City Hall Proposes To Toughen Texting While Driving Laws

[marklingm]

My phone is a camera, dictation machine, GPS, and internet device to name but a few of the functions. Is the GPS feature, a distraction? How does an officer tell the difference between GPS usage and "texting" does it not get blurrier when the text is directions to a house or business?

David,

Jim raises good points.

How is City Hall defining "texting" in this "new" law?

Is "dictating" considered "texting" in this "new" law?

Matt

[Jim O'Bryan]

David Anderson, Ward One Councilman, \\a serious moment, in the afternoon light.

Matt/All

I had the opportunity along with Steve Davis to speak with Councilman David Anderson,
as he was delivering cold medicine to his mother, about Lakewood, and some of the things
going on at City Hall. David is a serious guy, but can put up with some of the ribbing that
comes with a street side interview with a couple of goofballs.

The most important thing he said about this, amongst many reasons why we he thought we
needed this law on the books was...

If it is a state law, and Lakewood issues the ticket without a law on the book, the fine goes
to the State of Ohio, it does not stay here.

So that Law Director Butler was going through various changes in laws to see where Lakewood
might have been behind or out of sync with state rules.

If redundant laws brings the money to Lakewood instead of the state, then so be it, we
get new laws. Well that is my opinion at least.

.

[marklingm]

David Anderson, Ward One Councilman, \\a serious moment, in the afternoon light.

Matt/All

I had the opportunity along with Steve Davis to speak with Councilman David Anderson,
as he was delivering cold medicine to his mother, about Lakewood, and some of the things
going on at City Hall. David is a serious guy, but can put up with some of the ribbing that
comes with a street side interview with a couple of goofballs.

The most important thing he said about this, amongst many reasons why we he thought we
needed this law on the books was...

If it is a state law, and Lakewood issues the ticket without a law on the book, the fine goes
to the State of Ohio, it does not stay here.

So that Law Director Butler was going through various changes in laws to see where Lakewood
might have been behind or out of sync with state rules.

If redundant laws brings the money to Lakewood instead of the state, then so be it, we
get new laws. Well that is my opinion at least.

.

Jim/David/All,

So, why not simply tell us that it is just about the money rather than some faux new law ... and ... better enforcement ... and ... safety ... and ... citizen education?

Here is a real fact pattern. Yesterday, my wife and three sons were in our minivan, which was parked at a red light on Franklin. A car hit the minivan from behind and was probably going 35 miles per hour. The driver wasn't paying attention. One of my sons spent about 4 hours in the ER.

Was this driver texting and colliding? I'm not sure anyone will ever know.

I also think there may be some Fourth Amendment issues facing City Hall.

Is City Hall going to do a search and seizure of every phone of every driver who causes an accident?

But that's not the point anymore ... I guess.

City Hall is simply looking to collect more money.

So, why keep telling us it's about some faux new law ... and ... better enforcement ... and ... safety ... and ... citizen education?

Matt

[Peter Grossetti]

I'm a bit confused. (imagine that!!)

If this is all about generating income ... shouldn't this be discussed at City Council's Finance Committee (or Rules & Ordinances Commitee) rather than the Public Safety Committee?

[Peter Grossetti]

[Jim O'Bryan]

Peter/Matt/Others

Please reread my post. David gave many reasons why they were looking at this. The one that
made the most sense to me was, "If we have the law on the books, than we can keep the
fine." I, Jim O'Bryan, said, "Say no more."

I am not sure they are looking for more money. One of the things that came out was that
failure topay attnetion, or whatever the current laws reads has only be written up 65 times.
Everyone of those were after the accident happened, not before. So it is not, as Councilman
Anderson said, a preventive measure. Though he thought it would be an important part of
the Lakewood Law to see if it could be used to stop the accident, not pile on fines after the
fact.

He also mentioned that some of this came from Law Director Butler was cleaning up loose
ends. I guess unlike the Service Director and the Human Resource Manager, the Law
Director cannot introduce new laws to council, so it came to the safety committee.

.

[marklingm]

He also mentioned that some of this came from Law Director Butler was cleaning up loose ends.

Jim,

Wow!

I'm surprised how many "loose ends" Kevin Butler has had to "clean up" since he became Law Director.

Was City Hall in a complete state of neglect before Kevin Butler, Dru Siley, and Mike Summers took over City Hall?

Perhaps a "loose ends" study and task force is in order?

Matt

[David Anderson]

I haven’t been avoiding your request for me to respond, Matt and all. As I told Jim, I couldn’t log in last Friday and, in light of the unimaginable and mind numbing tragedy in Connecticut, everything else seems a bit trivial to say the least. I tried to log in yesterday but still couldn’t. I just tried again. Thanks, Jim, for getting me reestablished.

Let’s not get crazy, this isn’t about the money or creating a revenue stream. However, it is important for Council and the administration to consider changes to our local code that reflect changes in state law. Council recently approved a number of such changes suggested by the administration and deliberated over by the Public Safety Committee. It is true that fines paid for tickets issued under a state law not reflected by a local code will not stay local. It would be nice if fines paid for tickets issued by the officer we pay stay local. I made this point to Jim and Steve as well as a number of other points I feel are important – public safety, education, etc.

As we discussed during the committee hearing last Thursday night, all the ambiguities and allowances for certain uses and in certain situations are plotted out by the new Ohio law. Again, these grey areas were debated in Columbus earlier this year.

Local cities can make Ohio’s new law tougher. For example, Beachwood and other area cities banned all phoning and texting while driving which takes all allowances out of the equation. However, cities cannot make changes that weaken the new Ohio law, such as adding to the list of allowable uses.

Obviously, the ordinance I proposed would not go nearly as far as Beachwood’s action but makes one significant change to the overall Ohio law. It would make texting a primary offense for adults as it now is for minors.

Who’s to say whether a motorist is texting or typing in a phone number to make a call? I get it. This ambiguity is baked into the new Ohio law and, admittedly, is not remedied by my proposed ordinance and can only really be done so by enacting an outright ban altogether.

This leaves us to focus on the educational opportunity in the new Ohio law and the potential impact this proposed ordinance could have on public safety. It is likely that some will stop texting while driving as a result of the attention paid here to Ohio’s new law and this ordinance, should it pass. Will we be able to measure this in three years? No. But, just because we can’t prove it doesn’t mean we don’t have a moral obligation to try to take a situation we know is dangerous and try to make it better.

If I’ve heard it once I’ve heard it 100 times from residents since I joined Council: “My street is so dangerous. Cars go too fast and drivers aren’t paying attention.” Seriously, everyone in Lakewood feels their street is the worst. I believe texting while driving a serious distraction, an issue of public safety and steps should be made to curtail this practice. I feel making texting a primary offense for all will have an impact on making our streets and neighborhoods safer.

Getting back to the basics, the way I see it, Lakewood can take at least three possible steps in reaction to Ohio’s new law.

1) Simply accept the new law as is by reflecting the violation in our local codes so that fines associated with any tickets issued under this code stay local. (Again, Council just passed a whole set of changes to our local codes to reflect new state laws.)
2) Pass something stricter – to whatever degree – that is a better fit for our city.
3) Ignore the new law, don’t reflect it in our local codes and simply issue tickets for those under 18 driving while texting under our existing full time and attention ordinance.

I’m suggesting option number two. I think texting while driving is a serious distraction regardless of the motorists’ age and would like to see our local code include this point specifically. It also accomplishes the need to establish a local companion code to keep any fines local.

While some may be puzzled by my ordinance and the process of hearings, etc. here in Lakewood, I’m still of the mindset that government can play a positive role in trying to make things better regardless if we can’t prove the impact quantitatively down the road.

I’ve enjoyed the debate/discussion and public input wherever it may lead.

Take care,

David Anderson
216-789-6463

[marklingm]

David,

Kevin Butler, Dru Siley, Mike Summers, and everyone at City Hall have been so busy tying up "loose ends" that even Miss Venezuela is starting to make sense.







I would just be happy if City Hall would start enforcing the laws already on the books.

Matt

[David Anderson]

Just to reiterate, Matt, I introduced the ordinance we're discussing here. Outside of the thoughts expressed at the hearings by Chief Malley, the administration hasn't made a position known.

Have a very Merry Christmas, my friend.

David Anderson
216-789-6463

[marklingm]

Just to reiterate, Matt, I introduced the ordinance we're discussing here. Outside of the thoughts expressed at the hearings by Chief Malley, the administration hasn't made a position known.

Have a very Merry Christmas, my friend.

David Anderson
216-789-6463

David,

As I stated above:

I'm surprised how many "loose ends" Kevin Butler has had to "clean up" since he became Law Director.

Was City Hall in a complete state of neglect before Kevin Butler, Dru Siley, and Mike Summers took over City Hall?

Perhaps a "loose ends" study and task force is in order?

Dru Siley, Mike Summers, and Kevin Butler run City Hall.

Dru Siley is always in the background.

Mike Summers - i.e., the Public Safety Director - tells Police Chief Timothy J. Malley what to say.

