembers, I'm gaing to entertain a motion to approve and then we can have discussion and we look forward to the opportunity to introduce any amendments, sa. Mr, Kaneshira: Move to approve. Mr. Chang: Seconded. Mr. Kaneshira moved to approve Bill No. 2336, and seconded by Mr. Ghang. Mr. Kaneshiro: ~ I would like to circulate an amendment and my amendment basically concerns mare with the commercial drivers and I'm... I know Honolulu had that amendment,.. well a warding at such but mine is mare specific to commercial drivers. hlanalulu version was drivers using two (2} way radios while in a (inaudible) of their work related duties were exempt, Specifically I'm saying that commercial drivers and with valid CDL license and the reason why I say that is because CDL license goes with the large trucks most time and to me yau know if he has to pull an the side, might be mare of a traffic hazard when you've got asemi-traitor pulling a big rig to pull on the side of the road to communicate back to their main office, let's say for instance you said yau need to turn around at the next section because you know we need that huge machine that you're now pulling instead of going all the way to Kekaha, we need it back here in Lihue. Then all of a sudden, we're going to have to have this guy pull an the side of the road with his huge semi yau know, might be mare detrimental to traffic coming and gaing. So my proposal basically adds in where a commercial driver, as long as you gat a CDL licenses yau know if you need to use it, it's called a two (2) way radio communication and basically you use it for that purposes and if there are doubts with the Police Department is probably saying ah this guy you know there's other commercial drivers that are just talking on the phone, pull them over and you know if there is some reason to believe that ar some cause to believe that there are you know, our law is a little bit stricter than just waiving for drivers for using two (2} ways radios to do work related duties. Sa that's what I have on the floor. So you know I would like to introduce this amendment. Mr. Kawakami: Can I get a second? Mr. Kaneshiro: Gan I get a second an it and then we can open it up for discussions and probably have the Police Department back up here for comments at this time} so I'm making that amendment at this time. 11~r. Kawakami: So I have a motion, can I have a seconded? 11~r. Chang: Can I ask Councilmember Kaneshiro a question? Mr. Kawakami: You can make a seconded and then we can open it up far discussion. Mr. Chang: I seconded that motian. Mr. Kaneshiro moved to amend the bill as shown in the floor amendment attached hereto, seconded by Mr. Chang. Mr. Kawakami: Okay. We're open for discussion. Mr. Kaneshiro: For discussion. Mr. Chang: Thank you for bringing up this... concern about this commercial drivers but I do have the same concern as you because if a commercial driver.., if they using the two {2} way system, you usually can see the radio, the device and a cord because a lot of them have the older vehicles but I just wanted to make sure and I don't know if that's an honor system but I'm glad you brought it up because with that being said it doesn't give a commercial driver free rein when they're not doing the work thing that they... now all of a sudden they got to cell and hey I gat (inaudible} I'm in a commercial vehicle so that... now I can talk story sa I just want to make sure that the intent is to support the Kauai Commercials, the Kauai Freights you know those who have those older devices to do the two ways radios and I'm glad you brought this amendment up but I think hearing from what you had said earlier and correct me if I'm wrong I also do have the concern that you knave that doesn't mean that just because you have a pass because you're a commercial driver, that you can now use your cell phone. Mr. Kaneshiro: That's the intent. The intent of this bill is safety. Mr. Chang: Correct. Mr. Kaneshiro: As we all said. But there are companies that use theirs a two (2) way radio system on the cell phone and I'm not saying that 1 want... or I'm encouraging to use the cell phone to talk for other non-related business but if you going to use that cell phone to communicate as what we said on the two (2) way radio system, (inaudible} it makes it very difficult for the Police Department when they pull this people over but at least I'm saying, I'm more specific in saying you're a commercial driver, you're a CDL driver, guys with the big truck you know, don't take advantage with this but we're allowing you to just to communicate mobile to mobile to home base if you need be, of certain aspects an you know if condition change while you're hauling this big huge equipment. So this will give them that opportunity but at the same time there's na way we're trying to open this up to give them a pass to use the cell phone and to talk. Mr. Chang: Okay, Mr. Kaneshiro: Sa you're correct that's my intent is to have only two (2) way radio communication far work purposes. Mr, Kawakami: Councilmembers further discussion. Mr. Bynum: Yeah I just and that's the reason why I asked that earlier to the Police Department because 1 see Mr. Kaneshiro's amendment is fairly narrow with the commercial license and you know there's no perfect way to do this because we can have other companies come in and say, you know we don't have commercial licenses but we use this in the course of our business and so you know like always we're trying to find the right middle ground and you know Pm not a committee member so I won't be