The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 09.10.2013 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 The Georgetown City Council will meet on SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 at 3:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers at 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, TX The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/Review Workshop - A Presentation of Aquatic Facilities Master Plan -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Robert Johnson, Parks and Recreation Board Chair B Presentation on Phase Two of the Creative Playscape -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director; Eric Nuner, Parks and Recreation Assistant Director; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Tim Bargainer, Baker-Aicklen and Associates, Inc. C Distracted While Driving -- Wayne Nero, Police Chief Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. D Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Rivery Update - LCRA Update Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2013, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas September 10, 2013 SUBJECT: Presentation of Aquatic Facilities Master Plan -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Robert Johnson, Parks and Recreation Board Chair ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Cover Memo Item # A City of Georgetown, Texas September 10, 2013 SUBJECT: Presentation on Phase Two of the Creative Playscape -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director; Eric Nuner, Parks and Recreation Assistant Director; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Tim Bargainer, Baker-Aicklen and Associates, Inc. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Cover Memo Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas September 10, 2013 SUBJECT: Distracted While Driving -- Wayne Nero, Police Chief ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Distracted Driving Research 2013 Cover Memo Item # C Page2 Debate over possible state action on texting while driving occurs in the context of possible further federal restrictions on the practice. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration recently banned commercial drivers from using any hand-held mobile devices. In 2009, President Obama signed an executive order prohibiting federal employees from texting while driving government-owned vehicles, while driving private vehicles on government business, or while using government-supplied electronic equipment. Also, Congress is considering legislation that would create federal funding incentives for states to implement texting-while- driving bans, although a bill with this provision has yet to advance to a full vote in either chamber. Municipalities restrict texting while driving Harlingen joins several other municipalities, ranging in population from roughly 1,000 to 365,000, that began enforcing prohibitions on texting while driving last fall. In September, Arlington created a $200 fine for texting while driving, as did Magnolia. Alamo, Mount Vernon, and Nacogdoches later followed suit with a $500 fine. At least 23 Texas municipalities have adopted citywide prohibitions on texting while driving (see table). This total does not include about a dozen local governments that have prohibited the use of hand-held cellular devices while driving in a school zone, but whose ordinances were pre-empted by state law forbidding the practice. House Research Organization Texas municipalities with ordinances prohibiting texting while driving City Maximum 2010 Year penalty/ population adopted violation Alamo $500 18,353 2011 Arlington $200 365,438 2011 Austin $500 790,390 2009 Bellaire $500 16,855 2009 Brownsville $500 175,023 2011 Conroe $500 56,207 2010 El Paso* $500 649,121 2010 Galveston $500 47,743 2010 Harlingen $200 64,849 2011 Magnolia $200 1,393 2011 McAllen $500 129,877 2011 Mission $500 77,058 2011 Missouri City $500 67,358 2010 Mount Vernon $500 2,662 2011 Nacogdoches $500 32,996 2011 Palm view $250 5,460 2011 Penitas $200 4,403 2011 San Antonio $200 1,327,407 2010 Shoreacres $500 1,493 2010 Stephenville $200 17,123 2010 Tomball $200 10,753 2010 Universal City $200 18,530 2010 West University $500 14,787 2009 Place * Prohibits all use of hand-held electronic devices while driving. Municipal bans on texting while driving vary according to the specific activities prohibited and the fines imposed (generally ranging from $200, the standard maximum state traffic fine, to $500, the maximum fine for a class C misdemeanor). Such bans universally prohibit text messaging, and many extend to using other common "smartphone" features, such as software applications and e-mail. They also vary in the exceptions granted. Austin, for Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 71 Item # C House Resea rch Organizati on instance, allows texting while stopped at a l ight, but San Antonio does not. The bans generally exempt peace officers and drivers in emergency s ituations. Enforcement practices in ci t ies with texting- while-driving bans also vary. Local law enforcement authorities adopt enforcement procedures in accord with local ordinances as well as with different departme nta l practices. Some local authorities v igorously enforce ban s on cell phone u se, w h ile others tend to iss ue citations mainly when texting coincides with another vio lation. A s such, the nu mber of citations varies Page 3 considerably. For example, San Antonio issued about 320 citations in 2011, the first full year of its ord inance, whi le Missouri City, a much smaller city, issued on ly seven citations in the first year-and-a-half of its ordinance. It is difficult to say how many additional municipalities will outlaw texti ng whi le driving. In January, the Amarillo Traffic Commission unan imou sly voted to recommend a c itywide o rd inance o ut lawing t exting w hile driving, pending city counci l approval. The city has plan ned some pub li c hearings on the matter Debat e ov e r statewide texting -while-driving bans Debate on whether to ban texting whi le drivi ng statewide has settled o n a few major points of contention: the extent to which the bans a re justified, whether they are effective, and whether and how they can be enforced. In vetoing HB 242, Gov. Perry branded the bi ll a "government effort to micromanage the be havior of adu lts." Whi le the state acted legitimate ly in restricting w ire less use by novice drivers and in sc hoo l zones, he said, HB 242 was an "overreach" of this a uth ori ty. As an alternativ e, the gove rn o r suggested driver's education courses and public serv ic e announcements to inform the public abou t the da ngers of textin g while drivin g . Supporters of statewide tex tin g-while-drivin g bans say that thi s in creas in g ly widespread behav ior endangers more than the driver. They no te that the state enforces m an y laws designed to improve public safety while driving, s uch a s ma ndatory seatbe lt la ws . Recent re search ide ntifi es texting whi le driving as especially dangerous, they say, tantamount t o drinking whi le driving and reckless driving-offe nses that carry stiff penalties . Laws against thi s behavior d o not preclude other initiatives, such as driver education, des igned to discourage the practice. Supporters of texting-w h ile-driving bans say the difficu lty of enforcing them does not negate their val ue . Many traffic laws, su ch as tho se outlawing drivin g wh il e intoxicated, a re difficult to enforce. This shou ld not preve nt the state from a ttempting to enforce laws agains t behaviors that threaten public safety. Opponents argue that such restri ctio ns represent unwarranted government intrusion into the private affairs of adults without a clear safety benefit. These laws attempt to regulate personal communication among adults even though there is no sol id evidence s ho w in g that they significantly alter driver behavior. Opponents cite one study that found an increase in accidents in jurisdictions with texting- while-driving ban s, arguing that attempts to avoid breaking this law can cause even more accidents (s ee "Research on text messag ing and cras h r is k ," page 5). Opponents further note that the bans a re extremely ha rd to enforce. Peace officers, they say, generally cannot discern between when someone is se nding a text message, which is prohibited, or someo ne is d ialing a phone or merely holdin g the dev ice , which generally is a ll owed. Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 71 Item # C House Re sea rch Organization Page 5 A s tat e o r a local issue? The debate o ver the grow ing number of municipalities banning texting while driving pits the interests of local jurisdictions, whi ch attempt to craft ordinances to reflect their residents ' prefe re nce s, against the interests of the state in ensuring a m inimum standard oflegal uniformity. Suppor·ters of loca l prohibitions against texting whi le driving say mun icipal ities with such ordinances leg itimate ly tai lor the law to address prob lems in their jurisdictions . Un like 35 other states, Te xas has no statew ide pro hibit io n on texting whi le driving, and the veto of HB 242 has raised doubt about whether it will in the near future . Municipa litie s have an undeniable mandate to protect the safety of their re s idents, Res e a rch on text messaging and crash risk Many studies have attempted to gauge the effects of mobi le phone use on driving, but more recent research has focused specifically on texting while dri v ing . fn August 20 II , a report by the Texas Transportation Institute reaffirmed recent research that found people who text whi le driv ing have a significantly high e r risk of being involved in a crash. The study broke new ground by observing the effects of reading and writing text messages on drivers navigating a closed driving course. The study found that both reading and writing texts significantly delayed reaction time - by a factor of2.5 times for participants writing