Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chapel Hill’s cell-phone ban,hand-held and hands-free
Joe CapowskiChapel Hill, NC
Poli 718 Agenda SettingUNC
February 5, 2014
Sept 16, 2010
I witnessed Krista’s accident
Driver did not slow or swerve,
told 911 “I did not see the girl”
Krista suffered brain hemorrhages,
graduated 2 years late with poorer grades,
wants to make accidents less likely for others
In the next nine months
We addressed NC legislature about two hand-held-ban bills, saw no possibility
Researched the science and safety statistics; only a complete ban was scientifically and intellectually sound
June, 2011, asked Chapel Hill Town Council to start the process to do a complete ban.
Another nine months later
Why were we successful?
What did we do?
What worked?
What failed?
What would we do differently?
What has happened since the ban passed?
Learn state-town legal relations
Ownership of roads in town: NC and CH
CH Atty: Town can ban phones on town roads, never tested on state roads, will
eventually go to court when a violator sues
Learn current state laws
In NC today:
Texting ban for all drivers
Cell-phone ban for special populations
This is slightly below average in the U.S.
Learn legislator mindset, funding
NC recently changed to very Republican
Cell-phone laws should not be partisan, but very much are
Auto dealer and telecom PACS very strong
Legislators are heavy phone users
Legislator mindset, funding, cont'd
From many NC legislators:
“As long as my hands are on the wheel and my eyes are on the road, I’m a safe driver”
Science is not on legislators' radar screens
Absent a tragedy, NC legislature will not help and may indeed hinder
Choose a battle you can winChapel Hill is consummate liberal college town
World-class center of education and health care
5 major hospitals
College students 1st gen to grow up with phones
Go Tarheels!
Work with media
Human story that televises beautifully; media want to cover it
Krista and I wrote editorials
Repeatedly interview with all media
Be prepared with five short sound bites
5 TV cameras at council discussions
Learn the Opponents
We thought heavy-use professions would oppose: Realtors, builders, soccer moms
They didn’t
At council hearings, no one spoke against
Newspaper editorials, radio commentaries, letters to editor, all 2-1 in favor
Refute the arguments against
Difficult to enforce Police chief involved from start, will do it Community expectation, others also enforceNo town authority on state roads Still to be tested in court
Find allies, ask for help
UNC Chancellor strong supporter, therefore
help from UNC media and UNC Police
UNC Hospitals
UNC School of Public Health
UNC Highway Safety Research Center
AAA Carolinas
Performance BMW dealership
Car insurance agents
Start an education campaign
Kickoff event was a driving simulator at UNC,
one week before council public hearing
TV reporters drove, reported on news how
they did poorly while on phone.
50 people drove, same poor results w/ phone
New UNC Football coach: "I was terrible"
Driving Simulator, cont'd
Money not an issue
Only expense was simulator ($1500), easily
found four sponsors
Find a champion on the council
Penny Rich
Met regularly, shared ideas
Connect the scientific dots
BAC in number of beers
inattention blindness (phone call
harms vision)
accident risk of driving
behaviors
Inattention blindness
Visual processing in high-level brain regions is inhibited in proportion to the complexity of a simultaneous auditory task
Therefore, talking on a phone reduces what you see through the windshield. Listening to the radio, a simpler task, does not.
Source: Vicki Chanon, Ph.D., UNC Dept of Psychology
Inattention blindness, cont'd
Hard to convince driver that his vision is reduced because he sincerely thinks that he sees everything. In reality, he doesn't know what he is missing, until he hits her, him, or it.
Talking with passenger not harmful because passenger participates in driving, knows when to be quiet.
Risk Bar Graph from accident stats
Alcohol consumption measures
Simple Rule:
For a 160-lb person, BAC = .02 per beer minus .01 per hour.
So for me to lift my BAC to 0.10, I must drink a six pack in two hours.
Source: UNC Alcohol studies program
With these 3 together, we asked
Would you drink a six-pack and then drive?
Of course not.
Then why would you do the equivalent i.e., drive while on the phone?
And we could argue
You may disagree with a cell-phone ban, but there are only two ways to disagree:
You may reject the science, but as more and more studies confirm it, you look like a tobacco executive rejecting the cigarette-cancer link. (powerful in NC)
Alternatively.....
Argument cont'd
You may accept the science, but hold that something else is more important, e.g., efficient use of your time, profits for your company.
In that case I ask you to describe one phone call you have made from your car that is so important that it justifies endangering the lives of others to the same extent that a drunk driver does.
Finally, we stated
To the Chapel Hill Town Council:
If there is one town council in NC that should follow the science, it is you all.
