MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops



Pages: 1
Main Page

Ban Of Cell Phone Use While Driving OK'd By House

(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: kwflatbed

Drivers Would Face Fines

BOSTON -- The House on Wednesday approved a bill banning drivers from talking or texting on cell phones while behind the wheel, despite opposition from a lawmaker whose city experienced the death of a 13-year-old boy in a hit-and-run accident last month.

The bill, approved on a 107-47 vote, authorizes police to pull over drivers they see talking on cell phones or sending text messages. Adult offenders would be subject to a $100 fine on the first offense. Hands-free headsets would be exempt.

"This is something that will save lives," said Melissa Martin, whose 17-year-old daughter, Amanda, died last October in a car accident that she and police blame on text messaging.
Martin watched from the House gallery as lawmakers debated the bill. Her daughter was driving Oct. 17 in Charlton on her way to Bay Path High School, where she was a senior studying cosmetology, when she received a text message. Moments later, he car crashed into a tree.

"Our lives have been totally altered," she said in an interview after the vote. "We'll never be the same, that's for sure. You worry about kids at night, not when they're going to school."

Other exemptions include anyone making an emergency call, and emergency workers.

It was another death that renewed the push for a ban. Taunton police say Earman Machado was killed Dec. 27 when Craig Bigos, 31, of New Bedford, allegedly veered off the road while typing a text message. Bigos pleaded not guilty to charges including motor vehicle homicide.

The most vocal opposition came from Taunton Rep. James Fagan, a Democrat who argued that it's a giveaway to insurance companies that will impose surcharges on violators. He said a violation would cost him $140 per year in surcharges for six years.

"The ultimate beneficiary of this rotten piece of public policy will be the insurers of the commonwealth of Massachusetts," he said.

Drivers can be distracted by smoking cigarettes, spilling coffee, applying makeup, and eating food but don't face penalties, he said.

"Tragically there are occasions when through the exercise of poor judgment an accident and a tragedy occurs. No matter how much we try we cannot legislate that away," said Fagan, a trial lawyer who said he has represented scofflaw drivers.

In a 12-minute speech, he accused colleagues of ignoring the Constitution.

"People frankly are too lazy to read it, too stupid to understand and too apathetic to stand up and fight for it," he said. "Part of our foundation was to keep us free people. This is another instance where we become less free."

Manuel Machado, father of the boy who was killed, supports the bill. His family declined to comment Wednesday, but he told The Boston Globe last week that the bill should pass: "We have to be aware of where we go so that we don't claim an innocent victim on the street."

Rep. Joseph Wagner, House chairman of the Transportation Committee, defended the bill. Insurance companies wouldn't be able to apply surcharges until July 1, 2009.

"It will be up to insurance companies to determine whether or not they will assess a surcharge," said Wagner, a Chicopee Democrat. "It's no an absolute that there would be a surcharge."

The bill, which moves to the Senate, would impose on adults $250 fines for a second offense and $500 thereafter. Those with junior operator licenses would face fines and the suspension of their licenses.

Dave Falcone, spokesman for Senate President Therese Murray, declined to comment on the bill Wednesday.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news...29/detail.html


Posted by: Hb13

Does this mean that I have to take my "Would you drive any better with the cellphone up your ass?" bumper sticker off my car?


Posted by: rg1283

CT has a cell phone law. I could count on one hand how many people follow it


Posted by: Wolfman

Welcome to the Nanny State.


Posted by: SinePari

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwflatbed View Post
Drivers can be distracted by smoking cigarettes, spilling coffee, applying makeup, and eating food but don't face penalties, he said.
Ah, yes they do. It's called 90-13 impeded operation dumbass. ANYTHING that affects the safe operation of a motor vehicle. Duh! Of which I have written for cell phone use that resulted in marked lanes, following too close, etc. Never lost an appeal with it.


