2005 House Bill 5133 (Ban cell phone use by youthful driver)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. David Law on September 7, 2005, to prohibit an individual who was issued a temporary permit or a level 1 or 2 graduated licensing status (drivers 17 years old or younger) from operating a motor vehicle while using a handheld cellular telephone.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2005.
  - Reported in the House on October 18, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on October 19, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that expands the proposed prohibtion to include hands-free cell phones, and any "interactive wireless communication device". The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on October 19, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Rep. David Law on October 19, 2005, to establish that the bill would take effect 90 days after the date it is enacted. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on October 19, 2005.
Passed in the House (78 to 27) on October 20, 2005, to prohibit an individual who was issued a temporary permit or a level 1 or 2 graduated licensing status (drivers 17 years old or younger) from operating a motor vehicle while using a cellular telephone. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on October 25, 2005.
- Referred to the Senate Technology and Energy Committee on October 25, 2005.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. David Law on September 7, 2005. Passed in the House (78 to 27) on October 20, 2005. New Comment

1) Driving and Cellphones [by Anonymous Citizen on March 6, 2006]
Almost all the time I use the cell phone to talk I usually pull over in some parking lot first.
Thats what I do personally because I feel safer. But to be a good driver in michigan you have to be hyperalert! If you see the dumb republican(s) in your rear view mirror talking on a cells closing in on you at 88ft per second with no change in velocity slam the gas to the floor and get out of the way! You have to watch out for everybody on the roads-what about heart attacks, diabetes, these republicans black out also and barrel into people. One time a republican was going about 80mph ready to right up the crack of my ass at a stop sign. At the last slit second I shot my car over one lane, And the dumb republican ran the stop sign and kept right on going into the horizon. I don't think we need more laws, we just need to watch the suburbanite yuppe cityboy republicans on the road from all angles constantly in a state of hyper scan.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) You Have Issues [by Anonymous Citizen on March 7, 2006]
Seems like maybe a little anger management would be in order. Your panties are all bunched up and making you ramble incoherently. Have a nice day and remember...the next person that hires you is probably one of those evil conservative republicans.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Well...I Don't Know... [by Anonymous Citizen on March 6, 2006]
...about the Republicans, thing. But I do know that criminal law is increasingly focusing on predisposing factors. Directionally, I think this is more bad precedent.

When an accident results from careless or reckless behavior, then the at-fault driver should face an appropriate criminal sanction. I think that wireless phone use may be one factor to consider in determining fault or the degree of fault, but wireless phone use in itself should not be a crime (or civil infraction) in itself.

Reply New Comment

Line

4) Ban All Cell Phone Users While Driving! [by Anonymous Citizen on March 6, 2006]
As a licensed driver for over 30 years with only one accident (wasn't my fault) I have seen everything. Since cell phones have been in use, I am constantly dodging other drivers (mostly older) who have a complete disrespect for human life. I had been pretty lucky until last Summer.

I was sitting at a red light in broad daylight, when a woman in her 30's (talking on a cell phone) with a toddler in the car, smashed into me from behind doing about 50-55 mph. Never saw me or the red light.

I have gone from very active to whiplash, herniated discs (all through my spine)compressing my spinal cord (need surgery), brain damage (short & long-term memory, cognitive difficulties and much lower intelligence), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (severe), constant headaches & severe pain throughout my body. I am in physical therapy still and will be for a long time and with the current "No-Fault" laws in Michigan (which is another story), I will probably get nothing or very little compensation (read the currrent law), even though I have very high insurance coverage.

This has greatly affected the rest of my life and my family's and I am really PISSED OFF!

Every time I see someone on the phone (almost everybody), I want to ram my vehicle into them to wake their asses up and to pay attention. Yes, the young people are less experienced drivers, but I think the ones that are most dangerous are the ones that have gotten too comfortable over the years and think they can drive and talk at the same time without even thinking about it.

This law should cover everyone (including LAWYERS and excluding Dr's who have an emergency), not just minors.

As for the people that think this a law that takes more rights away from us (tough!), wait til some idiot on a cell phone smashes into you or someone you love. I'd say you have been pretty lucky so far. It's only a matter of time. Think about the increase in taxes you will have to pay in order to take care of those people(and there will be many) that need long-term care and monetary support as a result of this, then see how you feel about this law.

