01/16/2001 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 1/16/01 not have a problem. This ordinance does pertain to distractions while driving and will serve as a warning awareness to the public. Mr. Dunn noted that insurance forms do not have a section relating to other distractions either. People find a myriad of reasons to be distracted. He is saying that the cell phone is not the issue. It is not inherently bad, and it is wrong to pick on cell phones in particular because the statistics and the reasons do not hold up under scrutiny. David Lind, 5331 Evergreen Drive, said it seems excessive that a $3 ticket for using a cell phone could possibly carry $75 in court costs. It is not the cell phone that is causing a problem, it is the individual who has decided to do something that is not advisable while behind the wheel of the car. He does not think the city should pass the law. Daryl Davis, 27516 Butternut Ridge Road, said she presumed people are not being asked to get rid of the phones in their cars and that they would not be fined for pulling over to the side of the road to make their call. Mr. Nashar moved for adoption of Ordinance 2000-117, and the motion was seconded by Mr. McKay. Roll call: Nashar, yes, with comment that the ordinance contains a 90-day warning period and will be in effect for a period of one year. The risk of a motorist driving and using ahand-held cell phone is approximately the same as driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit. When cell phones were first introduced, they were sold to consumers to be used in cases of emergency. Roll call continued: McKay, yes; Limpert, no, with comment that, although the ordinance has been amended four times, he does not believe it is still quite right. He strongly believes hands-free phones are as dangerous as hand-held-both should either be legal or illegal. He is concerned about special driving laws in each community which could be a safety problem. Roll call continued: Gareau, yes, with the comment that he is comfortable with the legislation as amended making use of the cell phone a secondary offense. He finds this law, after having been carefully deliberated and researched, is certainly rationally related to legitimate governmental interests of preventing accidents and encouragement of safe driving. We do have full time and attention statutes, but what difference does it make if we have a second ordinance that relates to one specific conduct. He thinks that is good for North Olmsted. Roll call continued: Miller, yes, with comment that he would praise Mr. Nashar for agreeing to several amendments and coming up with a workable ordinance. Initially, he was opposed to the ordinance. However, after researching the issue and making observations, he became more comfortable with it. He sees this as a safety issue and one that could contribute to road rage. This ordinance does not eliminate the full time and attention ordinances, but it does give officers another choice. Roll call continued: O'Grady, no, with comment that the ordinance is getting "curiouser and curiouser" with all the amendments. The Police Chief has recommended that it not be passed, and there is data that demonstrates that drinking a cup of coffee while driving is far more hazardous than using a cellular phone. At some point, he believes a governing body has to let the individual decide what is prudent and reasonable rather than presuming that, despite the evidence, we know better. Roll call continued: Kasler, yes. The motion passed with five yeas and two nays. Ordinance No. 2000-117 adopted. 9