Posted by: Crvtte65

Before it was allowed as long as one hand was on the steering wheel AND it didn't affect the driving (as Sine indicated 90/13)

MGL Ch 90 § 24Q (as proposed by House Bill # 3546)


Quote:
SECTION 2. Said chapter 90 is hereby amended by inserting after
section 24P, as so appearing, the following section:—

Section 24Q.
(a) For the purposes of this section, a “mobile telephone” shall include, but not be limited to, a mobile telephone utilizing cellular, analog, satellite, wireless or digital telephone technology, and capable of sending or receiving telephone communications.
(b) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a public way:—
(1) while holding a mobile telephone in one or both hands or withany other part of the body; or
(2) while using or operating a mobile telephone, unless the a mobile telephone is affixed to the vehicle or is part of a fixture in the vehicle and remains so affixed while being used or operated, or is specially adapted or designed to be affixed to the driver as headgear and is so used, to enable the driver to use or operate the mobile telephone without holding it in the manner contemplated in clause (1), and remains so affixed while being used or operated.
(c) This section shall not apply to the following persons operating motor vehicles in the execution of their duties:—
(1) the driver of a fire-fighting vehicle;
(2) the driver of a rescue vehicle or an ambulance;
(3) a state, county, or local public safety official, if operating the vehicle with due regard to the safety of others.
(d) A violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $100. A second and subsequent violation shall be punished by a fine of not more than $250.
(e) It shall be an affirmative defense for an operator to produce documentary or other evidence that the phone call that represents the alleged violation was made for the sole purpose of seeking emergency assistance.
(f) A violation of this section shall not be considered as a conviction of a moving violation of the motor vehicle laws for the purpose of determining surcharges on motor vehicle premiums pursuant to Section 113 of Chapter 175. An insurance company doing business in the Commonwealth shall not deny an individual the right to purchase a motor vehicle liability policy based on a violation of this section.
Also, the same bill is written that a JOL will be suspended for 1 year w/same fines and rules regarding affirmative defense if they are making emergency calls.


Posted by: topcop14

So whats next, banning talking to your passangers. . .


Posted by: Crvtte65

Quote:
Originally Posted by topcop14 View Post
So whats next, banning talking to your passangers. . .
Only if you turn your head when doing it


Posted by: Mshaw166

So we can enforce it when??


Posted by: Mozzarella

Hang up and drive.. Your not that important.


Posted by: OutOfManyOne

It will never pass the Senate. Just like a million other bills that went south. This is Massachusetts, unless the Feds require it or lose their grants, ain't happening.


Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

Isn't this Massachusetts the libral state. Government intrusion this should have been passed years ago!!!!


Posted by: pnpsblows

people just need to invest in bluetooth or a wire headset...not that hard to do


Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnpsblows View Post
people just need to invest in bluetooth or a wire headset...not that hard to do
Our legislators just need to remove the cellphone exception from impeded operation and require that proof be given that the use of said phone actually affected the operators ability to drive safely...not that hard to do either, much more fair to the citizen and better than forcing hundreds of people to buy and upgrade hardware.

Ridiculous that someone can be stopped and fined for talking on a phone when there is no evidence whatsoever that their driving was adversely affected. You can drink your coffee with one hand, you can pick your nose, tune your radio, but God forbid you hold a phone up to your ear. Since when is it OK to engage in anticipatory enforcement? That's like pulling over a sports car because it "might" speed or locking someone up for OUI if they have an unopened six pack because they "might" drink it and then drive.

Precrime anyone?


Posted by: resqjyw0

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnpsblows View Post
people just need to invest in bluetooth or a wire headset...not that hard to do
Quote:
Originally Posted by MGL C.90 S.13
No person shall operate a motor vehicle while wearing headphones, unless said headphones are used for communication in connection with controlling the course or movement of said vehicle.
As it stands, the bluetooth or any hands-free headset for a phone are illegal because they could technically be considered a headphone.