Compromise
Chapel Hill's fine is too low, $25 and does not accelerate
The offense is secondary, police stop requires some other issue
Patterned after existing state laws to minimize chance of state override.
Unanticipated court challengeMay 2012, towing co. sues CH saying that
towing regs and cell-phone ban together form an unconstitutional town regulation of commerce.
Aug 2012, District court judge agrees, strikes down both laws
Mar 2013, Town appeals with help from NC
League of Municipalities.
Court challenge, cont’dJune 2013, NC Court of Appeals unanimously
(3-0) overturns district court, re-instates both laws.
June 2013, towing company asks NC Supreme Court to review case.
Nov 2013, Supreme Court agrees to hear case.
Today, arguments before court not yet scheduled. Decision perhaps in 2014.
Cell-phone ban not in effect today.
And the beat goes on
When cell-phone ban is implemented, we expect a violator to sue, saying that town has no authority to ban phones on state roads. Result to be determined.
NC legislature may pass law preempting town regulation of electronic devices in vehicles, as in FL, LA, KY, MS, OK
Questions?Comments?
The distracted-driving compromise Connectivity for drivers
Joe CapowskiChapel Hill, NCFebruary, [email protected]
Auto Connectivity Compromise
Car and telecom companies are willing to sacrifice profits from texting and hand-held phone use.
----- provided that ------
They can sell hands-free, voice-controlled hardware and services for drivers
They say that their customers, especially their younger ones, demand this.
It Can WaitAT&T anti-texting program
BMW Ad
Source: http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/connecteddrive/2013/index.html
Lethal ad from BMW
Source: http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/connecteddrive/2013/services_apps/bmw_connecteddrive_services.html
Source: Road & Track, Dec 2013/Jan 2014, pg 27
Ford ad
Quotes from the Ford Ad
Your apps are just a voice command away
You’ll have hands-free, voice-activated control of a wide range of compatible apps.
Source: Road & Track, Dec 2013/Jan 2014, pg 27
Mercedes touchpad ad
How do you get feedback?
Have you ever used a touchpad without looking at some sort of display screen?
Chevrolet ad
Source: chevrolet.com/mylink-vehicle-technology.html?seo=goo_|_GM+Chevy+Retention_|_1744|1751|IPUS|AU|G|S|B|A|E|GG-RTN-Chevrolet
-MyLink-BP-SN-Exact_|_MyLink_|_chevrolet%20mylink
GM News, February, 2013
"The Chevy Sonic and Spark are the first vehicles to offer Siri Eyes Free integration," said Cristi Landy, Chevrolet marketing director for small cars. “Safe, easy, reliable and portable connectivity is a top priority for our customers, and Siri complements MyLink's existing capabilities to help deliver an incredible driving experience."
Source: http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detailne.html/content/Pages/ws/us/en/2013/Feb/0213-siri-gm.html
BBC news quote, Jan 2013
This past November, GM announced that Siri, Apple's heavily touted (if questionably functional) virtual assistant, will integrate with Chevrolet's MyLink infotainment system
Source: http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130107-gm-sparks-siri-integration
No safety gain with hands-free
Lethal, like cigarettes
The car companies are knowingly selling a lethal product – just like cigarettes.
They are “lawyered up”.
Disclaimer from Ford Ad
Source: Road & Track, Dec 2013/Jan 2014, pg 27
Don’t drive while distracted
Even with voice commands, only use phones or other devices when safe.
WCHL Radio, Chapel Hill
At every traffic report, Ran Northam asks that if you see some situation, be a road warrior and call us or tweet us, but we ask that you do it safely.
Car magazines are conflicted
Editor-in-chief Larry Webster
Source: Road & Track, Dec 2013/Jan 2014, pg 26
Larry Webster quotesVoice commands have long been touted as
a cure for the distraction of infotainment systems.
Anyone piloting a car should concentrate solely on driving.
The connectedness genie is out of the bottle – all the swerving, eyes-down drivers you see on the highway are proof.
Just like cigarettes and cancer
This issue will track like cigarettes and cancer. Car and telecom companies will fight government regulation until the science overwhelms them and the lawsuits from the families of victims begin.
Cigarette CEOs at Congress April 1994
Click in Box to play 15-sec video
Cigarette CEOs at U.S. HouseAll 7: I believe that nicotene is not addictive
The government’s role
The U.S. Dept of Transportation will avoid regulating connectivity until many people have been killed and injured.
U.S. Dept of Transportation
Ray LaHood, former
secretary, speaking
against cell-phone
use while driving.
But dodged questions
about new car
infotainment systems.