voting today on this but I think Mr. Kaneshiro has... you know trying to address in a place where can maybe not have that much abuse because these are commercial... and that's why I wanted to ask the police their opinion to that because you know yours is very targeted on commercial drivers that have a commercial license and that's not as huge number as if it were (inaudible} yeah. Mr. Kawakami: You want to call them up? lt~Ir. Bynum: If I could. Mr. Kawakami; Qkay the rules are suspended. Could I get the Police Chief and Police Department back up. Councilmember Bynum the floor is yours. Mr. Bynum: Yeah.. thank you. And maybe this is for Lieutenant Scribner because you know I read your written response and your concern about passible abuses and the difficulties the HPD had with this but I don't know if you seen this amendment but Mr. Kaneshiro's amendment as fairly narrow because it says commercial drivers inaudible) defines that as a driver who has a CDL Commercial Driver License and so you know does this make that narrowness of this amendment make it a mare powered able from your point of view ar? Mr. Scribner: It's very narrow and specific but we still... like you brought up the problem... we still have that concern where it's going to be abused and how as an enforcement agency do we distinguish between him using his two {2) way radio specifically for communications with his company and a driver talking to his wife and talking story with his friends and stuff. And for us do we.,. because it's a CMB do we assume that he's talking business on his Nextel or his push to talk and being that it's an eighteen (18} wheeler, it's a large vehicle, they need more control over their vehicle, they need to be more responsible and more attentive and if he has his push to talk in his pocket does he reach... you know haw attentive is he while he's trying to get his cell phone or his two (2} way radio out. That's our concern as far as enforcement and safety. Mr. Bynum: Well thanks for that answer. Mr. Scribner: Anal also um, since you brought up H,,. Honolulu, they have their cell phone bill and two (2) way radio in it and a two ~2} way radio like Councilmember Chang talked about is like a radio like we see an all the police shows with the little wire and stuff and that's one of them but Nextel's and push to talk, AT&T push to talk and that's one of the reasons why we kind of take that out because Honolulu is having a problem with prosecution because once it got out that oh a two way radio is exempt, when they get the ticket, they go to court, oh I was on my two (2} way radio. And how da we prove that he wasn't? And it's been thrown out of court. Mr. Bynum: Right and in Honolulu the two (2) way radio is more broad though? Mr. Scribner: Well it's a two (2) way communication... two (2) way radio communication and the Nextel push to talk and AT&T push to talk's is classified as a two {2) way radio. Mr. Bynum: Right and um that's why I thought Mr. Kaneshiro's amendment was pretty thoughtful because it would narrow it down a lot more than that right? Sa... I mean the way it is in HPD anybody that has that capability could argue that I wasn't on my phone, I was using my two {2) way radio. But you know what Daryl suggesting is just for the commercial users, at least for me, I have a better comfort level with that. Mr. Scribner: But like I said... Mr. Bynum: And it's trying to seek that balance because commercial drivers have had two (2) way radio communication forever right? Mr. Scribner: Yeah the two {2) way radio like I said the um... the old one with the microphone with the wire is totally different from the push to talk and the... Mr. Bynum: I think you're correct that they're moving to this push to talk because they're cheap, Mr. Scribner: They're cheap, Mr. Bynum: They're inexpensive and easily replaced and so thanks for that input. Mr. Kawakami: Do we have any other questions for the Police Department? Mr. Kaneshira: No I don't. Mr. Kawakami: Okay thank you. The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Councilmembers any further discussion on the amendment? No further discussion? If not I'm going to call for... Ms. Kawahara: I don't know how to vote. Mr. Kawakami; No further discussion, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. ` Mr. Kaneshiro: Aye. Mr. Kawakami: Okay. Motion carried unanimously. We're back to the main motion. The motion to amend was then put, and unanimously carried. Ms. Kawahara: Haw many? Mr. Kawakami: Oh any opposed, sorry. Mr. Chang: You know... I would have to, if I... Chair? Mr. Kawakami: Sure. Mr. Chang: I would have to agree with Councilmember Kawahara when she jokingly said I think, she didn't know how to vote and the reason why I say that is, hearing what Lieutenant Scribner had to say you know I guess I really realize when we don't think about it, but a commercial vehicle is huge and of course we haven't had, thank goodness any accidents or proven accidents but a vehicle of that size probably well... definitely takes that much longer to stop and that much more to control and that much more to balance that I now have concerns because when you got a bigger vehicle just swerving and just moving is just harder to control and operate and um... you know I support the commercial business the commercial drivers but hearing what Lieutenant Scribner had to say I was never thinking about the size, the bulk, the control ability, the you know just the sudden, the sudden need to react to another vehicle, a flat tire or anything else, on tap of doing what you mentioned