Michigan House approves ban on texting while driving
A statewide ban on text messaging while driving is one step closer to becoming law today after the Michigan House of Representatives voted to approve new legislation.
The Detroit Free Press reports that the House, as did the Senate, voted to allow police to pull over drivers if they suspect they are text messaging while on the road.
The vote in the House was 74-33.
However, a companion bill that would not add points to a driver's record for violating the texting ban had yet to be approved. That was needed to send the package to Gov. Jennifer Granholm for her signature, the Free Press reported.
The new law, which is expected to take effect July 1, would impose a $100 civil fine for a first offense and a $200 fine for subsequent offenses.
An earlier version would have allowed police to ticket drivers for text messaging only if they were pulled over for other suspected violations.
The Ann Arbor City Council has been working on a local ordinance to ban the use of cell phones while driving. The council recently decided to hold off on voting on any local legislation until what's happening at the state level becomes more clear.
Council Member Tony Derezinski, D-2nd Ward, said the fact that the House approved a texting ban is a step in the right direction. But he said Ann Arbor wanted to take it a step further and ban the use of handheld mobile devices altogether, and it's unclear whether the city can pass an ordinance that is more broad-reaching than state law.
"It depends on the precise language of the clause in the bill," Derezinski said.
Derezinski said the City Council will continue to examine the issue, but he thinks the worst problem already has been addressed by the state taking a stance on texting while driving.
"One of the worst problems will be taken care of on a statewide and uniform basis," he said. "This reminds me of the struggle on other social issues like seat belts or smoking bans — you get one portion of it and then you go to the next.
"We wanted a bill that would be stronger and apply also to cell phones, but if the new preemptive language does not allow it, then we'll work through the Legislature to include other matters such as handheld cell phones. We'll see what we can do down the line."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
15crown00
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 11:35 p.m.
this is a great first step but the real problem is use of cell phones while driving.ban them totally under threat of a $5,000.00 fine AND 30 days in JAIL.
treetowncartel
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 : 2:08 p.m.
How about a ban on smoking in a car with children in it? It is ridiculous that we ban smoking in public, yet let parents and other sadults smoke in such close confines with little kids. Especially since kids, unlike adults visiting a restaurant or bar, usually don't have a say about whether to get in the car or not.
Lokalisierung
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 : 12:48 p.m.
"It creates that spray of sparks which look just like a hunk of metal hitting the road causing me to swerve out of the way if I'm driving behind them." Drivers thsi easily distracted may need to go through more rigoruous testing to see if they should be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. Or maybe I just don't drive in places where hunks of metal fall on to the roadway often.
A2zoo
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 6:14 p.m.
@Anonymous I guess you didn't read what I wrote. I don't text. I think you got me confused with another commenter. But I do agree with your second paragraph. And that's what I was getting at. Why do we just go after texting? There are other distractions. And if you read annarbor.com on a frequent basis, you would see that changing a radio station can and has killed. So why is the law about that one specific distraction (texting)? Couldn't a law been drafted that encompassed distractions in general?
Anonymous Due to Bigotry
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 4:19 p.m.
I have a very hard time believing that the duration of attention required to type a text message is anywhere near the duration required to change the radio station. You must be fast as hell typing those text messages A2zoo! I didn't think anyone that fast was old enough to drive. What we really need to do is make "driving while stupid" a crime. Regardless of what you're doing it should be pretty obvious when you're weaving all over the road and coming close to hitting people, etc.
A2zoo
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 4:07 p.m.
Thank you @BTPud for answering my question without resulting to rudeness. @Julie, you didn't answer my question. You just took it as an opportunity to be rude (the term I want to use is inappropriate for this forum) which solves nothing. And I agree with @J. Sorensen. There are so many other things just as distracting as texting (using your cell phone, changing the radio stations, eating/drinking, shaving, putting on makeup, working on a laptop, reading the newspaper). So I ask this, why does Michigan go after just texting and not include cell phones use (or any of these other distractions) while driving in this bill? Maybe because it's just the most talked about distraction at the moment, but I am sure a much higher percentage of people are drinking/eating/shaving/putting on makeup/working on a laptop, reading the newspaper/changing the radio station. I see so much more of this than I ever do of texting. (and to clarify, so I don't get hate replies, I do not text - don't have a texting plan. I was just trying to make sense of the law).