a text message and by a factor of 1.9 for those reading texts. The s tudy also found more missed respon ses, greater inconsistency in speed and lane positioning, and less visual contact with the road among drivers reading and writing texts. A 2009 study published in the joumal Human Factors found that young drivers who sent and received texts spent up to four times less time watching the road. The study required novice drivers between the ages of 18 and 21 to read and write text messages while in a driving s imu lation. Drivers who were texting had up to 50 percent more variation in lane position, were 140 percent more l ikely to miss lane changes, and had greater variability in following distance behind a lead vehicle than drivers who were not texting. A 2009 study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that texting wh ile driving increased by a factor of23 the likelihood of drivers being involved in safety-critical events (crashes, near-crashes, confl icts, and lane deviations). The study examined driver di s traction in commercial motor vehicle operations and observed drivers who had agreed to operate under surveillance for an extended period. Of all the distracting be h av iors monitored, texting re sulted in the longest time s pent without checking the roadway ( 4.6 seconds over a 6-second interval, equivalent to the time required for a driver to trave l about the distance of a football field at 55 miles per hour). However, one study suggested that bans on texting whi le driv ing may actua lly increase the dangers that stem from the practice. A September 20 I 0 bulletin by the Highway Loss Data Institute, Texting Law and Collision Claim Frequenc ies, found a small increase in insurance claims in states that enacted texting-while-driving bans. The report hypothes ized that the unexpected finding could be a result of motorists trying to hide their phones from view while texting, directing their eyes further from the road and creating an even more hazardous driving situation. Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 71 Item # C PageS supporters say, and inaction at the state level should not bar them from taking decisive action toward this end. State action could reduce or eliminate municipalities' flexibility to enact laws in response to their unique problems. Although texting while driving may be a significant public safety concern in Harlingen and Brownsville, it may not be in another city or in rural areas, say those supporting local prohibitions rather than a statewide ban. Supporters of local prohibitions against texting while driving argue that citizens are responsible for knowing the laws in each jurisdiction through which they pass. Local ordinances do vary, and the Texas Constitution sanctions this by allowing municipalities to adopt charters that reflect their unique composition and adopt laws accordingly. Prohibitions against texting while driving are essentially no different than other ordinances in that municipalities must work to inform the public about the law and the public is responsible for learning about and abiding by new laws. Opponents of local texting-while-driving bans say that the growing number of municipalities with such restrictions is starting to resemble a checkerboard of regulation that makes it unreasonably difficult for citizens to obey the law. Traffic laws are distinct from other municipal ordinances, they say, since a person can easily pass through many jurisdictions on a highway. Also, residents of unincorporated areas have no way to adopt a local ban on texting while driving. Only a uniform state law would cover those outside of city limits. House Research Organization Opponents invoke state law governing "rules of the road," which establish uniform, statewide penalties for driving infractions. There often is no easy way to tell when someone passes from one of Texas' I ,215 incorporated municipalities into another on a highway. The state has adopted uniform speed limits, driving practices, and requirements for red-light cameras for good reason; without them, opponents say, Texans would be awash in a flood of local requirements that would be prohibitively difficult to navigate. Opponents note that local texting-while-driving bans vary significantly. Some municipalities, like Austin, allow texting while stopped in traffic, while others, like San Antonio, allow it only while stopped and pulled over by the curb. Some municipalities prohibit using any software applications commonly found on smartphones, while others limit the restriction to reading or composing a text message. As noted above, El Paso bans all hand-held mobile phone use while driving. At a minimum, opponents say, the state should follow the precedent it established with red-light cameras and adopt universal requirements for municipalities that opt to prohibit texting while driving. State-adopted universal requirements could ensure that municipalities with such laws post notice informing the public of the law, adhere to certain procedures regarding citations, and set requirements governing what activities such ordinances may prohibit. -by Andrei Lubomudrov Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 71 Item # C House Research Organization Page7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 71 Item # C 6eN/?ING 01< l<eCeiVING A Te)(T TAKe6 A /?1<1Vel<16 CYe6 FI<OM THe I<OAI? FOI< AN AVei<AGe OF 4-6 6eCONI?6, TI-le eGUIVAL..eNT- AT.!>.!> MPH -OF /?1</VING TI-le /....eNG TI-l OF AN eNTII<e FOOTB'At....L.. Flet....l?, B't....INI?-(VTTI) Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 71 Item # C B Near crash IS Crash 18 % - - - - - - - - - - ------ -- - - - - - - 16% - - - - - - - - 14 % 12 % 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 71 Item # C 9 OUT OF 10 t/1</Vel<o 6UPPOI<T L..A W6 TI-IAT BAN TexTING- (NHT6A1 NATIONAL 016Tf<ACTeCJ C/f<IVING TeLePHONe 6Uf<VeY1 ~11) Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 23 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 24 of 71 Item # C A TeeN /?I<IVel< 16 MOI<e t.,IKet., Y TI-IAN TI-I06e IN OTI-Iel< AGe GI<OUP6 TO Be INVOt., Vel? IN A FA TAt., CI<A61-1 Wl-lel<e /?16TI<ACTION 16 l<ePOI<Tel?-IN ~009/ 16 Pei<CeNT OF TeeN /?1<1Vel<6 INVOt., Ve&' IN FA TAt., CI<A61-1e6 Wel<e l<ePOI<Te/? TO I-lA Ve BeeN /?16TI<ACTe&'-(NHT6A) Attachment number 1 \nPage 25 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 26 of 71 Item # C Attachment number 1 \nPage 28 of 71 Item # C 83(R) HB 63-Introduced version-Bill Text Page 2 of2 (A) was used by the operator to relay information between the operator and a dispatcher in the course of the · operator's occupational duties; and (B) was affixed to the vehicle. (d) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (b) that the operator is: (1) an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle using a wireless communication device while acting in an official capacity; (2) an operator who is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission while operating a radio frequency device other than a handheld wireless communication device; or (3) an operator of a moving motor vehicle using a handheld wireless communication device to report illegal activity or summon emergency help. (e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), this section preempts all local ordinances, rules, or regulations that are inconsistent with specific provisions of this section adopted by a political subdivision of this state relating to the use of a wireless communication device by the operator of a motor vehicle. (f) A political subdivision of this state may adopt a local ordinance, rule, or regulation relating to an operator using a handheld wireless communication device to read, write, or send a text-based communication while operating a motor vehicle that is more stringent than this section. SECTION 5. This Act takes effect September 1, 2013. ftp://ftp.legis.state. tx. us/bills/83R/billtextlhtmllhouse _ bills/HBOOOO 1_ HB00099/HB00063I.htm 9/5/2013 Attachment number 1 \nPage 30 of 71 Item # C City of Bellaire, Tx Sec. 30-34. Electronic messaging while driving.~" ... (a) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: (1) Electronic message means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. An electronic message includes, but is not limited to, a text-based communication, a command or request to access an internet site, or other data that uses a commonly recognized electronic communications protocol. (2) Wireless communication device has the meaning assigned in Section 545.425 (Use of Wireless Communication Device; Offense) of the Texas Transportation Code. (b) A driver of a motor vehicle may not use a wireless communication device to view, send, or compose an electronic message while operating a moving motor vehicle in a driving lane, including when stopped (for example, at a stop sign or traffic light), except for: (1) Making a telephone call; (2) Operating a global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to the vehicle; (3) Obtaining emergency assistance to report a traffic accident, medical emergency or serious traffic hazard or to prevent a crime about to be committed; or (4) In the reasonable belief that a person's life or safety is in immediate danger. (c) This section does not apply to an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle using a wireless communication device while acting in an official capacity. (d) To the extent that this section conflicts with the Texas Transportation Code Section 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or Texas Transportation Code Section 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. Talked with a Sat Hefferin who stated that they have had the City Ordinance for approximately 2.5 years and have rarely issued citations for the offense. Sgt Hefferin said that it is really hard to prove. unless the violator admits to the texting while driving. The city prosecutor usually requires phone record subpoena's to prosecute the cases. Sgt Hefferin did state that the ordinance works good when investigating accidents. but again is rarely utilized. Attachment number 1 \nPage 31 of 71 Item # C City of Brownsville,Tx Sec. 98-14.