this new radios because I'm so out of touch with the new world that I was like listening to the old... because doing my research I was told that mast of the older trucks had these devices with the wire you know like I guess dating myself however I don't know about all this new Nextels and everything else so I da actually have a concern because I believe from your testimony Lieutenant Scribner, and you know more than anyone else as a traffic supervisor so I just need to say that I do have a concern based on the fact that when you're dealing with a big rig as you described... {Mic going in and out} Mr. Chang: I think I'm a little bit in a quandary also because I felt and I also appreciate you introducing that because that's what I would've liked to support but based on the testimony just given then I'm not comfortable with a supporting the Hoar amendment for right now. Mr. Kaneshiro: Na problem. Mr. Kawakami: Yau knave Committee members, you know there's three {3} options yeah {inaudible} discussion if you guys are not ready we can defer it, I mean there's no rush. I mean keep in mind the next committee meeting is going to be January, if you're not ready and you want to do mare research, that's always an option okay. Because if not the way the vote is going to stand yeah because Chair Furfara is absent it would be counted as an affirmative vote, in favor of the motion and amendment, I'm going to be supporting the amendment, that's going to you know... so if you're not ready you can ask far a deferral and it will overrides any motion. Mr. Chang: I would humbly would like to ask for a deferral. Mr. Kawakami: Could I get a second? Ms. Kawahara: Seconded. Mr. Kaneshiro: I seconded the motion. Mr. Kawakami: Okay. All those in favor? Mr. I~aneshiro: Aye. Ms. Kawahara: Aye. Mr. Kawakami: Okay motion carried. Item is deferred. Do we have to address the main motion or is the deferral covered everything? The deferral covers everything. Upon motion duly made by Couneilmember Chang, and seconded by Councilmember Kawahara, and unanimously carried, Bill l~To. 2336, as amended herein to Bi11 No. 2336, I}raft 1, was deferred. Mr. Kawakami: That being said the bill is going to be deferred and it's going to come back on January 16, 13th and bring this bill back up so between now and January 13th you can go and talk to the commercial truck drivers. This committee meeting is adjourned. Ms.I~awahara: I wanted to thank Chair Kawakami for allowing that, thank you. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:4 p.m. Respectfully slu~bmitted, t " Darrellyne M. Simao Council Services Assistant I AFPRO~ t the Committee Meeting held on January 13, 2014: x DERE . K. I~;AWAKAMI Chair, Public SafetylEnergy/Intergovernmental Relations Committee December 9, 2009 FLaQR AMENDMENT 131LL N~. 2336, Relating to Mobile Electronic Devices Introduced by: Daryl l~aneshiro Amend bill lti7o. 2336 as follows: "Sec. 16-20._ LTse of Mobile Electronic Devices While Operating a Vehicle (a) No person shall operate a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device. (b} The use of a mobile electronic device for the sole purpose of making a "311" emergency communication shall be an affirmative defense to this ordinance. {c) The following persons shall be exempt from the provisions of subsection {b}: (1} Emergency responders using a mobile electronic device while in the performance and scope of their official duties; and (2) Drivers possessing a valid amateur radio operator license issued by the Federal Communications Commission and using ahalf-duplex two-way radio. (3} Commercial Drivers using two-wav radios while in the performance and scope of their work-related duties. {d) As used in this section: "Commercial Driver" means a person who possesses a Commercial Drivers License {COL) as defined in Section 286-2 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) and who is operating a Commercial Motor Vehicle as defined in HRS 286-2. "Emergency responders" include fire fighters, emergency medical service technicians, mobile intensive care technicians, civil defense workers, police officers, and federal and state law enforcement officers. "Mobile electronic device" means any hand-held or other portable electronic equipment capable of providing wireless and/or data communication between two or more persons or of providing amusement, including but not limited to a cellular phone, text messaging device, paging device, personal digital assistant, laptop computer, video game, or digital photographic device, ~ 1 c~` 1 N ..1 ~ ~S ~~91-12 Sxtattetitiox~. to driving Whoever operates any vehicle without due care or in a manner as ~O CEtti838 ~ Cc~113.sic~xa i+otith, ar injur t~aC dalxiage tca, as the case may be, any person, vehicle or other property sha11 be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or bath, and may be subject to a surcharge of up to $200 wksich shall be deposited into the trauma system special fund, [b 1971, c 150, §2; am L 1977, c 180, §1; a L 1498, c 287, §4, am L 2008, c 231, §6] Cake No~.ee section not limited to public property lout applies to private property as well. 55 H, 505, 523 P.2d 315. evidence of failure to observe statutory requirements in changing lanes and in making left turn held. under the circumstances to be sufficient to support n lt/ finding of negligence in violation of section. 57 H. 533, 560 P,2d 214, ''v ~ ~ In order to convict under this section, the conduct and result elements all must be proven, along with the requisite state of mind; the "alternative ~ means" theory of t~-iis section expressed by the intermediate court of appeals ~~Y~ in Momoki rejected. 