Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Nextel Uses Tobacco Lobbist To Fight "Distracted Driving" Bill.

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:46:55 -0400

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Nextel Uses Tobacco Lobbyist To Fight "Distracted Driving" Bill
Bill would put chatty motorists on hold

(Daniel Riley is a lobbyist for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company)

By PAUL CARRIER, Portland Press Herald Writer Copyright © 2003 Blethen Maine Newspapers
Inc.

AUGUSTA — This could be the year that lawmakers crack down on gabby motorists.
While a bill prohibiting drivers from using hand-held cell phones appears headed for its
third defeat in recent years, a separate proposal that would accomplish the same thing is
still alive. The alternative approach is part of a more inclusive bill that would outlaw
"distracted driving," which covers a range of activities, including cellular phone use.

The issue got a rough initial reception when the Legislature's Transportation Committee
overwhelmingly rejected a bill sponsored by Green Independent Rep. John Eder of Portland.
The measure would have prohibited motorists from using hand-held phones while driving,
with some exceptions for police officers and others. The House and Senate have yet to take
up the bill, but Eder said Tuesday that the Transportation Committee's 11-2 vote against
his bill is discouraging.

With the bill going nowhere, Eder said he will ask the Legislature to enact a law
requiring police to ask motorists who cause accidents if they were on the phone at the
time. That would allow the state to collect reliable data on the severity of the problem,
Eder said.

But another bill that tackles the problem from a different angle has gotten a positive
reception.  Sponsored by Rep. Thomas Murphy, R-Kennebunk, the proposal would outlaw
"distracted driving," which the bill defines as any activity "that interferes with the
safe operation of the motor vehicle."

Although Murphy's bill does not specifically target cell-phone use the way Eder's bill
does, distracted driving would include such activities as eating, grooming or chatting on
the phone while driving. Distracted driving would be a traffic violation, but the police
could give a driver a ticket for distracted driving only if the driver has been pulled
over for some other offense.
That means, for example, that a police officer could not ticket a motorist for using a
cell phone if the motorist is driving properly, but the same officer could give the same
driver a ticket for distracted driving if the motorist is speeding or driving erratically
while on the phone.

The Transportation Committee has backed the distracted-driving bill on a 12-1 vote, but
the panel is still working on the wording. The lone dissenter is Rep. Rosaire Paradis,
D-Frenchville, who supports a ban on cell-phone use by motorists. Paradis said the
distracted-driving bill is "too general" and it won't accomplish anything.

Murphy said he believes the bill has a good chance of winning the Legislature's support
because the measure "focuses on a specific action" rather than a specific device - the
cell phone. That's why the cell-phone industry, which continues to oppose any legislation
that only bans cell-phone use, is supportive of a distracted-driving ban.

"Distracted driving is distracted driving, for whatever reason," said Daniel Riley, a
lobbyist for Nextel Wireless. Riley said studies show that cell-phone use is "well down
the list of causes of distracted driving," so it makes more sense to attack all
distractions than to single out phone use, which the industry describes as a relatively
minor problem compared to other distracting activities.

Eder disagrees. Noting that opponents of a ban liken cell-phone use to tuning a car radio,
Eder says tuning a radio takes a few seconds, while chatting on the phone can drag on for
quite some time, creating a long-term distraction.

"I believe cell phones are particularly egregious" as a distraction to motorists, so they
deserve to be singled out, Eder said. But he said he will support the distracted-driving
bill because "that's better than nothing." Still, supporters of the bill may have a tough
fight on their hands, because Gov. John Baldacci opposes the measure.

"It would be too difficult to enforce and leaves too much leeway in interpreting what
actually constitutes distracted driving," said Lee Umphrey, Baldacci's spokesman. Unless
Baldacci changes his mind, the bill's backers would need two-thirds votes in the Senate
and the House to make passage veto-proof.

New York is the only state that has banned the use of hand-held cell phones while driving,
although New Jersey prohibits drivers under 21 who have learner's permits from using cell
phones. Four states forbid school-bus drivers from using cell phones while driving, except
in emergencies.

In Maine, a bill creating a new class of license for inexperienced drivers would prohibit
new drivers from using cell phones, but only for six months. That bill is pending in the
Legislature.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/statehouse/030430distracted.shtml