Spokane7
50°
June 19, 2011 in City
Many drivers talked way to tickets in first year of cellphone ban
A driver headed west along Spokane Falls Blvd, chats on her cell phone, June 15, 2011 in Spokane, Wash.
(Full-size photo)
A few try to hide it with their hands. Others may drop it in their lap to avoid detection. But some drivers don’t even bother – their cellphones stay clearly propped against their ear while they cruise down the road.
One year after driving while texting or talking with a cellphone to your ear became a reason for law enforcement in Washington state to stop you, the number of $124 tickets issued has increased, but police aren’t sure people are paying attention.
Teresa Fuller, spokeswoman for the Spokane Police Department’s traffic unit, said she hasn’t noticed a drop in the number of offenders.
“I see people every day who are driving with their cellphones to their ears,” Fuller said.
And while the purpose behind the ban was to help improve safety by reducing driver distractions, research shows no decline in the number of auto crashes. They’ve actually increased slightly, according to a study issued last fall by the Highway Loss Data Institute, which analyzed car crash statistics in four states that have banned texting while driving, including Washington.
A previous study on cellphone bans for drivers reached the same conclusion.
But at least drivers are aware what they’re doing is illegal, said Chris Tennant, commander of the Pullman Police Department.
Officers see the violations while patrolling, and they see it when motorists drop their phones as officers pass by.
“They know it’s illegal. I think that’s a good first step,” Tennant said. However, “trying to change behavior is a long process.”
Tennant praised the cellphone ban but said the texting law “is pretty much unenforceable.”
Since the ban went into effect on June 10, 2010, Pullman police have issued 89 cellphone tickets and 324 warnings, but just two tickets and two warnings for texting.
“Even though they sound very, very similar, it’s fairly easy to see a cellphone up to someone’s ear, but it’s fairly difficult to catch someone texting,” Tennant said. “And from a layman’s point of view, I think texting is almost more dangerous.”‘
Spokane police issued 709 tickets for cellphone use and texting since Jan. 1, Fuller said.
Fuller didn’t know exactly how many were for texting, but agreed that those tickets are issued less frequently. Infractions that often accompany texting, such as improper lane changes or turning without signaling, “are pretty easy to spot” and may have been issued instead, Fuller said.
But the Spokane Police Department has cut the number of officers dedicated to traffic patrol, which Fuller said makes it difficult to enforce the ban. Officers en route to a call for service or busy with another case may pass a motorist talking on their cellphone but not have time to stop, Fuller said.
The Spokane County Sheriff’s Office reported similar statistics. Cellphone tickets have been issued 443 times since Jan. 1, but only five tickets have been issued for text messaging.
The numbers are similar across the state.
Between June 10, 2010, and May 15, the Washington State Patrol issued 27 tickets for texting in Eastern Washington and 374 for cellphone use. That’s an increase from 20 texting citations and 118 cellphone tickets for the same period the previous year, when law enforcement wasn’t allowed to stop motorists simply for improper cellphone use.
Statewide, the number of tickets increased fivefold since the violations became primary offenses. Troopers issued 6,850 citations for cellphones and 549 for text messages in the 11 months ending May 15. The previous period saw 1,344 cellphone citations and 224 texting citations.
Not every contact ends in a citation – troopers contacted about 14,500 drivers for suspected cellphone violations and 1,244 for texting.
“The Legislature gave us this law, and our troopers have made good use of it,” State Patrol Chief John R. Batiste said in a prepared statement. “We believe that distracted driving is a factor in far more collisions that we know about, and we are determined to address that.”
Human trafficking suspects released 
lewis8457 on June 19 at 7:54 a.m.
and yet every cop in town talks on the cell phone while driving as well as many other city and county employees.
But that is OK they are better drivers then the rest of us.
Orphan on June 19 at 8:33 a.m.
Lewis they are not better drivers, their special.
RedCedar on June 19 at 9:12 a.m.
Cell phones per se are not a problem. Distractions and air-headedness are the problem. I’ve seen drivers in heavy traffic having an animated conversation with the passengers that includes looking them straight in the eye and gesticulating wildly with their hands. Of course I’ve also seen cell-phone talkers gesticulating to people who can’t even see them. I always see people drifting from lane to lane or from center lane to off-ramp without using their turn signals or looking to see if anyone else is currently on the piece of pavement they’re about to occupy. The cell phones were an easy target. It reminds me of how many jurisdictions banned car radios when they first came out, on the theory that drivers would be have to take their hands off the wheel to turn the radio knobs.
If we could pass a law that would make drivers to pay attention to their driving, then we’d see a real reduction in wrecks. Unfortunately we can’t do that, so instead we have things like this silly cell phone ban that hasn’t done anything to improve safety.
monkeyman on June 19 at 9:22 a.m.
“… research shows no decline in the number of auto crashes. They’ve actually increased slightly, according to a study…”
Anybody have link or details of the study cites?
…perhaps these drivers are now engaged in another high risk activity instead, such as driving faster (compared to when they were on the phone)?
dkerns on June 19 at 9:54 a.m.
The Nevada legislature passed a similar measure recently, but police agencies will probably not enforce it.