Quote:
Headphone: electro-acoustic transducer for converting electric signals into sounds; it is held over or inserted into the ear



Posted by: Loyal

Wolfman, I doubt many officers would bother pulling someone over just for talking on the phone. Well, maybe in some places.. - It is the pain in the ass cell phone users that gab and gab while weaving all over thye road, drive too slow or miss the red light turn green at a stop that are the problem. If they know they risk getting a ticket for being on the phone, maybe they will show some courtesy and pull over while they talk or simply get an inexpensive handset. Maybe Impeded Operation can be used, but most citizens are not aware of that - this new law will get their attention.


Posted by: JoninNH

Just another tool we can use, Wolfman. I don't think I'm gonna pull anyone over just for talking on thier cell, any more than I'm going to pull over a smoker for smoking behind the wheel. Besides, we've all seen the idiots reading a paper while eating a bagel, talking on the phone, smoking a butt, changing the radio, all while speeding in the slow lane...


Posted by: jettsixx

I used to drive tractor trailer, you would not believe the things I used to see while on the road. I remember one day on 84 in CT. I was traveling in the right lane, and four cars in a row went by me. The first one had a map on the steering wheel, the second had a book, (a novel about the size of War and Peace), the third had newspaper and my favorite was the fourth he had a full plate of speghetti and meatballs in his lap. Thats just one day I would see things like this daily.


Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:
Originally Posted by jettsixx View Post
I used to drive tractor trailer, you would not believe the things I used to see while on the road. I remember one day on 84 in CT. I was traveling in the right lane, and four cars in a row went by me. The first one had a map on the steering wheel, the second had a book, (a novel about the size of War and Peace), the third had newspaper and my favorite was the fourth he had a full plate of speghetti and meatballs in his lap. Thats just one day I would see things like this daily.
The best place to watch from the high seat is on the LI Expressway
they eat their meals, get dressed, phone on the sholder typing on the
laptop, coffee in the other hand. Usualy at least a half a dozen into
the guard rail with their meals all over them, typical morning comute
to the big apple.


Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:
Precrime anyone?
I'm putting in for a lateral transfer to the division of precrime.


Posted by: jettsixx

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwflatbed View Post
The best place to watch from the high seat is on the LI Expressway
they eat their meals, get dressed, phone on the sholder typing on the
laptop, coffee in the other hand. Usualy at least a half a dozen into
the guard rail with their meals all over them, typical morning comute
to the big apple.
Didnt really get down there too often, (by chioce), choice mostly in CT,NH, RI, and NH, with most of the time in CT- and for some strange reason- I dont miss it except in the summer time by hampton. Damn that was some nice scenery.


Posted by: jackiedee2002

I think this is a great idea - but it's not going to change anything. :\ This is pretty much the #1 reason I don't own a cell phone (#2 being money...). I used to talk on the phone while driving, but being the easily-distracted person that I am, I KNOW it's a bad idea.

It makes me sad that others can't recognize that in themselves. Good luck, MA.

Jackie



Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

I would rather see a law banning cell phone use while walking. especially police officers doing road details.


Posted by: Hb13

My favorite one was when I was driving for the company I used to work for I was on 128 and saw a guy driving eating a bowl of cereal milk and all.
First thought I had was to blow the horn on the truck I was driving, I didn't though.


Posted by: jason14x

I hope it passes .I too have written and won the appeal while using 90-13 I can tell which people are on their phones when i'm at a detail...they are the ones that dont use their blinkers,swerve,speed,cut off other drivers and barely notice you in the road with your bright green jacket and gloves.

My solution to the legislators whining about surcharges for this and many other driving infractions.....dont let the insurance companies set the surcharges and then have the additional money go to the state. Raise the fines 100-200 dollars and make it a non surchargeable offense.....that way the money comes to the state and the town that wrote the cite....they should do this with a bunch of the chapter 90,89,and 85 charges as well.The state and the towns dealing with this should reap the benefits not the weasley little insurnace companies.


Posted by: KEVDEMT

the distracting situation isnt a person holding a phone to their ear, its talking on the phone to begin with. handsfree headsets merely allow you to place both hands on the wheel and continue to pay more attention to your phone call than the road. allowing them is pointless, but then again so is trying to prevent the use of cell phones while driving so i guess its a wash.


Posted by: resqjyw0

Some people can multi-task, most can't...


Posted by: Mstr.Gunz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason14x View Post
I hope it passes .I too have written and won the appeal while using 90-13 I can tell which people are on their phones when i'm at a detail...they are the ones that dont use their blinkers,swerve,speed,cut off other drivers and barely notice you in the road with your bright green jacket and gloves.

My solution to the legislators whining about surcharges for this and many other driving infractions.....dont let the insurance companies set the surcharges and then have the additional money go to the state. Raise the fines 100-200 dollars and make it a non surchargeable offense.....that way the money comes to the state and the town that wrote the cite....they should do this with a bunch of the chapter 90,89,and 85 charges as well.The state and the towns dealing with this should reap the benefits not the weasley little insurnace companies.
right there with ya, but I'm not so sure about the whole municipal surcharge deal just because I think if you hand it over to the insurance companies, they'll really go to town with the surcharges. And right now, I think this state could use a good wake-up call... especially with the majority of the youth, some of these kids you see at my high school you would just shake your head at. I don't think anyone needs the details on problems that a lot of teenagers have nowadays, and a lot of these kids take it as far as an obsession, especially with the cell phones. Maybe if theres a law out there worth taking a second guess about using their cell phones over, then we'll actually see a quick and positive impact. I barely use my cell as it is so I won't have any problems with this bill . And maybe when the parents of these kids with their massive cell bills see that they gotta pay an extra monthly surcharge on top of that new toyota camry and insurance they just bought their kid, they'll crack down on their kids and use a little elbow grease in their parenting.

But as someone else said earlier, I wouldn't exactly bet on this law being passed; and even less so as the bill stands right now. If it even does get passed, odds are there are going to be at least a few revisions made which would further delay the bill's ratification because it will have to go back through the house, then the senate before going onto the president. I don't think we'll have a problem with bush passing that law just because he honestly doesn't appear to me as a tech-savvy guy, or even an admirer at that; let alone a supporter of drivers on their cell phones.


Posted by: resqjyw0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mstr.Gunz. View Post
If it even does get passed, odds are there are going to be at least a few revisions made which would further delay the bill's ratification because it will have to go back through the house, then the senate before going onto the president.
You mean Governor, right?


Posted by: rokurmthr61

Quote:
Originally Posted by resqjyw0 View Post
You mean Governor, right?
comon he is still in HIGH school, maybe he thinks this is going to cross country!
although mass would be the only state to pass a law like this!
but I think that should be part of the JOL restictions! and then i think it should be a 100 dollar fine THAT will solve the problem! haaha


Posted by: galehopeful

Massachusetts would not be the first state to pass this ban; similar bans already exist in many municipalities, dozens of countries, and the following
states: Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, California, Washington and on all DoD bases and the District of Columbia.

Few people follow the laws, but like several people have said, it's another tool available to law enforcement.


Posted by: rokurmthr61

Quote:
Originally Posted by galehopeful View Post
Massachusetts would not be the first state to pass this ban; similar bans already exist in many municipalities, dozens of countries, and the following
states: Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, California, Washington and on all DoD bases and the District of Columbia.

Few people follow the laws, but like several people have said, it's another tool available to law enforcement.
you can use a hands free device on the DOD bases, i think this will just band the use of using your phone at all!
i don't want to say ban but restrict you! haha


Posted by: resqjyw0

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...91723#23791723


Posted by: rokurmthr61

Quote:
Originally Posted by resqjyw0 View Post

I want to drive in the simulator with the car just to see how fast i can blow by people haha see if i can beat the record time! haha


Posted by: Mstr.Gunz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rokurmthr61 View Post
I want to drive in the simulator with the car just to see how fast i can blow by people haha see if i can beat the record time! haha
its a safety simulation, I don't think they'll have a timed score..