Nov 13, 2012, Tampa
U.S. Dept of TransportationAnthony Foxx, current
Secretary, has followed
LaHood’s agenda, but
has not taken a
position on new car
infotainment systems,
other than to “work with”
the car companies.
National Transportation Safety Board
Chairman Deborah
Hersman takes a very
strong position against
driver connectivity.
BUT, the NTSB is
independent from the
DOT and can only make
recommendations.
NTSB position
“just this morning the AAA released innovative research on cognitive distraction that found that hands-free PED
[Portable Electronic Devices] use is just as risky as handheld use.”
Chairman Hersman letter to Chapel Hill Mayor Kleinschmidt, June 12, 2013
Communications of the ACM [Association for Computing Machinery], 56:4, April 2013
Rosenberger’s main thesis
Legislators ignore science and restrict texting and hand-held phone use, but not hands-free use. Hence they promote the safety of hands-free use.
This completely agrees with my experience, and I would add that legislators badly want to use their phones while they drive.
The car’s role
The car is not independent. It serves as a display, loudspeaker, and microphone for a smartphone that is synchronized with it.
The display is designed to attract the driver’s eye. This is dangerous and this is stupid.
Most states prohibit a video screen that the driver can see. The law lags technology.
Google Glass
Display, speaker, touchpad, and microphone for a smartphone.
Awesome potential as apps are written, but another lethal distraction for a driver.
San Diego, Oct 29, 2013Driver pulled for speeding and cited for wearing Google Glass while driving.
Basis of citation was that GG violates California’s video-display-seen-by-driver prohibition, not the state’s hand-held cell-phone ban.
Jan 16, 2013, court threw out citation because officer could not show that GG was turned on.
The law is far behind the technology.
Follow the money
Who wins? The car and telecom companies
Who loses? The insurance companies
Why don’t insurance companies contract with customers that if someone causes an accident while on the phone, they pay only the victim’s expenses?
Questions?Comments?
They shouldn’t be
Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives all have accidents.
On the next few slides, I’ll show whether state’s distracted driving laws are partisan.
Quality of each state’s laws, details to follow
29 Red states, 57% of pop21 Blue states, 43% of pop
The Red-Blue decision
I researched the majority party of each state’s house, senate and governor after the 2012 elections. If two or more were red (blue), I called the state red (blue).
Source: www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/statevote-2012-election-night-results-map.aspx
Detail: Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature, and aRepublican governor. I called Nebraska Red.
I Graded each state’s legislation
I scored 2 pts for an all-drivers hand-held ban 1 pt for an all-drivers texting ban 1 pt for any specific pop (e.g., bus drivers) cell-phone ban 0.5 pt for texting ban on only specific pop (only MO) -0.5 pt for local govt preemption (FL, KY, MS, LA, OK)
I assigned letter grades from the total points for each state3 pts equals B 1 pt equals D2.5 B- 0.5 D-2 C 0 F1.5 C- -0.5 F-
Source for each state’s legislation: www.distraction.gov
Why did no state get an A?
Because no state recognizes that the dangerfrom a hands-free call equals that of a hand-heldphone call, as shown on the next slide. I lookforward to celebrating the first state to pass ahand-held and hands-free ban.
In the meantime, I get sick every time I hear alegislator say “As long as my hands are on thewheel and my eyes are on the road, I’m safe”.
Conclusion:Distracted driving laws are very partisan
Blue states restrict more
Party Sts Total Pts Mean LetterRed 29 36.5 1.26 D+Blue 21 47.5 2.26 C+All 50 84.0 1.68 C-
State Party Pts GradeME D 2 CNH D 1 DVT D 2 CMA D 2 CRI D 2 CCT D 3 BNY D 3 BNJ D 3 BPA R 1 DDE D 3 BMD D 3 BVA R 2 CWV D 3 BNC R 2 CSC R 0 FGA R 2 CFL R -.5 F-
State Party Pts GradeMI R 1 DIN R 2 COH R 2 CKY D 1.5 C-TN R 2 CAL R 2 CMS R 0.5 D-WI R 2 CIL D 2 CMN D 2 CIA R 2 CMO R 0.5 D-AR R 2 CLA R 1.5 C-ND R 2 CSD R 0 FNE R 2 C
State-by-state data, page 1
State Party Pts GradeKS R 2 COK R 0.5 D-TX R 1 DMT R 0 FWY R 1 DID R 1 DCO D 2 CUT R 1 DNM D 1 DAZ R 1 DWA D 3 BOR D 3 BNV D 3 BCA D 3 BHI D 0 FAK R 1 D
State-by-state data, page 2
Questions?Comments?
Bullpen 2
Bullpen 2