128 H. 185 P.3d 186, ~~~1~ :~?Zn order to convict under this section, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant {1} operated a vehicle "without due care or in a manner," {conduct} {2} "as to cause a collision with., orr~ or d to, as the case may be, any Berson, vehicle or other property" {result of conduct}, and that defendant did so {3} . ~ v inte_nti_onally, knowi~, ox' recfl.~:_sly. 118 H. 1, 185 P.3d 186. ,.The term "collision", in this section, should carry its common meaning, and not the more expansive technical de~initions used in some contexts; under such a construction, "collision"` generally refers to °an automobile coming in contact with same ottzer vehicle or some Berpendicular object obstructing the course of its progress"; where defendant's front truck wheels were stuck hanging one feet over the parking lot edge, defendant's vehicle was not involved in a collision as a matter of law and defendant thus could not be convicted under this section. 118 H. 1, 185 P,3d 186. Ta the extent that the "without due care" designation fails to maB the state of mind requirement described as "negligently'" in tlae Hawaii penal code, no state of mind is clearly specified by this section; thus, the default states of mind of "intentionally", "knowingly", or "recklessly'°, would be required as to each element of this section. 128 H. 2, 285 P.3d 186. Cl~`~~ ~ I'romotrn~ the Car F'hvne. Despite ~C~isks By MATT F.ICH'TEL Ilecetnlaer 2009 DRC~`E+~1~ 7'C) .IIISTR~CTIt)l Martin Cooper, who developed the first portable eellphone, recalled testifying before a Michigan state commission about the risks of talking on a phone while driving. Common sense, said Mr. Cooper, a Motorola engineer, dictated that drivers keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel. Commission members asked Mr. Cooper what could be done about risks posed by these early mobile phones. "There should be a Lock on the dial,,' he said he had testified, "so that you couldn't dial while driving." It was the early 19hOs. Lang before celiphones became common, industry pioneers were aware of the risks of multitasking behind the wheel. Their hunches have been validated by many scientific studies showing the dangers of talking while driving and, more receritl_y, of texting. Despite the mounting evidence, the industry built itself into a $I50 billion business in the United States largely by winning over a crucial customer: the driver, For years, it has marketed the virtues of cellphones to drivers, Indeed, the industry originally called them car phones and extolled them as useful status symbols in ads, like one from 1984 showing an executive behind the wheel that asked: "Can your secretary take dictation at 55 MFH?" "That was the business,,' said Kevin Roe, a telecommunications industry analyst since 199. Wireless companies "designed. everything to keep people talking in their cars." They succeeded. The federal government estimated in 2~that 1 f percent of drivers were talking on their phones at any given time..3ut that success has come ~a cosh. Researchers at Harvard have r'' , estimated that, even seven years ago, drivers using celiphones wereusing 2,600 fatal crashes a year' in the United States and 570,004 accidents that re~xt~ted in a range of injuries, from minor to serious, -___.._..w-.--~ _ .e.~.a. ,t _ ~ ~f L 4 U 1 ~ C~i~ L" L.._,-~ ~J 5 ~.'- j~ 7 "~l -~ 1!~ 1`t~- ~ r3 + i i ~ "t ~'~1 ~ X And studies show that a driver talking on a cellphone is four times likelier to crash and that using ahands- free device does not eliminate the risk. ~ The industry notes that the mobile device has moved we11 beyond its origins as a car phone and argues that research on the dangers of distracted driving is inconclusive, euen as wireless companies have spent millions on campaigns to educate drivers, But the industry's chief spokesman, SteG~e Lament, acknowledged in recent interviews that those efforts have fallen short. He said the companies plan to do more, particularly in light of the explosion of text messy an ,which they say poses a profoundly serious risk, The CTIA, the industry's trade group, sctl+ports legislation banning texting while driving. It has also changed its stance on legislation to ban talking on phones while driving --- for years, it opposed such laws; now it is neutral. "This was never something we anticipated,°' said Mr, Largent, head of the CTIA, adding that distracted driving is a growing threat now that more than 90 percent of Americans have cellphones. "The reality of distracted driving has become snore apparent to all of us." Critics of the industry argue that its education efforts over the years provided a weak counterbalance to its encouragement of cellphone use by drivers and to its efforts to fight regulations banning the use of cellphones while driving, or at least requiring drivers to use hands-free devices. The critics --- includinf; safety advocates, researchers and families of crash victims -- say the industry should do more, by placing overt warnings on the packaging and screens of cellphones. The critics also say that even as the industry continues to pay lip service to the risks, companies are marketing a new generation of technology, like GFS applications for smartphones like the iFhone and BlackBerry, and wireless Internet access for cars. A description of one new application for the iFhone reads, "Maps on iFhone shows you live traffic information, indicating traffic speed along your route in easy-to-read