-Use of a wireless communication device; offense. (a) For purposes of this section: Operator of a motor vehicle means an individual who drives or has physical control of a motor vehicle. (b) It shall be unlawful for an operator of a motor vehicle to use a wireless communication device, including a cellular phone or other electronic media device, to view, send, or compose an electronic message or manually engage other application software while operating a motor vehicle upon any public roadway within the city, including when stopped, except as provided in subsection (c)(2). (c) It is an exception to the prohibition in subsection (b) if: (1) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device to strictly engage in a telephone conversation, including dialing or deactivating a phone call; (2) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device while stopped or standing at a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb or a roadway where parking, standing or stopping in a non emergency situation is not otherwise prohibited; or (3) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device solely in a voice- activated or other hands-free mode. (d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of conduct prohibited in subsection (b) if: (1) An operator of an authorized government vehicle uses a wireless communication device to: a. Operate only a global positioning or navigation system; b. Obtain emergency assistance by contacting an emergency response service, including a rescue, emergency medical, or hazardous material response service; a hospital; a fire department; a law enforcement agency; a medical docto,..s office; or an individual to administer first aid treatment; c. Obtain emergency assistance to prevent a crime about to be committed; d. Report a traffic accident or serious traffic hazard; or e. Communicate with the reasonable belief that a person's life, safety, or property is in immediate danger. (e) Conflicting regulations. To the extent that any part of this section conflicts with V.T.C.A., Transportation Code § 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communications devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. (Ord. No. 2011-1539, § 1, 2-15-2011) Attachment number 1 \nPage 32 of 71 Item # C Made contact with a Sgt. Castillo who informed me that they have had the City Ordinance for a a couple of years and rarely Issue citations for the City Ordinance. but will use it for PC to stop a vehicle. Sgt. Castillo stated that they have not encountered a time as of yet when a Citation for texting while driving has gone to court He did inform me that they have subpoenaed the phone records in fatality accidents to determine if the phone was a factor in the accident Attachment number 1 \nPage 33 of 71 Item # C City of Conroe, Tx Sec. 66-34. Use of wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle. (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them: (1) Electronic message means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted to or from a wireless communication device. An electronic message includes, but is not limited to, a text-based communication, such as electronic mail, a text message, or an instant message, or a command or request to access an internet site. (2) Operate means to drive or be in physical control of a motor vehicle. (3) Operator means a person who drives or has physical control of a motor vehicle. (4) Wireless communication device means a device that uses a commercial mobile service, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 332. (b) Offense. It shall be unlawful for an operator of a motor vehicle to use a wireless communication device to view, send or compose an electronic message or manually engage other application software while operating a motor vehicle upon any roadway in the city, including when stopped or standing. (c) Affirmative defenses. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of conduct prohibited by subsection (b) if: (1) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device strictly to engage in a telephone conversation, including dialing or deactivating a phone call; (2) The operator is a law enforcement officer, firefighter, emergency services technician or other public safety employee of a unit of federal, state or local government who is acting in the course and scope of the employee's duties and whose use of the wireless communication device is in compliance with the applicable operating procedures established by the operator's employer; (3) An operator of an authorized government vehicle uses a wireless communication device to respond to an emergency while acting in an official capacity while operating an authorized government vehicle; (4) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device while stopped or standing at a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of a roadway where parking, standing or stopping in a nonemergency situation is not otherwise prohibited; or (5) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device to: a. Operate only a global position or navigation system; b. Obtain emergency assistance by contacting an emergency response service, including a rescue, emergency medical, or hazardous material response service; a hospital; a fire department; a health clinic; a medical doctor's office; an individual to administer first aid treatment; or a police department; Attachment number 1 \nPage 34 of 71 Item # C c. Obtain emergency assistance to prevent a crime about to be committed; d. Report a traffic accident or serious traffic hazard; or e. Communicate with the reasonable belief that a person's life, safety, or property is in immediate danger. (d) Conflicting regulations. To the extent that any clause, phrase, provision, sentence or part of this section conflicts with V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or V.T.C.A., Transportation Code § 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. (Ord. No. 1959-1 0, § 1 , 3-25-201 0) Made contact with a Sgt Lehman who informed me that the Citv Ordinance is used often. especially by the traffic division. They are encouraged to enforce the Ordinance. Sgt Lehman also stated that the he has not seen any issues during prosecution and the judge often issues a $200 fine with a high conviction rate. Attachment number 1 \nPage 35 of 71 Item # C City of El Paso, Tx 12.22.020 Use of wireless communications while driving. A. An operator of a motor vehicle may not use a wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle. B. This section does not apply to an operator of a motor vehicle using a wireless communications device: 1. While the vehicle is stopped; or 2. That is affixed to the vehicle and used as a global positioning or navigation system. C. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of an offense under this section if a wireless communications device is used: 1. For obtaining emergency assistance to report a traffic accident, medical emergency, or serious traffic hazard, or to prevent a crime about to be committed; 2. In the reasonable belief that a person's life or safety is in immediate danger; or 3. Solely in a voice-activated or other hands-free mode. D. To the extent that this section conflicts with the Texas Transportation Code Section 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or Texas Transportation Code Section 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, or by the operators of school busses, this section does not apply. (Ord. No. 17286, § 3, 3-9-2010, eff. 4-1-2010) Unable to make contact with anyone. Attachment number 1 \nPage 36 of 71 Item # C City of Galveston, Tx Sec. 34-76.-Electronic messaging while driving. (a) A driver of a motor vehicle may not use a wireless communication device to view, send, or compose an electronic message while operating a motor vehicle. (b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of an offense under this section if a wireless communications device is used: (1) While the vehicle is stopped; (2) For making a telephone call; (3) As a global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to the vehicle; (4) For obtaining emergency assistance to report a traffic accident, medical emergency, serious traffic hazard, fire or hazardous response service; (5) To prevent a crime about to be committed; (6) In the reasonable belief that a person's life or safety is in immediate danger; (7) If the device is permanently installed inside the vehicle; or (8) Solely in a voice-activated or other hands-free mode. (c) This section does not apply to an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle using a wireless communication device while acting in an official capacity. (d) To the extent that this section conflicts with the V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.424, as amended, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.425, as amended, regarding use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, state law shall control. (e) The violation of any provision of this section shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00). Each day a violation of this section continues shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. No. 10-004, § 3, 1-14-10) Left Message Attachment number 1 \nPage 37 of 71 Item # C City of Magnolia, Tx Sec. 90-8. Use of certain wireless communication devices while driving prohibited. (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section: (1) Electronic message means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted to or from a wireless communication device. An electronic message includes, but is not limited to, a text-based communication, such as electronic mail, a text message, or an instant message, or a command or request to access an internet site, or other data that uses a commonly recognized electronic communication protocol. (2) Wireless communication device means a device that uses a commercial mobile service, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 332. Ordinance No. 2010-25. (b) Offense. A person commits an offense if the person drives or operates a motor vehicle in the city while using a wireless communication device to view, send or compose an electronic message. (c) Affirmative defenses. