Welcome to the cause

It seems more and more lawmakers are gravitating to the idea of passing laws that prohibit the use of mobile communication devices while operating a motor vehicle. Welcome to the good fight.

Times finally says car phones should be turned off

The New York Times is on the bandwagon. Its Sunday edition contained an editorial calling for Congress to enact legislation outlawing using mobile communications while operating a motor vehicle. The editorial even made the same comparison I did a couple of days ago: "It brings to mind that row of tobacco company executives who swore to a Congressional subcommittee 15 years ago that their products were not addictive," the editorial said.

Here are two important paragraphs from the editorial:

"The reasons the cellphone industry representatives have given to block bans on phone use while driving sound straight out of the Thank You for Smoking playbook. One refrain was that the evidence was not settled, an assertion that continued as the industry itself was beginning to warn drivers about driving while phoning."

And:

"Congress has slowly begun to focus on this issue and proposals for bans are now circulating in both houses, some with support of the cellphone industry. None of them are terribly high on Washington’s agenda, however. It is time for Congress and the wireless phone industry to take highway safety a step beyond seat belts and air bags."

Welcome to the good fight, New York Times.

I vote for Brown to replace Chief Kunkle

Like most folks around here, I was shocked to read of Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle's announcement of his retirement next April. It had always seemed to me that the two most prominent members of the city's staff -- the city manager and the police chief -- were pressured out of his office; they didn't leave of their own accord.

I have always felt that former City Manager Ted Benavides' major legacy to the city is that he appointed Kunkle as chief, an appointment that was much criticized in the media at the time because the chief was a former Dallas police officer who was the chief in neighboring Arlington at the time of his appointment. Critics claimed Mr. Benavides should have cast a wider geographical net for the next chief and Kunkle's appointment was going to be more of the same (his predecessor being the much-maligned Terrell Bolton, who rose from the department's ranks and whom Mr. Benavides both appointed and fired). History has proved Mr. Benavides was correct in the Kunkle appointment (boy, was he ever!) and the critics were wrong.

Chief Kunkle's announcement does current City Manager a huge favor. She now has a half year to find a successor. I'm hoping she will do the same thing Mr. Benavides did: Conduct a nationwide search for a new chief and then appoint someone close to home. I am referring to first assistant chief David Brown (pictured above).

I met Chief Brown when I was the executive director of the Northeast Chamber of Commerce (now the East Dallas chamber) and he was named chief of the Northeast Dallas Police substation. We worked tirelessly to implement the same kind of volunteer program that was successful in reducing crime residential in neighborhoods to crime-plagued shopping centers, particularly along the Skillman Road corridor. Chief Brown, however, took crime fighting in this neighborhood to an even higher level, conducting major undercover operations in neighborhood apartment complexes that housed drug laboratories, knowing that drugs was the root cause of most of the criminal activity.

His success in the Northeast, I'm guessing, fueled his rapid ascent to his current position, the No. 2 man in the Dallas Police Department. At one point, Ms. Suhm even appointed Chief Brown as an interim assistant city manager. I'm thinking if he's qualified to be the assistant city manager overseeing the police department, he's certainly qualified to be the city's next police chief. Sure, there might be someone equally as qualified in Sacramento, Phoenix, Charlotte, Indianapolis, whereever, but no one will know the city's problems and the police department as well as Brown. No one will be able to hit the ground running as quickly as Brown. No one will provide as seamless a transition as Brown.

Sure, the local media might complain, but, as in the case of Kunkle, they will learn that Brown's appointment will be the right decision.

Austin cares more about public safety than Dallas

Austin mayor Lee Leffingwell, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez and Councilmember Chris Riley are co-sponsoring a resolution that would prohibit text messaging and using the Internet while operating a motor vehicle. According to the official release:

"Studies make this very clear," said Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez. "And, common sense reinforces what we already know; using a phone while driving is very dangerous and is factor in many traffic incidents."

The City Council agenda item directs the City Manager to prepare ordinance to prohibit the writing, sending or reading of text messages, instant messages and emails or viewing the internet on a mobile phone or other portable electronic device.

"Multi-tasking while driving is not a good practice," said Mayor Lee Leffingwell. "With kids headed back to school we should all take this time to be very aware on the road and put an end to text messaging while driving."

It's long past time the Dallas City Council followed suit.

This texting ban idea is catching on

Four Democratic senators -- Charles Schumer of New York, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina -- have introduced legislation that would require all 50 states to join those 14 that have passed laws banning texting while operating a motor vehicle. States that failed to enact such legislation would lose 25 percent of their federal highway funds.

As I predicted Wednesday, opposition to this semi-sensible legislation (it should ban all mobile phone usage while driving) is coming from groups like the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety agencies, which wants to argue the irrelevant: The Association said it does not doubt the dangers of texting while driving but does not support a ban because it would be difficult to enforce.

Sergio Kindle can be the poster boy for the texting ban

Ran across the following on the College Sports Blog of the Dallas Morning News concerning University of Texas linebacker Sergio Kindle becoming more responsible since his recent auto accident:

"The former Woodrow Wilson standout suffered a concussion in the accident and said he was thankful it wasn't worse. His lawyer said the accident was caused because Kindle was text messaging while driving."

So there's that.

Those against texting ban will undoubtedly have wrong argument

For the last couple of weeks, I have been advocating a ban on using mobile phones while operating a motor vehicle or, at the very least, a ban on texting while driving. There are, of course, going to be those arguing against this and their main argument is going to be "it can't be enforced. We can't afford to have our police wasting their time trying to catch people using mobile phones in their cars."