green, red and yellow highlights." Clarence M, I}itlow, executive director at the Center for Autu Safety, a nonprofit advocacy ltaup, was invited last month to speak about distracted driving by the Federal_~omtnunie tiot~s Commission. ile told the audience that the cellphone industry was selling a product consumers can use dangerously -without properly warning thetas or providing safeguards. He added: "'The only questions are: what did they know, and when did they know its" Dawn of the Car Phone C)n C}ct. 13, 1}8~, hundreds of peol~[e, including reporters, photographers and TV crews, gathered at Soldier Field in Chicago for a special event. The big draw? A celiphone call. An executive from Ariteeh, the regional phone company that sponsored the event, sat in the driver's seat of a Ch~s[er convertible and phoned agreat-grandson of Alexander Graham Bell, who was living in Germany. That call signified the introduction of mays-market commercial ceephone service, the equivalent of a moon shut for the telecommunications industry. "'1"he whole idea of placing a call from anywhere ---without wires - it was amazing," said Joe Colson, then a department head at Bell Labs, the prominent research arm of the nation's telephone giants, who was part of the crowd. Their work capped an effort that began decades earlier with radio telephones. Can its Web site today, AT&T notes that the first mobile telephone call, using that early radio technology, took place in 146. An accompanying picture shows a trucker, phone to his ear. "A trucker rolls with one of the first mobile phones,,, the caption says. But because of the expense and limits of that radio technology, wireless phones were used early on mostly by truckers and other professional drivers.. in the 1960x, ATc4~T says, New York City had 2,4(~ customers with these phones, and they typically waited 30 minutes for a call to go through. Early innovators, like Mr. Colson, saw new possibilities with the advent of smaller computer chips and batteries, as well as advances in wireless technology to simultauzeously carry millions of conversations. in ads, the industry promoted car phones as must-have accessories for the elite. In addition, it made sense to market to business people, who could justify the cost of ceephones as a way to make commuting time more productive. In August 19g'7, an ad in The New York Times for Metro C?n~ , a mobile service provider, showed a man talking on a ceephone while driving a sports car with a surfk~oard in the back. The ad read; "You can reach all those important clients and still beat the traffic.,, A telev%sian commercial far Centel, an early cellphone provider that merged with Sprint, shows a handsome businessman leaving the city in his Jeep while talking an his phone. His r~~ife is an the other end, using her awn portable phone, standing in a speedboat. The marketing paid off. Cellphanes, including portable models with brick-sire batteries, became status symbols, used by Michael Dautlas as Gordan Dekko in the 198'7 movie "Wall Street." The first phanes, like the one at Soldier Field, cast about $2,800, with installation -araund $6,000 in today's dollars.) "It was like carrying araund a Prada bag," said Ray DeRenzo, now chief marketing officer for obiTV, a TV service far phanes, who in 1986 worked at Pacific Telesis. In the late 1980s, one campany even succeeded in selling tens of thousands of a $l6 replica of a car phone called the "Cellular Phoney." The campany motto. "It's not what you own, it's what peaple think you awn.,, In late 1985, wireless companies had 340,000 customers. C:}nly 10 years later, as the price of phanes fell sharply, there were almost 34 million. The industry poured profits back into expanding networks. In just l0 years, the number of cell sites rase to 68,(X;10 in 1995 from 913. The industry planted many cell sites near highways, partly because it was e~~sier than persuading homeowners to put them in neighborhoods, and drivers were. crucial c~ustamers. Mr. Rae, the longtime industry analyst, estimates that %n the 1980s and early'90s, wireless companies gat ?5 percent ar more of their revenue from drivers, a figure that fell bulaw 50 percent 6y the mid-' 9(ls and is now below 25 percent (the eellphone industry says it does not break out such fi;~'ures~. In the late 1980s, the market remained heavily focused an drivers, even though the original car phanes gave way to slimmer and less expensive portable celiphones. Nell rota the 1990s, Mr. Rne said, wireless companies focused an three questions: "Can we saver the highways, do we have enough capacity to handle all the peaple an the highways, and is the signal strong enough?„ Mr. Colson, the engineer, said he was astonished by the popularity of celiphones, but he and others in the industry rarely paused to wander about risks. "Driver distractian'~" he said. "I mean, came on." Troubling Studies Mr. Cooper, now 80, and commonly referred to as the father of the cellphone far his early work at Motorola, sensed early an that the technology had risks. *`I'd pass by the exit I was suppascci to take because I was talking an the phone," he said. Thinking back, he said he was "absolutely" aware of potential dangers but did not think roads would became lilted with distracted drivers. Other early innovators of cellphones said they felt nagging concerns. Bab Lucky, an executive director at Bell Labs from 1982-92, said he knew that drivers talking on cellphanes were not focused fully an the road. But he did not think much about it or discuss it and supposed others did