Seems that to prove that someone was talking or texting (the activities prohibited by the new law) would require getting cell phone records, a huge hassle, involving probable cause, petitioning a court for a warrant, etc.
It would be too much trouble.
This from a police spokesman from Henderson, south of Las Vegas.
eagleproducer on June 19 at 10:01 a.m.
Gawd damn, why do so many retired cops locate here? ^^^^^^
Is there a way to put up a fence….?
Dazzeetrader11 on June 19 at 10:53 a.m.
It’s not the hand holding a phone to an ear that’s the problem. It’s the distraction of doing two things ( talking on the cell and driving) that the police want you to think is the problem.
If that was true, why have ear pieces legal while driving?? Same level of distraction…..just another hand free. Having another hand free results in safety??? How?
It’s about money and an ill concieved law. The projected outcomes ( as with red light cams) don’t produce safety. It’s silly. Either ban the use of cells while driving or don’t. Who put these people in charge anyway? It wouldn’t be the first time a nice idea didn’t prove out.
PlanB on June 19 at 11:39 a.m.
So, another law that doesn’t show any safety improvement. Hmmm.
CommonSenseJoe on June 19 at 11:48 a.m.
Dazzeetrader11,
The issue isn’t whether or not you are talking on the phone, it’s the inability to do things like turn the steering wheel, signal, shift gears, etc with only one hand. In addition, the process of dialing someone on your phone takes many steps to complete and takes a driver’s eyes off the road. I’m not going to lie and say there’s no money in these tickets, but there’s primarily a level of safety involved. I consider myself to be a fairly safe driver, and have noticed the really close calls - still no accidents - have come when I was using my phone. I don’t do anything with it now while I’m driving. I wait for a red light to get everything done I need to do on my phone.
misjustice on June 19 at 1:07 p.m.
I still talk on my phone and drive but I wait until I am across the state line, in Ideeho, to do so. I don’t text and drive, however, as that takes too much effort and is too distracting to do it safely while also driving.
Dazzeetrader11 on June 19 at 1:09 p.m.
Great Joe! SO it should be legal if you have an automatic trans mission and promise to only answer calls not make them?? See, it’s kind of all or none. Bann ALL talking on phones while driving or admit it’s a bad law aimed at money making.
Proof though its that the number of accidents hasn’t changed.which was the aforstated reason for the law in the first place. Since that ( and the red light “scams”) didn’t do much good, shall we junk them? As for me, I’d just as soon be able to talk on my cell….and wirte them a check to leave me alone.
Of course we might always fire these politicians who can get it right. Like VERNER and her council.
CommonSenseJoe on June 19 at 3:31 p.m.
Dazzeetrader11,
You have a point in that if whatever you’re doing doesn’t hurt anyone, you should, for the most part, be able to do it.
The problem lies in the fact that not everyone is you. You may be more than capable of driving while talking on your phone, typing a memo, eating a hamburger, and steering the wheel of you car with your knees, but that doesn’t apply to everyone else out there. Safest and easiest thing to do is make that type of conduct illegal for everyone because you never know when you’re going to have an off day, and you’re not quite capable of making a full revolution of that steering wheel with your knees, and get into an accident.
I was recently driving down 29th and saw a car weaving back and forth in the lane, and going fast and then slow. When I passed the car, I was able to see that there was a woman putting her makeup on while she was driving. i’m sure she thought she was driving just fine. After all, she was going “about” 30, and she was staying in her lane “for the most part”. The point I’m trying to make is that a lot of times we don’t know just how bad we’re doing something until we can see it from a different point of view than just our own.
Squid on June 19 at 4:30 p.m.
Another law that was passed because of the weakest link. If 1% of the population can’t do it safely, then no one can.
Lewis is right about the cops. Saw a gold Expedition with a Law Enforcement Memorial license plate and a bear sticker on the back window on Sprague about a week ago with the driver yacking away and kids in the back seat. Obviously it was an off duty cop, but it’s OK if they do it.
Orange on June 19 at 5:36 p.m.
obviously?
monkeyman on June 19 at 5:52 p.m.
I don’t text while driving because I find texting to be just too much work even when I am not driving.. :)
DickAdams on June 19 at 7:22 p.m.
Ms. Fuller says she sees drivers using their cell phone everyday. It might be a good idea for her to put on her police uniform and issue afew tickets instead of primping up for TV cameras. In some cities, believe it or not, the Chief of Police addresses the media. I`ll wager our Chief has plenty of time instead of using 2 PR highly paid employees. For gosh sakes, Marlene Fiest worked for Jim West. He brought her along from Olympia where she was his assistant when he was a Senator. Why does the city still employee her?
YoDude on June 19 at 9:52 p.m.
Nearly rear ended a car today when the young man talking on his cell phone while driving decided to stop at a GREEN traffic light!
Good thing one of us was paying attention to their driving… Yo
Teseract on June 20 at 1:04 p.m.
“Fuller didn’t know exactly how many were for texting, but agreed that those tickets are issued less frequently. Infractions that often accompany texting, such as improper lane changes or turning without signaling, “are pretty easy to spot” and may have been issued instead, Fuller said.”
The SPD cruiser that passed me recently doing ~40mph in a 20mph zone weaving through traffic without using his signals or emergency lights must have been busy texting then.