Posted by: rokurmthr61

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mstr.Gunz. View Post
its a safety simulation, I don't think they'll have a timed score..
haha ill find a way to beat something even if i have to pass cars on the double yellow! haha


Posted by: resqjyw0


Senate President Therese Murray said
today there is no interest in the bill in
the Senate.

Bill to ban cell phone use while driving may die in Senate

by The Republican Newsroom
Wednesday April 30, 2008, 7:59 PM

By DAN RING
dring@repub.com

BOSTON - A bill to ban people from holding cell phones or sending text messages while driving may die in the state Senate this year.

Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, said today there is no interest in the bill in the Senate. She said that the bill is not a high priority for her and that she has not given it much thought.

The House in January voted 107-47 to approve the bill, but the bill will also need approval of the Senate to make it to the desk of Gov. Deval L. Patrick.

No discussion on bill

Murray said there has been no discussion on the bill, which is opposed by the Senate chairman of the Transportation Committee.

"I haven't given it any thought," Murray said in an interview. "No one has asked me for it, so it's not something that is at the top of my radar."

The House bill allows adult drivers to use headsets, speaker phones or other "hands free" technology.

The bill would ban 16- and 17-year-old drivers from using cell phones or other electronic mobile devices, regardless of hands-free technology. Murray said she didn't think it would be a bad idea to prohibit such teens from using cell phones while driving, but she would need to look at the bill.

Wagner says law is needed

Rep. Joseph F. Wagner, D-Chicopee, a key architect of the House bill, said there's been a proliferation of drivers holding and talking on their cell phones while driving.

Wagner, the House chairman of the Joint Committee on Transportation, said he hopes the bill is approved in the Senate.

Wagner said it's a distraction for drivers to use cell phones, and he's backed up by statistics from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Wagner said the bill is needed to improve safety on the roads and save lives.

According to the Registry, the use of a cell phone was a contributing factor in about 2 percent of accidents statewide with more than $1,000 damage. A cell phone was a factor in 453 such crashes in 2005 and 434 in 2006.

Transportation chairman opposes bill

Sen. Steven A. Baddour, D-Methuen, the Senate chairman of the Transportation Committee, said he opposes the bill because the issue is distracted driving, which can be caused by a number of things, even using hands-free technology.

He said it's wrong to single out cell phones.

"Every independent study that I've seen ... says it's not the holding of the cell phone that causes the problem," he said. "It's the distraction of not paying attention."

Baddour said he prefers that the bill die without coming to the Senate floor for a vote. If it does come to a vote, he said he will argue against it.

"It sends the wrong message," Baddour said. "It doesn't solve the problem of distracted driving."

Vote needed by July 31

The Senate would need to vote on the bill by July 31, the end of formal sessions this year.

A spokesman for the governor said in January that the governor generally supports the goals of the legislation, but would need to see specifics in the bill before making a decision.

Under the House bill, adult drivers would face $100 fine for a first offense, a $250 fine for a second offense and a $500 fine for third and subsequent offenses.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...egory=Politics


Posted by: CJIS

Quote:
Originally Posted by resqjyw0 View Post

Senate President Therese Murray said
today there is no interest in the bill in
the Senate.
I never really took to notice how "Homely" of a woman she was till now.


Posted by: Officer Dunngeon

Oh yeah! Now I remember where I've seen her picture before!


Posted by: CJIS

The more I look the more she looks like a man.


Posted by: Officer Dunngeon

Hmmm... yes, perhaps you're right!




Posted by: CJIS

Reminds me of this wo... man... person I saw at Lowes the other day.




ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)



vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108