not, either, given the industry's booming fortunes. "lf you're an engineer, you don't want to outlaw the great technology You've been working on," said Mr. Lucky, now ?3. "If you're a marketing person, you don't want to outlaw the thing You've been trying to sell. If you're a C.E.G., you don't want to outlaw the thing that's been making a tat of money." Revenue for wireless service providers was snaring ~ to $16 billion in 1945 from $~54 million in 1985. The industry had revenue of ~ 148 billion in 2008. Cane researcher who spoke up about his concerns was quickly shut down. In 1990, David Strayer, a junior researcher at GTE, which lai ~r became part of Ve.ri_LOn, noticed more drivers who seemed to be distracted by their phones, and it scared him. He asked a supervisor if the company should reticarch the risks. "~`hy would we want to know that?„ Mr. Strayer recoiled being told. He said the incssage ~~~as clear; "1-.coming about distraction would not be very helpful to the overall business mC3de1." Outs idc the industry, others started raising red flags. In 1984, the AAA urged drivers to park before using their phones. In 1991, the Faundatian far Traffic Safety financed a laboratory study that found that drivers talking an cellphones had difficulty responding to challenging situations. In 199"7, the Canadian Ministry of Health and other groups helped finance research tee determine whether drivers distracted by cellphones were mare likely to crash. The researchers' answer. a resounding yes. They found that drivers using cellphones were four times likelier to get into accidents r4~~in drivers who were focused entirely on the road. "This relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a bland alcohol level at the legal limit," the researchers wrote in The New En tt l and .lournal of Medicine. They said hands-free devices were no safer than hand-held phones because of the distraction that comes from focusing on a conversation, not the road. In subsequent years, dozens of researchers also determined that phone use by drivers divides attention, slows reaction time and increases the risks of crashing. Their ranks included Mr. Strayer, who left GTE far academia to research distracted driving. Using a driving simulator at the University of Utah, he showed that drivers distracted by calls miss otherwise obvious sights along a virtual highway and that they face a four times greater crash risk, echoing other studies' findings. The research was not easy for the industry to ignore, particularly given that a wireless company, AT&T, had helped pay far a widely publicized study. AT&T paid Harvard researchers to study the economic value created by drivers using cellphones. In 2000, the researchers put that value at $43 billion. But in late 2002, based on an update to the findings, it was those researchers who estimated that distracted drivers using phones also caused 2,600 deaths each year and 570,000 accidents that caused injuries. Similar findings piled up. In 2005, the federal National Hi~hway Traffic Safety Administration published a bibliography of more than 150 scientific papers from the previous eight years about the dangers of cellphone use by drivers. "It's been a very consistent picture," said Chris Monk, a researcher at the agency. "Frankly, I get a little annoyed that we continue to see studies that investigate the effects of cellphone use on driving, because they all show the same thing, whether you're talking hands-free or not." Mixed Messages Critics say the wireless carriers have sent mixed messages about the risks posed by drivers using cellphones, The industry has resisted legislation to regulate cellphone use and, critics say, it has not warned drivers about dialing and talking as forcefully as it now warns them about texting. cellphone companies point out that for a decade they have run numerous public service ads, like AT&T's 2001 "Be Sensible" campaign, telling customers not to talk while driving through bad weather or heavy traffic. On its Web site, Verizon Wireless cites government recommendations that the safest course is to stay off the phone while driving. The CTIA ran its first distracted-driving campaign in 200(}, with the tagline: "With Wireless, Safety Is Your Most Important Call." Its latest slogan: "On the Road, Off the Phone." On its Web site, the CTIA offers safety tips including, "I?o not engage in stressful or emotional conversations that might divert your attention from the road" and "ITse a hands-free device for convenience and comfort." Those warnings do not acknowledge the many studies that show that hands-free devices da not eliminate risks. The industry says the research is inconclusive. Clne widely cited study, for example, shows that hands-free devices do limit the risk of talking while driving, However, that study, by the Vir inia Tech Transportation Institute, also showed that the act of dialing while driving poses serious risks. Ceilphone industry leaders also say studies have not shown a link between cellphone use and crashes. But little data exists on the number of crashes caused by drivers using ceilphanes because police either da not collect such data or started doing so only recently. The industry says the number of reported accidents fell to six million in 2007 from 6.