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of conduct prohibited by subsection (b) if: (1) The person is using the wireless communication device strictly to engage in a telephone conversation, including dialing or deactivating a phone call; (2) The person is an authorized government vehicle and is using the wireless communication device to respond to an emergency while acting in an official capacity; (3) The person is using the wireless communication device while stopped or standing at a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of a roadway where parking, standing or stopping in a nonemergency situation is not otheiWise prohibited; or (4) The person is using the wireless communication device to: a. Operate only a global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to the vehicle; b. Obtain emergency assistance to report a traffic accident, medical emergency, serious traffic hazard, fire or other hazardous response service; c. Prevent a crime about to be committed; d. Communicate with the reasonable belief that a person's life, safety, or property is in immediate danger; or e. Operate only a device that is permanently installed inside the vehicle or that is solely in a voice-activated or other hands-free mode. (d) Conflicting regulations. To the extent that any clause, phrase, provision, sentence or part of this section conflicts with V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors; or V.T.C.A., Transportation Code § 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. Attachment number 1 \nPage 38 of 71 Item # C (e) A notice of violation shall be mailed to the owner of the motor vehicle not later than the thirtieth day after the date the violation is alleged to have occurred. The notice of violation shall be mailed to: (1) The owner's address as shown on the registration records of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles; or (2) If the vehicle is registered in another state or country, the owner's address as shown on the motor vehicle registration records of the department or agency of the other state or country analogous to the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. (Ord. No. 0-2010-177, § 2, 6-8-2010; Ord. No. 0-2011-022, § 1, 9-13-2011) Left Message Attachment number 1 \nPage 39 of 71 Item # C City of McAllen, Tx Sec. 102-160. Use of a wireless communication device; offense. (a) It shall be unlawful for an operator of a motor vehicle to use a wireless communication device to view, send or compose an electronic message or manually engage other application software while operating a motor vehicle upon any roadway in the city, including when stopped, except as provided in subsection (b )(2). (b) It is an exception to the prohibition in subsection (a) if: (1) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device to strictly engage in a telephone conversation or to listen to a voicemail message, including dialing or deactivating a phone call; (2) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device while stopped or standing at a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb or a roadway where parking, standing or stopping in a nonemergency situation is not otherwise prohibited; or (3) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device solely in a voice- activated or other hands-free mode. (c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of conduct prohibited in subsection (a) if: (1) An operator of an authorized government vehicle uses a wireless communication device to respond to an emergency while acting in an official capacity while operating an authorized government vehicle; (2) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device to: i. Operate only a global positioning or navigation system; ii. Obtain emergency assistance by contacting an emergency response service, including a rescue, emergency medical, or hazardous material response service; a hospital; a fire department; a law enforcement agency; a medical doctor's office; or an individual to administer first aid treatment; iii. Obtain emergency assistance to prevent a crime about to be committed; iv. Report a traffic accident or serious traffic hazard; or v. Communicate with the reasonable belief that a person's life, safety or property is in immediate danger. (d) Conflicting regulations. To the extent that any clause, phrase, provision, sentence or part of this section conflicts with V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communications devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or V.T.C.A., Transportation Code § 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. (Ord. No. 2011-04, §II, 1-24-11) Editor's note- Attachment number 1 \nPage 40 of 71 Item # C Ord. No. 2011-04, § II, adopted Jan. 24, 2011, enacted provisions intended for use as § 102-60 of this chapter. To preserve the style of this Code, and to facilitate indexing, said provisions have been redesignated as § 1 02-160 Made contact with Sgt. Flores who informed me that they have had the Ordinance for several years. but rarely use it. Sgt. Flores informed me that they mainly use it to enforce School Zones. Sgt. Flores stated that to her knowledge there was not any issues during prosecution. Attachment number 1 \nPage 41 of 71 Item # C City of Mission, Tx Sec. 110-4. Use of a wireless communication device; offense. (a) It shall be unlawful for an operator of a motor vehicle to use a wireless communication device to view, send or compose an electronic message or manually engage other application software while operating a motor vehicle upon any roadway in the city, including when stopped, except as provided in subsection (b)(2). (b) It is an exception to the prohibition in subsection (a) if: (1) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device to strictly engage in a telephone conversation or to listen to a voicemail message, including dialing or deactivating a phone call; (2) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device while stopped or standing at a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb or a roadway where parking or stopping in a non-emergency situation is not otherwise prohibited; or (3) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device solely in a voice- activated or other hands-free mode. (c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of conduct prohibited in subsection (a) if: (1) An operator of an authorized government article uses a wireless communication device to respond to an emergency while acting in an official capacity while operating an authorized government vehicle; (2) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device to: a. Operate only a global positioning or navigation system; b. Obtain emergency assistance by contacting an emergency response service, including a rescue, emergency medical, or hazardous material response service; a hospital, a fire department; a law enforcement agency; a medical doctor's office; or an individual to administer first aid treatment; c. Obtain emergency assistance to prevent a crime about to be committed; d. Report a traffic accident or serious traffic hazard; or e. Communicate with the reasonable belief that a person's life, safety or property is in immediate danger. (d) Conflicting regulations. To the extent that any clause, phrase, provision, sentence or part of this section conflicts with the V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.424 regarding the use of wireless communications devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or V.T.C.A., Transportation Code § 545.425 regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. (Ord. No. 3642, § 2, 4-25-2011) Unable to make contact with anyone. Attachment number 1 \nPage 42 of 71 Item # C City of Missouri City, Tx Sec. 58-138. Use of wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle. (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them: (1) Electronic message means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted to or from a wireless communication device. An electronic message includes, but is not limited to, a text-based communication, such as electronic mail, a text message, or an instant message, or a command or request to access an internet site. (2) Operate means to drive or be in physical control of a motor vehicle. (3) Operator means a person who drives or has physical control of a motor vehicle. (4) Wireless communication device means a device that uses a commercial mobile service, as defined by 47 U.S. C.§ 332. (b) Offense. It shall be unlawful for an operator of a motor vehicle to use a wireless communication device to view, send or compose an electronic message or manually engage other application software while operating a motor vehicle upon any roadway in the city, including when stopped or standing. (c) Affirmative defenses. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of conduct prohibited by subsection (b) if: (1) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device strictly to engage in a telephone conversation, including dialing or deactivating a phone call; (2) An operator of an authorized government vehicle uses a wireless communication device to respond to an emergency while acting in an official capacity while operating an authorized government vehicle; (3) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device while stopped or standing at a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of a roadway where parking, standing or stopping in a nonemergency situation is not otherwise prohibited; or (4) An operator of a motor vehicle uses a wireless communication device to: a. Operate only a global positioning or navigation system; b. Obtain emergency assistance by contacting an emergency response service, including a rescue, emergency medical, or hazardous material response service; a hospital; a fire department; a health clinic; a medical doctor's office; an individual to administer first aid treatment; or a police department: c. Obtain emergency assistance to prevent a crime about to be committed; d. Report a traffic accident or serious traffic hazard; or e. Communicate with the reasonable belief that a person's life, safety, or property is in immediate danger. Attachment number 1 \nPage 43 of 71 Item # C (d) Conflicting regulations. To the extent that any clause, phrase, provision, sentence or part of this section conflicts with V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors; or V.T.C.A., Transportation Code § 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. (Ord. No. 0-10-04, §§ 1, 2, 2-15-2010) I made contact with Sgt. Nelson who informed me that his department rarely uses the Ordinance because it was verv difficult to prove unless the driver admitted quilt Sgt. Nelson did state that the Ordinance was good for media and public relations. Attachment number 1 \nPage 44 of 71 Item # C City of Mount Vernon, Tx Sec. 19-83. -Use of wireless communication device for electronic messaging while operating a motor vehicle is prohibited. (a) Definitions. Electronic message means a self-contained piece of digital communications that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. An electronic message includes, but is not limited to, a text-based communication, a command or request to access an internet site, or other data that uses a commonly recognized electronic communications protocol. Wireless communication device has the meaning assigned in the V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.425 (Use of Wireless Communication Device; Offense). (b) Electronic messaging while driving. (1) A driver of a motor vehicle may not use a wireless communication device to view, send, or compose an electronic message or engage other application software while operating a motor vehicle. (2) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of an offense under this section if a wireless communications device is used: a. While the vehicle is stopped; b. Strictly to engage in a telephone conversation, including dialing or deactivating the call. c. As a global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to the vehicle; d. For obtaining emergency assistance to report a traffic accident, medical emergency, or serious traffic hazard, or to prevent a crime about to be committed; e. In the reasonable belief that a person's life or safety is in immediate danger; or f. If the device is permanently installed inside the vehicle. (3) This section does not apply to an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle using a wireless communication device while acting in an official capacity. (4) To the extent that this section conflicts with the V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or V.T.C.A., Transportation Code § 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communications devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. (Ord. No. 2011-27, 9-13-11) I was unable to make contact with ANYONE at the Police Department Attachment number 1 \nPage 45 of 71 Item # C City of Nacogdoches, Tx Sec. 102-125. Violations; electronic messaging while driving. (a) A driver of a motor vehicle may not use a wireless communication device to view, send, or compose an electronic message or engage other application software while operating a motor vehicle. (b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section if a wireless communications device is used: (1) While the vehicle is stopped; (2) Strictly to engage in a telephone conversation, including dialing or deactivating the call; (3) As a global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to the vehicle; (4) For obtaining emergency assistance to report a traffic accident, medical emergency, or serious traffic hazard, or to prevent a crime about to be committed; (5) In the reasonable belief a person's life or safety is in immediate danger; or (6) Solely in a voice-activated or other hands-free mode. (c) This section does not apply to an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle using a wireless communication device while acting in an official capacity. (d) To the extent this section conflicts with the V.T.C.A. Transportation Code§ 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or V.T.C.A. Transportation Code § 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. (Ord. No. 1580-10-11, 10-18-2011) I left a message and never received a response. Attachment number 1 \nPage 46 of 71 Item # C City of San Antonio, Tx Sec. 19-255. Regulating the use of hand-held mobile communication devices while driving. (a) In this section: Hand-held mobile communication device means a text-messaging device or other electronic, two- way communication device that is designed to receive and transmit voice communication, text or pictorial communication, or both, whether by internet or other electronic means. The term includes a mobile telephone, and a personal digital assistant (PDA). Text message means a two-way communication (whether real-time or asynchronous) in which data (composed in whole or in part of text, numbers, images, or symbols) is sent, entered, or received by a method other than by voice and transmitted through either a short message service (SMS) or a computer network. Wireless telephone service means two-way, real time voice telecommunications service that is interconnected to a public switched telephone network and is commonly referred to as cellular service or personal communication service. (b) A person commits an offense if the person uses a hand-held mobile communication device to send, read, or write a text message, view pictures or written text, whether transmitted by internet or other electronic means, engage in gaming or any other use of the device, besides dialing telephone numbers or talking to another person, while operating a moving motor vehicle. This ordinance shall not apply to public safety personnel in the normal course and scope of performing their duties. (c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of an offense under this section if a hand-held mobile communication device is used: (1) While the vehicle is stopped, out of the moving lanes of the roadway; (2) Strictly to engage in a telephone conversation, including dialing or deactivating the call; (3) As a global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to the vehicle; (4) To communicate with an emergency response operator, a fire department, a law enforcement agency, a hospital, a physician's office, or a health clinic regarding a medical or other emergency situation to prevent injury to a person or property; (5) In the reasonable belief that a person's life or safety is in immediate danger; or (6) Solely in a voice-activated or other hands-free mode. (d) Only warning citations may be issued for the first ninety (90) days following the effective date of this section so that an educational effort by the city may be conducted to inform the public about the importance and requirements of this new section. Thereafter, a person convicted of an offense under this section shall be punished by a fine of up to two hundred dollars ($200.00). (e) An offense under this section is not a moving violation and may not be made a part of a person's driving record or insurance record. Attachment number 1 \nPage 47 of 71 Item # C (f) In addition to enforcement by a peace officer of the city, this section may be enforced by a peace officer of another entity, including those employed by school districts, duly authorized to issue traffic citations within the city. (Ord. No. 2010-10-07-0853, § 1, 10-7-10) I was unable to make contact with a Patrol Supervisor. but did talk with Officer Gonzalez in the Traffic Unit. Officer Gonzalez informed me that the Ordinance was occasionally enforced if there were complaints from citizens. Officer Gonzalez was unaware of any issues regarding prosecution. Attachment number 1 \nPage 48 of 71 Item # C City of Shoreacres, Tx Sec. 62-6. -Electronic messaging while driving. (a) Definitions. the following definitions apply to this section: (1) Electronic message means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. An electronic message includes, but is not limited to, a text-based communication, a command or request to access an internet site, or other data that uses a commonly recognized electronic communications protocol. (2) Wireless communication device has the meaning assigned in V.T.C.A, Transportation Code§ 545.425 (Use of Wireless Communication Device; Offense). (b) A driver of a motor vehicle may not use a wireless communication device to view, send, or compose an electronic message or engage other application software while operating a motor vehicle in a driving lane, including when stopped in a driving lane, except: (1) Making a telephone call; (2) Operating a global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to the vehicle; (3) Obtaining emergency assistance to report a traffic accident, medical emergency, serious traffic hazard, fire, explosion or hazardous material release; (4) To prevent or report the immediate commission of a crime; (5) In the reasonable belief that a person's life or safety is in immediate danger; (6) If the device is permanently installed inside the vehicle; or (7) Solely operated in a voice-activated or other hands-free mode. (c) This section does not apply to an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle using a wireless communication device while acting in an official capacity. (d) To the extent that this section conflicts with the V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.424, as amended, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or V.T.C.A., Transportation Code § 545.425, as amended, regarding use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, state law shall control. (e) The violation of any provision of this section shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine not exceeding $500.00. (Ord. No. 201 0-72, 6-28-201 0) I made contact with the Chief of Police who infonned me that he has a verv small department (1 patrol Officer on average) and there has only been two Citations that he is aware of issued for the Ordinance. He was also unaware of any issues with prosecution. Attachment number 1 \nPage 49 of 71 Item # C City of Universal City, Tx Sec. 3-4-10.2. Electronic messaging while operating a motor vehicle in the city limits. (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section the following definitions apply: (1) Wireless communication device has the meaning assigned in Section 545.425 (Use of Wireless Communication Device; Offense) of the Texas Transportation Code. (2) Electronic message means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. An electronic message includes, but is not limited to, a text-based communication capability of a cellular phone, an I Pod, or PDA (personal data assistant), a command or request to access an internet site, or other data that uses a commonly recognized electronic communications protocol. (b) Electronic messaging while driving prohibited. (1) A driver of a motor vehicle may not use a wireless communication device to view, send, or compose an electronic message while operating a motor vehicle in the city limits of the City of Universal City, Texas. (2) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of an offense under this section if a wireless communications device is used: a. While the vehicle is stopped; or b. For making or receiving a telephone call; or c. For obtaining emergency assistance to report a traffic accident, medical emergency, or serious traffic hazard, or to prevent a crime about to be committed. (3) This section does not apply to an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle using a wireless communication device while acting in an official capacity. (4) To the extent that this section conflicts with the Texas Transportation Code Section 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or Texas Transportation Code Section 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. (c) Penalty. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the Municipal Court of the City of Universal City, may be fined in amount not to exceed the sum of two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each offense. (d) (Ord. No. 608, §§ 1-3, 8-3-10) I made contact with Lt Denton who stated that rarely enforced the Ordinance unless there were citizen complaints. Lt. Denton recommended that if our agency did implement a similar Ordinance. then make sure that there is a clear understanding of the verbiage between the department and the prosecutors. He also recommended a grace period prior to enforcing the Ordinance. Attachment number 1 \nPage 50 of 71 Item # C City of West University Place, Tx Sec. 46-55. Electronic messaging while driving. (a) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: (1) Electronic message means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. An electronic message includes, but is not limited to, a text-based communication, a command or request to access an internet site, or other data that uses a commonly recognized electronic communications protocol. (2) Wireless communication device has the meaning assigned in V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 545.425 (Use of Wireless Communication Device; Offense). (b) [Exceptions.] A driver of a motor vehicle may not use a wireless communication device to view, send, or compose an electronic message while operating a motor vehicle in a driving lane, including when stopped, (for example, at a stop sign or traffic light), except for: (1) Making a telephone call; (2) Operating a global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to the vehicle; (3) Obtaining emergency assistance to report a traffic accident, medical emergency or serious traffic hazard or to prevent a crime about to be committed; or (4) In the reasonable belief that a person's life or safety is in immediate danger. (c) [Emergency vehicles.]This section does not apply to an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle using a wireless communication device while acting in an official capacity. (d) [Conflicting provisions.] To the extent that this section conflicts with the V.T.C.A., Transportation Code § 545.424, regarding the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle by minors, or V.T.C.A., Transportation Code § 545.425, regarding the use of wireless communication devices in school crossing zones, this section does not apply. (Ord. No. 1908, § 1(app. A), 12-7-2009) I made contact with Captain Olive who informed me that his department issues 5 to 10 Citations a year for the Ordinance with no issues with prosecution. He also informed me that the Ordinance appears to be effective with posted signs. as well as with the public and media relations. Attachment number 1 \nPage 51 of 71 Item # C obile phone use: a growing probl em of driver distract ion D istracted dri v ing is a se ri o us an d g rowing threa t to road safe t y. With more and more people ownin g mobile phones, and the rapid introduction of new "in- vehicle" commun ication systems, th is problem is lik ely to escalate globa lly in the coming years. However, to date there is insufficient evidence on the risks assoc iated with diffe re nt sources of distraction, and what interventions can be put into place to reduce the ir impact upon road traffic crashes. Mobile phone use: There are different types of driver distraction, but the use of mobile pho nes w h ile driving is of primary concern to policy-makers. Evidence suggests that this behaviour is increasing rapidly as a result of the exponential growth in the use of mobile phones more generally in society. Nonetheless, mobile phone use may be considered as one example of the broader problem of driver distraction. Studies f rom a number of co u ntries s uggest that the proportion of drivers using mobile phones wh i le d ri ving has increase d over the past 5-1 0 years, ranging f rom 1% to up to 1 1% at any one moment, with the use of hands-free mobi le phones likely to be higher. In many countries the extent of this problem rema ins unknown, as data on mobile phone use is not routinely collected when a crash occurs. Effects of mobile phone use on driving behaviour: Using mobile phones can cause drive rs to take their eyes off the road, thei r hands off the st eerin g wheel, and t heir m i nds off the road and the surrounding situation. It is this last type of distraction -known as cog n itive distraction -which appears to have the bigge st impact on drivi ng behaviou r. Ev idence shows that t he distractio n caused by mobi le phones can impair drivi ng performance in a number of ways, e.g. longer re action times (notably braking reaction time, but also reaction to traffic signals). impaired ability to keep in the correct lane, and shorter following dis tances . Text messaging also results in considerably reduced drivin g performance, with young drivers at particul ar risk of th e effects o f distraction resulting from this use. Effects of mobile phone use on crash risk: Studies suggest t hat drivers usi ng a mobile phone are approximately four t i mes more like ly to be involved in a crash than when a drive r does not use a phone . At the time of writing, t here is no conclusive evidence to show that hands-free phoning is any safer than hand-held phoning , because of the cognitive distraction in volved with both types of phones. Interventions: To date, there is little information on the effectiveness of interve ntions to red uce mobile phone use w hile drivi ng. As a resu lt, a n umber of countries are followi ng an approach that has been known to be successful in addressing other key risk factors for road traffic injuries, such as in increasing seat-be lt use, or reducing speed and drink-driving. This includes a combination of data collection, legislation, sustained enfo rcement, and public awareness campaigns. A similar approach that combines these measures is likely to be effective in tackling mobile phone use as well, and has begun in many countries. Data collection and research More work is needed to improve t he systematic collecti on of mobile phone use in crash d ata to assess t he extent and di stribu ti on of the problem Attachment number 1 \nPage 52 of 71 Item # C CDC-Distracted Dri ving -Mo tor Vehicle Safety-Inj ury Center Page 1 of3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention f/lm~!flfil CDC 24/7: Sa vi ng Lives. Prote cting Peopl e. m Feature Article Distracted Driving in the United States and Europe A recent CDC study compared the percentage of distracted drivers in the United States and seve n European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom . Overall, the study found that a higher percentage of U.S. drivers t alk ed on the phone and read or se nt emails or texts while driving than drivers in several other European co untries . Distracted Driving Each day in the United States, more than 9 people are killed and more than 1,060 people are injured in crashes that are reported to involve a distracted drive r.l Distracted driving is driving while doing another activity that takes your attention away from driving. Distracted driving can increase the chance of a motor vehicle crash. There are three main types of distraction: • Visual: taking your eyes off the road; • Manual: taking your hands off the wheel; and • Cognitive: taking your mind off of driving.2 Distracted driving activities include things like using a cell phone, texting , and eating. Using in -vehicle technologies (such as navigation systems) can also be sources of distraction. While any of these distractions can endanger the driver and others, texting while driving is especially dangerous because it combines all three types of distraction.2 How big is the problem? • In 2011, 3,331 people were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 3,267 