Kevin Butler is the Law Director whose clients are (1) the Administration and (2) City Council. So, when Jim said the following, I just assumed that he meant what he said you said:

Peter/Matt/Others

Please reread my post. David gave many reasons why they were looking at this. The one that made the most sense to me was, "If we have the law on the books, than we can keep the fine." I, Jim O'Bryan, said, "Say no more."

I am not sure they are looking for more money. One of the things that came out was that failure topay attnetion, or whatever the current laws reads has only be written up 65 times. Everyone of those were after the accident happened, not before. So it is not, as Councilman Anderson said, a preventive measure. Though he thought it would be an important part of the Lakewood Law to see if it could be used to stop the accident, not pile on fines after the fact.

He also mentioned that some of this came from Law Director Butler was cleaning up loose
ends. I guess unlike the Service Director and the Human Resource Manager, the Law
Director cannot introduce new laws to council, so it came to the safety committee.

Thank you for being a friend ... in spite of the fact that I disagree with all these new City Hall laws.







Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, David!

Matt

[David Anderson]

It would be nice if fines paid for tickets issued by the officer we pay stay local. I made this point to Jim and Steve as well as a number of other points I feel are important – public safety, education, etc.

Again, I stand by my quote above.

The "loose ends" comment was in reference to the number of changes in state law that the public safety committee debated which ended up being supported by council about a month ago.

The police chief is hesitant to speak in favor of this ordinance as, from a strictly law enforcement perspective, he doesn't feel it adds a good tool for officers to use out on the roads (ambiguity, allowances for legal use under the new state law, etc.).

Again, I brought the idea behind this proposed ordinance to the law director.

I was watching the Browns online. Now it's time to clean the kitchen and get ready for Christmas Eve.

Take care, Matt.

David Anderson
216-789-6463

[marklingm]

It would be nice if fines paid for tickets issued by the officer we pay stay local. I made this point to Jim and Steve as well as a number of other points I feel are important – public safety, education, etc.

Again, I stand by my quote above.

The "loose ends" comment was in reference to the number of changes in state law that the public safety committee debated which ended up being supported by council about a month ago.

The police chief is hesitant to speak in favor of this ordinance as, from a strictly law enforcement perspective, he doesn't feel it adds a good tool for officers to use out on the roads (ambiguity, allowances for legal use under the new state law, etc.).

Again, I brought the idea behind this proposed ordinance to the law director.

I was watching the Browns online. Now it's time to clean the kitchen and get ready for Christmas Eve.

Take care, Matt.

David Anderson
216-789-6463

Long Live David Anderson!

Thank you for having the moxie to jump in here and defend your position … even when you are wrong.

Matt

[Jim O'Bryan]

Let’s not get crazy, this isn’t about the money or creating a revenue stream. However, it is important for Council and the administration to consider changes to our local code that reflect changes in state law. Council recently approved a number of such changes suggested by the administration and deliberated over by the Public Safety Committee. It is true that fines paid for tickets issued under a state law not reflected by a local code will not stay local. It would be nice if fines paid for tickets issued by the officer we pay stay local. I made this point to Jim and Steve as well as a number of other points I feel are important – public safety, education, etc.

David

Sorry about making it seem like only a money grab. As I really doubt the fines would add up
to that much. What I said was, "When I heard the money side." I was convinced, also the
clean-up was good to hear as were the other reasons, but for me, the money aspect would
have been enough for council to put the law on the city books as well.

As always thanks for coming in. This is a perfect example of what we have always said,
"Leave your words to a "reporter" in this town and you are lucky if they get it right 50%
of the time. Hell in this town, 15%, if it is not sensationalized to death.

Thank you Councilman Anderson, have a great Christmas.

.

[Peter Grossetti]

Great back-and-forth here. Very appreciated.

I still (respectfully) contend that this is, in fact, a "money grab." And, frankly, in this instance, I am 100% OK with that. We all know that money doesn't grow on trees (just look at your home budget) and any source of income -no matter how meager- should be considered. This is precisely why we bend down and pick up the nickle or dime we see laying on the sidewalk!

I just hope in the future that Council will more diligently consider referring proposed ordinances to multiple committees before coming forward with a recommendation for passage (or not). In the case of this proposed ordinance, I could see it on the docket at at least Public Safety and Finance meetings (and possibly Rules & Ordinances Committee) taking a whack at it. Overkill? Not in my opinion! Too much at stake! Expedience and Rectitude are not necessarily good bedfellows.

Also ... completely lost in this conversation is this line from the city hall release sent out by Ms. McHugh (see opening post):
"The entire community is invited to participate in the public hearing on Thursday December 13th and/or submit testimony for consideration by the City Council."