~ million a decade earlier - at the very time cellphone use has soared. Its critics say that the drop reflects the many safety improvements to vehicles and roads and that, besides, fatality rates have stayed fairly constant. Ultimately, the industry has been motivated to educate customers because of good corporate citizenship, not because of research, said Mr. Lament, the head of the CTIA. "We don't like to see our devices used in a way that puts drivers at risk," he said. The most aggressive education effort has come in recent months, focused on texting. "Texting or mobile device usage in a car is an issue on par with drunk driving itself," said Daryl Evans, a vice president at AT&T, which has begun adding a sticker that reads "don't text and drive" to the screens of nearly all new phones. Verizon Wireless has put up billboards and is running television and radio spots. Last month, Sprint Nextel put out a news release urging customers not to text and drive and urging employees to agree not to do so. The CTIA has started a public service campaign to warn teenagers. But why, critics ask, does the industry accept researchers' findings on the dangers of texting when it found their studies lacking on the dangers of dialing or talking on the phone while driving"? .`There's prabably little difference between making a phone call and texting," Mr, Largent conceded, "If you have to take your eyes off the road, it can't be a good thing.,' But he said the industry is not taking a position on whether states should ban dialing or talking w~hilt; driving. "We're not saying anything about that,,' he said. "We're going to let our consumers make their voices heard." For critics, it adds up to an effort by the industry over the years to appear responsible without hurting its care business, The companies' warnings, critics argue, have not been loud enough to register {£~ver the last decade, the percentage of drivers talking on the phone at any given time has doubled, the government estimated}. "The landfill-sued accumulation of studies about the dangers of using these devices while driving should have prompted a much more engaged posture on the part of the industry to be leaders to attempt to rein in this behavior," said James E. Katz, the director for the Center for Mobile Cor~~nunications Studies at Rutgers, Qther critics go further. "The real messa~~e was: continue to use our product,,' said Mr, Ditlow, from the Center for Auto Safety. He and others say a legislative battle in California shows that she industry's actions speak louder than its words. The Fight for California "I am at an absolute loss," Joe Simitian said, standing at the podium, facing fellow members of a California ~~ssemhly s~bconunittee. It was April 23, 20()l, the day Mr. Simitian, Democrat of Palo Alto, submitted legislation to require California drivers to use hands-free devices. Mr, Simitian could not understand why major cellphone companies opposed his legislation, even though their educational materials urged drivers to use hands-free devices He cited such materials published by ATBzT, Cingular and Sprint -companies that opposed the bill. "When using your Sprint PCS phone in the car, focus on driving, not talking, and use your hands-free kit,,, Mr. Simitian said, reading from Sprint's own materials. "Failure to follow these instructions may lead to serious personal injury and possibly property damage.,' Mr. imitian, who seized on the issue after seeing dangerous behavior on the roadways, told his colleagues the legislation merely sought to codify "the very practices this industry has been promoting for the last several years.,. Verizon Wir~:lcss was the first wireless company to testify. Breaking with the other major companies, as it often has on this issue, it supported Mr. Simitian. Its representative called the Simitian legislation necessary because education was not enough, Representatives from AT&T, Sprint and Cingular said their education efforts were working. Their lobbyists added other concerns: research did not show cellphone use as a major cause of accidents; wireless phones should not lie singled out from other kinds of distractions like eating; and mobile phones were essential emergency tools. The representative from AT&T said the legislation did not adequately define "hands-free device.'" Mr. Simitian saw a contradiction. `These are the folks who wrote the brochure and now tell us they don't know what ahands-free device is," he said. The legislation did not make it out of committee, a result Mr. Simitian attributed to heavy company lobbying. In each of the next five years, major wireless companies opposed the same proposal in California, saying education was sufficient. Companies also said they were looking out fear consumers. They argued, for instance, that ahands-free law would provide an excuse for police c~fficc:rs t~~ purl over minority drivers. There is "the very real possibility it will lead to unfair and discriminatory consequences,,, Sprint 1'+lextel wrote in a letter opposing the 24tJ6 btl. But that version passed and the law took effect in 2.f1C18. The industry's position has since changed. In a recent interview, Mr. I,argent conceded that the opposition in California was "a mistake." "lit the time, we were all operating on the science that was beiorc tis and the evidence we had,,' he said. Mr. Simitian, now a state senator, finds that position `°disingenuaus." "The science at the time was the science that caused them to publish brochures telling people to use hands-free devices," he said, And Mr. Simitian says the industry had amptc evidence at the tune that its education efforts were not working. Mr. Largent conceded recently that the industry's education efforts were inadequate. He added that if people say, " `That's not your position l(l years ago,' l say, `You're right.' Thi 4 industry