in 2010. An additional, 387,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver in 2011, compared to 416,ooo people injured in 2010.1 • In 2010, nearly one in five crashes (18 %) in which someone was injured involved distracted driving.1 • In June 2011, more than 196 billion text message s were sent or rece ived in the US, up nearly so% from June 2009.1 CDC Distracted Driving Study A CDC study analyzed 2011 data on distracted driving, including talking on a cell phone or reading or sending texts or emails behind the wheel. The researchers compared the prevalence http ://www .c dc. gov /motorve hiclesafety I di stracted_ dri vi n g/ 7/22/2013 Attachment number 1 \nPage 54 of 71 Item # C • CDC -Distracted Driving -Motor Vehicle Safety -Injury Center Page 2 of3 of talking on a cell phone or texting or emailing while driving in the United States and seven European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Key findings included the following: Talking on a cell phone while driving • 69% of drivers in the United States ages 18-64 reported that they had talked on their cell phone while driving within the 30 days before they were surveyed. • In Europe, this percentage ranged from 21% in the United Kingdom to 59% in Portugal. Texting or emailing while driving • 31% of U.S. drivers ages 18-64 reported that they had read or sent text messages or email messages while driving at least once within the 30 days before they were surveyed. • In Europe, this percentage ranged from 15% in Spain to 31% in Portugal.3 What are the risk factors? • Some activities-such as texting-take the driver's attention away from driving more frequently and for longer periods than other distractions-4 • Younger, inexperienced drivers under the age of 20 may be at increased risk; they have the highest proportion of distraction-related fatal crashes.4 • Texting while driving is linked with drinking and driving or riding with someone who has been drinking among high school students in the United States, according to a CDC study that analyzed self-report data from the 2011 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Students who reported engaging in risky driving behaviors said that they did so at least once in the 30 days prior to the survey.s Key findings from the study revealed that: o Nearly half of all U.S. high school students aged 16 years or older text or email while driving. o Students who text while driving are nearly twice as likely to ride with a driver who has been drinking and five times as likely to drink and drive than students who don't text while driving. o Students who frequently text while driving are more likely to ride with a drinking driver or drink ana drive than students wlio text while driving less frequently.s What is being done? • Many states are enacting laws-such as banning texting while driving, or using graduated driver licensing systems for teen drivers-to help raise awareness about the dangers of distracted driving and to keep it from occurring. However, the effectiveness of cell phone and texting laws on decreasing distracted driving-related crashes requires further study. • On September 30, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order prohibiting federal employees from texting while driving on government business or with government equipment.6 • On October 27, 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration enacted a ban that prohibits commercial vehicle drivers from texting while driving.? Resources for More Information • CDC MMWR: Mobile Device Use While Driving-United States and Seven European C· 2011 Ortt;p: //www.cdc.gov /mmwr /preview /mmwrhtml/mm62t0a1.htm?s cid=mm62tOat w) • Distracted Driving Digital Press Kit Chtq>://www.cdc.gov/media/dpk/2013/dpk-distracted- driving.html) http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety /distracted_ driving/ 7/22/2013 Attachment number 1 \nPage 55 of 71 Item # C • C D C -D is tra cted Driv ing -Motor Veh icle Safety -I njury Center P age 3 of3 • Offici al U.S. Governme nt W eb sit e for Dis trac t e d Driving Chttp://www.di st racti on.gov) :!1l (h ttp : //www.cdc.gov /Oth er /discl ai me r .h tml) • Insura n ce Institute f or High wav S af etv: Q&As a bout cell phone u se a nd drivi ng a nd stat phone la w m a ps (http://www.iihs.o r g/resea rch /t op ics/cell p h on es.h tml) & Chtn>: //www.cdc.gov /Oth er /disclaimer .h t ml) • W o rld Health Orga nization - M obile Phone Use : A Growin g P r oble m of Driver Distracti• [PDF 180.28 KBJ Chttp://www.who.int/vi olen ce inju ry preve ntion /publi catio ns/road traffic/dis tracted drivin g sm ~ Chttp ://www.cdc.gov/Oth er /disclaim er .html) • Eyes on the Road -(A Cup of H ealth with CDC) (http : //www2 c.cd c.g ov /p od cas ts/plave r.as J f=8 627653) References 1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Facts and Statistics. Available from http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/facts-and- statjstics htrol (bnp·//www distraction gov /coment /get-th e-facts/fact s-and-statjstics.htmll "9 (bnp·//"~""' cdc gov /Other/dj sc!ajmer.htmll . Accessed May 23,2013 2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, September 2010. Publication no. DOT-HS-811-379. Available from http: //www.djstraction.gov /content/get-the -facts/jndex btm I Omp: I /wmv djstraction.gov/content /get-t be-fact s/jndex htmD "Y (bttp·//www r.dc.gov/Otber/dj sclai mer.htm D . Accessed May 23, 2013. 3· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mobile Device Use Whil e Drivi ng-United States and Seven European Countries, 2011. MMWR 2013 / 62(10);177-182. btt:p·//www.c<lc.gov/m mwr/orevie w /mmwrhtml /mm62toal.htm?s cjd =mm62!0aJ w O!ttp-{/www,cdc.gov /mmwr/preview /mmwrhtm l/mm62!0al ht m?s cjd -mm62!0a1 wl 4· National High way Traffic Safety Administration. Po licy Statemen t and Compiled Facts on Distracted Drivi n g. Washington, DC: US Department of Tra nsportation, National Highway T raffic Safety Administ ration, 2011. Ava il ab le from: http://www.nhtsa.gov/ (bttp·//myw nbtsa gov/Driving+Safetv/Pistracted+ Driving /Policy+Statement+a nd +Co mpil ed+ FAOs +on+ Djst mcted+ Drjyj ngl @ O!ttp -//www cdc gov /Otber/djsclajmer btm D . Accessed May 23, 2013. s. Olsen EO , Shults RA , Eaton OK. Te.'\"ting while drivi ng and other risk-y motor ve hicle behaviors among US h igh school students. Pediatrics. 2013;131 (6):e1708-e1715. htt:p·//pedjatrics.aappubljcations,org /contcnt/early/2013/os/o8/peds.2012-3462 abstract (http://oe<ijatrics aappublications org /content /ear!vl2on/os/o8/peds.20J 2-3462.abstractl "fSl (bnp://www cdc gov /Other/dj sclajmer htmD 6. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Regulations. Avai lable from: http://www.distraction.gov /content/dot-action /regulations.html (bnp:l/www.dj stractjon.gov/content/dot-action /regu!atjon s htmD ~ Cbttp-{/www cdc gov/Other /djsc!ajmer.htmll. Accessed May 23, 2013. 7. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Limiting t he Usc of Wireless Communication Devices. Washington DC: US Department of Transportation, Fed eral Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2011. Available fro m: http://www.fmcsa,dot.gov / Cbnp -{/www fmcsa dot gov /m!es- regu!atjons /admini stratio n /m lemakings /6 na! /Li mjtjng -the-Use-of-Wj re!ess-Co mmunjcation-Deyjces.as pxl r§J (http: //www .cdc gov /Other/dj sc! aj mer.htmD . Accessed May 23, 2013. Page las t r eviewed: May 23, 2013 Page l ast updated: May 23, 2013 Cont e n t sou rce: Cente r s fo r D isease Con trol a nd Prevention, National Center fo r Injurv P revention a n d Con tr o l, D ivision of U ninten tion a l Inj ury P reventio n Centers for Disease Control and Preve nti on 1600 Clifton Rd. Atl an ta, GA 30333, USA Bo o -CDC-INFO (8 0 0-23 2-4 63 6) TTY: (888) 232-6348-Con tac t CDC-INFO http:/ /www.cd c.gov/motorvehi clesafety /distracted_ driving/ 7/22/2 013 Attachment number 1 \nPage 56 of 71 Item # C • Another Statewide Texting Ban Bill Passes the House: Austinist Page 4 of8 I support measures that make our roads safer for everyone, but House Bill 242 is a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults. Current law already prohibits drivers under the age of 18 from texting or using a cell phone while driving . I believe there is a distinction between the overreach of House Bill 242 and the government's legitimate ro le in establi shing laws for teenage drivers who are more easily distracted and laws providing further protection to chi ldren in school zones. OK, whatever you say, Rick , you're the governor. But do texting ba ns actually lead to fewer accidents? It depends on how strictly they're enforced and wheth er there's a concurrent law banning general mobile phone use whi le driving. That's according to a studv in this month's American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, which assessed such laws over a three year period. In their study, University of Wiscons in-Milwaukee economists found that a comprehensive phone use ban (meaning no talking or texting) coupled w ith tougher sanctions for violators were the most effec ti ve at reducin g sin gle-vehicl e , single-occupancy crashes. Otherwise, it's a mixed bag : Bans enforced as secondary offenses, howe ver, have at be st no effect on accidents. Any reduction in accidents fo ll owing texting bans is short-li ved, however, with accidents returning to near fo rm er levels w ithin a few months. This is sugge sti ve of drivers reacting to the announcement of the legislation on ly to return to old habits shortl y afterward. That's because texting bans are hard to enforce when people can still use their phones in their cars to make calls-how can a police officer know that yo u were texting when yo u could say you were dialing? Right now, only nine states (Cali forn ia, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Nevada, New J ersey, New York, Oregon and Washington) meet the optimum criteria fo r s uch a ban. Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips. By Aleksander Chan in News on Apr 22, 2013 3:20 PM ~ 14 1 • • Tweet Li ke • @full • judith zaffrrini • legi s lative sess ion • politics • rick perry • texting ban • tom craddick • We Recommend • Watch The Daily Show Say 'Fuck You. Texas' • The People Moving to Austin and 'Ruining' It Are Texans From A round the Web • The Fiv e Year Rule for Buying a House (Moneyning.com) • 10 Great Cities for Older Singles (AARP) • I 0 Great Small Cities for Retirement (AARP) http://austinist.com/20 13/04/22/another _texting_ ban_ bill_ hits_ the_ h.php 7/22/2013 Attachment number 1 \nPage 59 of 71 Item # C 1;3an on texting, driving easily passes Texas House vote: Abilene Reporter-News Page 2 of3 "Gov. Perry continues to believe that texting while driving is reckless and irresponsible, and as he noted last session, current law already prohibits drivers under age 18 from texting or using a cellphone while driving," an email from Perry spokesman Josh Havens stated late last month. Spokeswoman Lucy Nashed in the governor's office said Wednesday morning that Perry's position hasn't changed. The Legislature can override a veto with a two-thirds vote from members present in the originating chamber and two-thirds in the other chamber, but not after the session ends. The governor can still veto bills 20 days after the session. Craddick said texting is at least as dangerous as driving while intoxicated; a driver is 23 times more likely to be in a crash while texting, and a driver who is texting at 55 mph can drive the length of a football field without looking up at the road. In the debate on the floor, Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, asked how someone might know if a text message is an emergency, and thereby be exempt, if a person isn't allowed to read the text message. Rep. Eddie Lucio, D-Harlingen, said "you would have to go through the process" and could offer the explanation to a judge. Amendments from Rep. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, and Rep. Harold Dutton, D- Houston, would have required that law enforcement personnel use more than texting as a reason to stop someone. One amendment from Dutton texting not the primary cause for getting pulled over. The vote on that amendment narrowly failed 69-7 4. One adopted amendment from Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, would undo more restrictive cellphone-driving restrictions that cities have adopted and "harmonize" them with state law. The law was primarily focused on El Paso and Amarillo. El Paso representatives were able to offer an amendment that lets El Paso keep its city cell phone ban. Over the past few months, families have shared tearful testimonies with committee members about loved ones who have died as a result of texting while driving and distracted driving. Staff Sgt. Javier Zamora, for instance, survived the war in Iraq only to be killed in 2007 in a wreck with a distracted driver. Zamora's wife testified in favor of Craddick's bill. The bill is called the Alex Brown Memorial Act, named for a high school senior who died in a single-vehicle crash because of texting while driving. So far, 39 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have banned texting while driving, according to the Governor's Highway Safety Association. http://www .reportemews.com/news/20 13/apr/17 /ban-on-texting-driving-easily-passes-texa... 7/22/2013 Attachment number 1 \nPage 61 of 71 Item # C Ban on tex ting , dri ving eas il y p asses Texas Ho use vote : Abil e ne Repo rter-New s Page 3 of 3 Meanwhile, 25 cities in Texas already ban texting while driving . Texas already bans cellphone use in school zones and use of cellphones while driving by drivers under 18. Matthew Waller covers the Legislature for Scripps Newspapers and works in Austin . Contact him at mwaller@gosanangelo.com or via Twitter @waller_matthew . g'·~ © 2013 Scripps Newspaper Group-Onl i ne Ill http ://www .r eporternew s .com/news/20 1 3/apr/1 7 lban -on-texting -dri v ing -easil y-passes -tex a... 7 12212 0 zs Attachment number 1 \nPage 62 of 71 Item # C Ce ll Phones Page 1 of 1 Ce ll Phones Hom e > Driver > Safety and Laws One in four crashes involves driver d istraction. Drivers who use cell phones in their vehicles have a higher risk of collision than drivers who don't, whether h olding the phone or usi ng a h ands-free device. Although Texas has no statewide l aw banning the use of cell phones while driving, many local areas prohibit or l imi t the use of cell phones while drivi ng. We urge you to d rive now and talk l ater. If you must make a phone call, pull over. Otherwise, wa it until you reach your dest ination to use the phone. Current Cell Phone Prohibitions in Texas • Dr ivers with learners p ermits are pr ohibited fro m using handheld cell phones in the first six months of driving. • Drive rs un der the age of 18 ar e prohibited f rom u sing wi reless co mmunications devices. • Sch ool bus operator s ar e prohibited from using cell phones while driving if children are present. • In school crossing zones, all drivers are prohibited from usi ng handheld devices. • Local restriction s. According to a Feb ruary 2012 r eport compi led by t he Texas State House of Representat ives , the following cities have enacted ordinances prohibit ing texting while driving: o Alamo o Arlin gton o Austin o Bellaire o Brownsville o Conroe o El Paso o Ga lve ston o Ha rl ingen o Magnolia o McAllen o Mission o Missouri City o Mount Vernon o Nacogdoches o Palmview o Penitas o San Antonio o Shoreacres o Stephenville o Tomba ll o Universal City o West University Place http://www.txdot.gov/driver/laws/cellphones .html 7/22/2013 Attachment number 1 \nPage 66 of 71 Item # C -Distracted Driving I State Laws I Tex ting and Dri v in g Page 1 of2 STATE LAWS The first Digest of Distracted Driving Laws prov ides an in-depth report of the distracted driving laws in all 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as of June 2012 . It also prov ides a summary chart of the key provisions of State laws. The Digest is updated once per year due to the extensi ve research required , however States cont inue to enact l aws throughout the year. For the most current information on State laws, please refer to the map below. Click on an i ndividual state or territory to learn more on its specif ic l aws. 41 states, the District of Columbia , and Guam ban text messaging for all drivers. Twelve of these laws were enacted i n 2010 alone . 11 states, the District of Columbia , and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drive rs from usi ng handheld cell phones while driving. Alabama Florida Kentucky Al ask a Georgia Lou isiana Arizona Guam Maine Note: A primary law means that an officer can ti cke t the driver for the offense without any other traffic violation taking place . A secondary law means an officer can on ly issue a ticket if a driver has been pulled over for another violatio n (like speeding). Monta na Ohio Utah Nebraska Oklahom a Vermont Nevada Oregon Virgin Isl ands http://www.distraction.go v/conten t/get-the -fa cts/sta te-laws.html 7/22/2013 Attachment number 1 \nPage 68 of 71 Item # C ·Distracted Driving I State Laws I Texting and Driving Page 2 of2 Arkansas Hawaii Maryland New Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia California Idaho Massachusetts New Jersey Rhode Island Washington Colorado Illinois Michigan New Mexico South Carolina West Virginia Connecticut Indiana Minnesota New York South Dakota Wisconsin Delaware Iowa Mississippi North Carolina Tennessee Wyoming District of Columbia Kansas Missouri North Dakota Texas Web Policies & Notices 1 Terms of Use 1 USA.gov 1 FOIA 1 Privacy Policy 1 Accessibility http://www.di straction.gov/content/get-the-facts/state-laws.html 7/22/2 013 Attachment number 1 \nPage 69 of 71 Item # C Te xas House votes to ban te xting while dri v ing I Trail Blaze rs Blog Page 1 of 5 dallas ne ws SportsDay G u ide LI VE FD L ux e neighborsgo OBITS CLASSIFIEDS news Powered by The Dallas Morning News COMM U NITY CRIME EDUCATIO N INVESTIGATIONS S TATE NATIO N/WORU Home > Trail Blazers Slog Texas House votes to ban texting while driving By Ryan J . R usak rrusak@dallasnews.c om 3 :09 pm on April 17 , 2 0 13 1 Permalink 123 28 0 7 Karen Brooks Harper reports: A proposed ban on texting while driving passed the Texas Hou se on Wednesday , with proponents batting aw ay atte with racial profiling a nd giving police too much power. The House voted 98-47 to pass the Alex Brown Memorial Ac t by Rep. T o m Craddick, R-Midland, and Sen . Judith z, statewide ban on texting, emailing, reading or instant-messaging while driving. The legislation that imposes a $10C and does not using a GPS or talking on a cell phone while driving. The bill is named for a Lubbock teen killed when she roll ed he r pickup truck while sending a text to her friends. The Texas Legislature pass ed the bill last session , but it was veto ed by Gov. Rick Perry, who said te x ting while driv office has said he hasn 't changed his m ind on the issue . Texas a lready bans the use of wire less devices by underage driv ers , as do four ot her states. Te xas, Mississippi an< drivers . Some 39 states a nd Washington D .C . have some form of texting while driving ban , according to the lnsurar The legislation prohibits police from confisc ating a driver's phone, requires the posting of signs on interstates along any new ordinances that are more strict than the law . The bill carves out El Paso , which bans all cell phone use while driving , a nd a llows that city to keep its ordin ance . A struck down under the law . No other cities ban drivers from talking on their cell phones. Exceptions were made for drivers who are reading e m ergency te xt s o r c hecking a text they believe could be an em1 Jason Villalba and Dan Branc h . http :/ /trailblazersblog.dallas news .com/20 13/04/texas-hou se-vo tes-to -ban-texting-whil e-dri ... 7/22/2 0 13 Attachment number 1 \nPage 70 of 71 Item # C City of Georgetown, Texas September 10, 2013 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Rivery Update - LCRA Update ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # D