| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 |
8
|
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 |
Marissa Monson recently returned to Champaign-Urbana, where she earned a bachelor's of journalism from University of Illinois in 2004. She freelances fulltime and works parttime at Jane Addams Book Shop to support a serious book-buying habit. She loves hip-hop and soul music. The first album she owned was Janet Jackson's "Control." She never looked back.
After many separate discussions about enacting a ban on using cell phones while driving, the council has decided on an ordinance, but surprisingly, the new draft doesn't include talking on hand-held cell phones and hands-free units.
The ordinance put forth includes an amendment to prohibit sending text messages while driving a vehicle and an addition for bicyclists on the roadway to be susceptible to the same fines. Other elements of the ban include a hefty fine — maximum of $750 — if caught talking or texting on a cell phone while involved in an accident, and an educational program to teach the public about the new ordinance.
Alderman Charlie Smyth, who initially proposed the total ban on cell phones, proposed an amendment to ban hands-free and hand-held phones, but could not get a second from the council. Alderman Brandon Bowersox also proposed an addition to the ordinance, banning the use of hand-held devices exclusively, but no council members seconded his motion.
"I think it is a first step, and I think it should be part of a complete cell phone ban. I think we are ready to move forward on a complete ban," Smyth says.
Urbana police will take note of traffic accidents where cell phone use was involved and the council will talk about the their findings and the current ordinance again in one year.
"I have concerns about ordinances like this being a form of government harassment," Alderwoman Danielle Chynoweth says. "Also, I have a concern for public safety.
"I don't want it to become a community that just nitpicks and stops people from picking up a cell phone."
Comments (4)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:42 PM
What an interesting and somewhat odd compromise.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:49 PM
So, someone can talk on their cell phone legally, but as soon as they are involved in an accident, it becomes a $750 fine? That....makes no sense. Would this also mean I could legally have three double jack and cokes and drive home but not get in trouble unless I hit someone?
Or maybe we could let senile people drive, but unless they ran over a kid it would be OK. Basically, if you are going to fine people $750 retroactively, isnt that basically admitting that there should be a law against it, but it was too politically hard to pass?
If its illegal, its illegal. But don't sit on the fence because you're afraid to make the tough decisions.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:14 PM
just fucking ban it, headsets and all.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:41 AM
Language people language...
It seems if awareness is the goal they are after, then including pedestrians and cyclists in exclusivly makes more sense.
Its fairly straight forward to photo someone in this manner. However what are police to do to enforce this with cars? Start searching cars when they think they saw a phone being used? Then what they are hiding is it a cell phone or gun?
This kinda means the GPS should go as well as the radio, or the cigarette and coffee.... Don't they already get flack for pulling over a car because the lights are out, registrations not visable or the lack of a signal?