Derek
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 11:36 a.m.
I'm much more distracted by people who throw cigarette butts out their car windows at night. It creates that spray of sparks which look just like a hunk of metal hitting the road causing me to swerve out of the way if I'm driving behind them. Also the image accompanying this article is completely unrealistic. Yes, if everyone was texting like that with two hands then it would cause accidents every two seconds, but that's not how (hopefully most) people text.
PhillyCheeseSteak
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.
I hope Jennifer Granholm signs this bill into law. Does anyone know when it would go into effect?
Blue Eyes
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 8:08 a.m.
Tony D needs to spend more time straightening out AA's budget mess and less time worrying about cell phones that the State is already dealing with. "We want...." doesn't get it, pay attention to the important business you were elected to take care of.
mermaid72
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 7:30 a.m.
Dereck will never live till his 50's if he keeps driving & texting those soooo important messages & talking on his cellphone to his sooo important buds. Do all people under 30 have his blase attitude about driving while distracted? Nature's way of improving the gene pool!
DagnyJ
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 7:03 a.m.
Good law. I hope the police enforce it with vigor.
J. Sorensen
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:32 a.m.
I have to agree with Robyn. I don't even understand why they needed to vote on this. Texting while driving is as much a distraction as working on your laptop, reading a book, or shaving/putting on make-up. If kids think they can "text fast enough" to not be distracted, just remember that it only took a driver taking his eyes off the road "for a second" to change a radio station to kill a cyclist. What passes for safe driving these days is a joke. If my cell rings, I may answer it, but if I have to make a call, I simply pull into the nearest lot so I can take the time to do so without endangering others.
robyn
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 10:39 p.m.
UUhhh Derek - please google this: teens crash while texting It will give you a whole list of teens that - while probably quicker and more adept at texting - paid a very steep price for doing so. I'm very glad that this is now going to be an offense that can get you pulled over and fined. It's dangerous not only to the person driving and texting - but to everyone else on the road! I ride a motorcycle and I can count how many times I've had someone swerve into my lane, cut me off or otherwise put me in danger because they were texting (or yapping) on their stupid phone! I don't care how important you think you are, how important you think your business is - it's not more important than someone else's life.
Matt Cooper
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 8:59 p.m.
MichiganReader: This is true in some respects, but often times laws are interpreted and incorporated into current standards of behavior that may not have existed at the time of the passage of the law.
Derek
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 8:36 p.m.
I love how this law is being passed by politicians in their 50s and 60s. Texting is second nature to young people and we can type messages much faster than these old fogeys can comprehend. I watch my mom try to text one sentence and it takes 3 minutes. I text while at red lights and see no problem. Additionally, there are only 12 buttons on a phone's keypad! It's incredibly easy to not look at the phone at all while typing a text with one hand. Finally, how will this ever be enforced? Typing a phone number into a cell phone looks ummmm.... just like sending a text. And no they can't just grab your phone and see if a message has been sent (http://askthejudge.info/can-a-police-officer-read-my-text-messages/186/). Maybe the law should be that people over 30 can't text while driving. I see people on the expressway eating sandwiches with two hands, reading books, and putting on eye liner in the rearview mirror. Do we need specific laws for each of these distractions?
BTPud
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 8:34 p.m.
A2zoo- yes, even when you are stopped at a light, you are still in operation of a motor vehicle.
Julie
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 7:56 p.m.
A2zoo, why don't you just not text at the light? You know.... just, uh, wait? Till you get home?
Michigan Reader
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 7:55 p.m.
The technology for texting came long after the law was crafted. You interpret a law by discernig the legislature's intent at the time it was passed.
A2zoo
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 7:51 p.m.
I want to put this out there, just for a clarification for my sake. Would an officer pull someone over for texting while waiting at a light while it's red?
Michigan Reader
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 7:51 p.m.
@karlk24601--I doubt the legislature was contemplating (sp?) texting when they passed that law, so, no, it wouldn't cover texting. Maybe they had in mind drag racing, for example. Or maybe driving without headlights on.
karlk24601
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 5:21 p.m.
Isn't there already a law on the books that states "A person who operates a vehicle... in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving"? Doesn't this include texting? Why do we need more laws instead of educating drivers about and enforcing the existing ones?