Those who make that argument are missing the entire point. Creating such a ban is not about catching the "bad guys." Geez, people who use their phones while driving are not even "bad guys" to begin with; they are good people who, without thinking about it, are momentarily threatening their own lives and the well-being of others sharing the roads with them. This is strictly a public safety issue.

Look: DART and the Texas Department of Public Safety have done an absolutely miserable job of explaining why HOV lanes exist. Yet, for the most part, most drivers obey the HOV lane rules even when there are no concrete barriers separating these lanes from mainstream traffic. I read a story in the Dallas Morning News recently on HOV lanes and, as I recall, the story said 16 percent of all the cars in the HOV lanes during one given period were using them illegally. That may seem like a lot, but it isn't when you put it into context. Those who drive on northern loop of LBJ or on North Central north of LBJ know that these HOV lanes are almost empty for the most part. So if you take that 16 percent and make it the percentage of all the vehicles on a freeway at any given time, I'm willing to bet the number comes out to less than one-tenth of 1 percent. That's minuscule. That means 99.9 percent of all motorists obey the HOV lane rules even though most know these rules "can't be enforced."

Explaining the reasons behind a mobile phone ban while operating a vehicle is going to be much easier than educating the public on HOV lanes. It's like seat belts, another impossible law to enforce but the overwhelming majority of people in autos use seat belts. Why? Not because they are afraid of getting a ticket if they don't, but because they are convinced it's the right thing to do.

The HOV and seat belt examples prove to me that, for the most part, drivers are willing to follow the rules (exception: the speed limit on the Dallas North Tollway) if those rules are made clear.

Banning the use of mobile phones -- or at least texting -- while driving is simply about public safety, about saving lives, about reducing the number of traffic accidents and has nothing to do with writing tickets for those who disobey the rules.

Plus, no one is telling anyone they can't use their mobile phone in their automobiles. All I'm advocating is that, when you do have to use it, pull over to the side of the road and find a safe place to park for a while. Then use the phone.

Take one small step for man: Ban texting

Eight days ago I implored the Dallas City Council -- on behalf of its stated No. 1 priority: public safety -- to expand its ban on motorists using mobile phones in school zones to a citywide ban. This is the same Dallas City Council acting, it said, to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, that banned smoking in all public places. For the most part, I can choose whether I want to shun a bar or a restaurant because it permits smoking by patrons, but I'm afraid I have no choice but to use the roads in our fair city; in fact I use them daily, more often than not.

But perhaps a citywide mobile phone ban on motorists while operating a moving vehicle may be too radical position for our timid council members to take. But here's a first step: ban texting while driving. It doesn't take a genius to realize that a driver simply cannot text and watch on the road on which he is driving at the same time.

Now there's a study on drivers texting inside their vehicles that's about to be released by researchers at Virginia Tech University which shows that the risk sharply exceeds previous estimates based on laboratory research — and far surpasses the dangers of other driving distractions.

"The new study, which entailed outfitting the cabs of long-haul trucks with video cameras over 18 months, found that when the drivers texted, their collision risk was 23 times greater than when not texting," according to the New York Times' story on the study.

Here's the frightening part of this study: When texting, drivers typically look at their devices for up to five seconds -- "enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field."

Please, council members, take this first step of banning texting while driving. My son drives his 3-year-old daughter to pre-school camp at the Jewish Community Center every day before he heads to his medical school studies. While reading about this Virginia Tech study, I could not help but think about them being blindsided by some errant texting driver.

If public safety is indeed the No. 1 priority of you folks on the City Council (although I do realize that, at this moment, passing a balanced budget that won't anger your constituents too much is really your No. 1 priority) and if you are really serious about protecting our well-being, as you said you were when you passed the smoking ban, than the time has come to at least ban texting while operating a motor vehicle on the streets of Dallas.

Dallas City Council needs to expand mobile phone ban

The Dallas City Council claims public safety is its No. 1 priority. That's why, for example, even when facing a $190 million budget deficit, the council will want to continue hiring 200 new police officers next year while reserving the program cutbacks for parks, libraries, streets and the like.

A while ago, the council enacted a ban on the use of mobile devices by drivers of motor vehicles in school zones, presumably under the argument that it's more dangerous for a driver to text someone while driving 20 miles an hour in a school zone than while doing 70 on LBJ. But if the council really was that concerned about public safety it would demonstrate the leadership and the courage to enact this ban city-wide. I bring this up now because of what I read in today's New York Times:

"Extensive research shows the dangers of distracted driving. Studies say that drivers using phones are four times as likely to cause a crash as other drivers, and the likelihood that they will crash is equal to that of someone with a .08 percent blood alcohol level, the point at which drivers are generally considered intoxicated. Research also shows that hands-free devices do not eliminate the risks, and may worsen them by suggesting that the behavior is safe. "

There's plenty of evidence to support these claims.

According to a Harvard study conducted six years ago, according to the Times, "cellphone distractions caused 2,600 traffic deaths every year, and 330,000 accidents that result in moderate or severe injuries."

The Dallas City Council took a necessary first step by banning the use of mobile devices by drivers in school zones. But that's like tipping the big toe in the pool to test the water temperature. Well, the temperature must be fine because no one I know is talking about removing this ban; so now is the time to take the plunge and really take actions to protect the safety of the public.