continues to evolve. We khink it's evolving in the right direction," "The bottom line is safety. That's our position.,, The Next Wave The industry is evolving. It focuses less on marketing the car phone. But some ads promote a new generation of devices for cars. A recent Sprint television ad shows a driver and four passengers in a car. The ad is for a mobile wireless service that allows people to use the Internet not just on phones but also computers. "Right now, five eo- workers are working from the road using a `Mi-Fi,' a mobile hotspot," the voiceover says. Qne person is checking a-mail, another is streaming music, a third is using Mapquest and two are downloading and revising a presentation, the voice says. Sprint says that despite what the voiceover says, not all five co-workers are actually working. "Throughout this television commercial, the driver has both hands on the wheel. He is not engaging in any unsafe behavior and is focused on driving," Sprint says. The company also says the product's instructions warn about distracted driving. And the newest phones let people do many tasks at once. A runt ad in People maga2ine for the Nuvifone, sold by ATBcT, shows a woman, apparentlyrn the lawn-ornament business, explaining how she got directions from her phone while making a work call. "I just tapped the address anti followed spoken, turn-by-turn directions right to the front doer; , it reads. "And I was able to take the call about pink palm trees -while still navigating.,, Mark Siegel, a spokesman for AT&T, said safety is paramount. "Your first priority in the car is driving safely," he s,iid. The marketing for the Nuvifone, he added, is "not intended to override our position.,, About Us Page 1 of 2 t . x -~. i t l i 'i ti; i i Abou# Us Media Advocacy Consumer lnfa Membership Conventions S. Events Business Resources Concoct Us Board a~ Directors PrwsidentlCEC1 Leadership Team Departments 'a Thb 'rYltEiest AslHit:itJtNSIY~ 140016th Street, iVW Suite 600 Washington, DG 20036 Phone: (202) 736-32{){1 Fax: (202)785-0721 Contact Us Board of Directors Presider?t CEO Leadership Team l J Home » About Us About Us CTIA-The Wireless Associate©n~, is an internafional nonprofit membership organization founded in 1984, representing all sectors of wireless communications -cellular, personal communication services and enhanced specialized mobile radio. As an organization, we represent service providers, manufacturers, wireless data and Internet companies, as well as other contributors to the wireless universe. CTIA advocates on their behalf before the Executive Branch, the Federal Communications Commission, Congress, and state regulatory and legislative bodies. GTIA also coordinates the industry's voluntary efforts to bring consumers a wide variety of choices and information regarding their wireless service, and supports important industry initiatives such as Wireless AMBER Alerts, and the "When it comes to Wireless, Safety is Your Call" safe driving public service announcement campaign. The association also operates the industry's leading trade shows, as well as equipment testing and certification programs to ensure a high standard of quality for consumers. Mission -Expanding the Wireless Frontier --, httq'.I Iwww.c~ia.~rglab©utC'~I~~ ~Zi~izoo~ Driving Tips Wireless devices give consumers the freedom to stay connected with family and friends and to conduct business anytime, anywhere. But, when it comes to using your wireless device behind the wheel, it's important to n=member safety always Dames first and should be every driver's tap priority. Wireless devices are one of the best safety foals drivers can have on the road, Everyday more than 290,Od4 calls are made from wireless devices to 911 or other emergency services, That's about 2iXI calls every minute. Mare Americans are using their wireless device to report emergencies, prevent crimes and to save lives, if it is necessary to use a wireless device while driving, the wireless industry encourages drivers to fallow same basic do's and don't to ensure that a wireless device doesn't became a distraction. • Be responsible behind the wheet.,.Don't Tent and Drive! * Get to know your wireless deviae and its features such as speed dial and radial. • Position your wireless deviae within easy reach. + Dial sensibly and assess the traffic; place calls when you are not moving. • Let the person you are speaking with know you are driving; if necessary suspend the call in heavy traffic or hazardous weather conditions. • Do not take notes ar look up phone numbers while driving. • Use ahands-free device for convenience and comfort. • Do not engage in stressful ar emotional conversations that might divert your attention from the road. • Dial 91 i or other local emergency numbers to report serious emergencies - it's free from your wireless phone, • Use your wireless phone to help others in emergencies. • Call roadside assistance or a special non-emergency wireless number when necessary. Cellph©ne laws December 2009 A jurisdiction-wide ban on driving while talking on a hand-held cellphone is in place in 7 states California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, Washington and District of Calumbia~ Local jurisdictions may or may not need specific state statutory authority to ban celiphones. Localities that have enacted restrictions on cellphane use include: Oahu, NI; Chicago, I Brookline, MA; Detroit, MI; Banta Fe, NM; Brooklyn, North Olmstead, and Walton Hills, OH; Conshohocken, Lebanon, and West Conshohocken, PA; Waupaca County, WI; and Cheyenne, WY.