The next time I get hit by someone talking on their cell phone (yes, I know there will be a next time), I pity that SOB, because that's when I take the law into my own hands!

I applaud New York for banning all cell phones while driving. It has definately saved lives and Michigan needs to do the same.

Wake up! No phone call is worth more than a life.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Follow New York! [by mariondeland@hotmail.com on October 9, 2006]
I strongly agree!!
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Great idea. Go for it. [by Anonymous Citizen on October 9, 2006]
!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

7) With This... [by Anonymous Citizen on March 7, 2006]
Mindset we should ban bathtubs if you fell in one. Stairs, Bicycles, there's a real threat.
If you want total safety, then go to jail.
We don't need any more laws.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) KEEP LAWS SIMPLE [by Vear01 on November 9, 2005]
We already have laws on the books to address the distractive driving issue.
A person, young or old, is doing “anything” that creates a hazard or endangers another, can be written a ticket for “reckless driving” and “careless driving”.
What is the next distractive driving law? No eating Big Mac hamburgers while driving?
If we name the specific item i.e.: “interactive wireless communication device” (target is a cell phone), are we opening ourselves to a possible defenses as technology changes? What about using a PDA that has a cell phone that is turned off? What is the definition of an “Emergency”? A teen’s view of an Emergency is certainly different than an adults. Could a “interactive wireless communication device” also be considered oral communication to your passenger? A radio with voice control?
I believe this is a showboat law---- something to show they ARE doing something in Lansing. Of course teens can’t vote and they are not likely to vote at 18.
We do NOT need more laws, we need common sense enforcement of the laws we already have.

Reply New Comment

Line

9) Bill 5133 is ignorant [by Matt J O on November 4, 2005]
Finding out about Bill 5133 from the Southfield Sun, I was originally disappointed but was going to give it the benefit of the doubt until I was albe to research more about the bill. After doing that I went from disappointed to appalled with both the target of the bill and the spirit behind it. You are intentionally targeting those that cannot vote against the bill, and softening any resistance to further driver legislation. Every day I drive down Telegraph to 12 mile and have to watch every moment for idiots on the cell phone who are not paying attention. These drivers are not students, but business professionals driving nice cars and have a say in the way they safely or unsafely drive. Why not say EVERYONE cannot talk on the phone while driving? If a youth with fast reflexes becomes like a senior citizen, what does a 40 yrs old become? You are saying experience protects them, but experience should be telling them not to talk on the phone but they are. Experience should tell them to wear a seat belt but you had to make a law telling them to buckle up. You are targeting those that cannot vote because you know the outrage of directing more driver legislation at the entire population. The only effective way to enforce this law would be to have it affect everyone or no one, because otherwise how will you be able to differenciate who is allowed to and who is not? This is discrimination against age and at best a faulty law that should not be even considered the way it is currently worded.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) I agree with Matt J O [by Anonymous Citizen on November 23, 2005]
This bill is unfortunate and doesn't really solve the problem of cell phone use on the road. Adults over 18 are a large part of the problem, NOT ONLY younger drivers. As a 44-year old with an active life and knowing several other folks from 28 to 50 years old who have to juggle schedules for all kinds of reasons AND use a cell phone in the car to do so, I object to the shallowness of this bill. It is a cheap shot. I know it's hard to get support for it, but legislators need to pass a bill that will HANG UP the cell phone on ALL MOVING vehicles - regardless of the drivers age!
Reply New Comment

Line

11) Rep. Hood's "no vote journal explanation" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Rep. Hood, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'no' on House Bill 5133 because I feel the bill targets only one population of drivers, while more experienced ones may also have issues 'dialing and driving.' In addition, the bill does not take into consideration that driving is a very complex task that requires full attention from everyone, not just teenagers. Cell phones are only one component of the distracted driving issue. Drivers can just as easily be distracted by driving while shaving, reading, putting on makeup, or listening to the radio. In addition, it is likely that enforcing this legislation will be extremely difficult for law enforcement because it must pick and choose which drivers are allowed to use cell phones while driving and which are not. This might lead to arbitrary enforcement and the possibility of some form of driver profiling."

Reply New Comment

Line

12) "No vote explanation" Reps. Cushingberry, Waters and Gonzales [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Reps. Cushingberry, Waters and Gonzales, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'no' on House Bill 5133 because I feel the bill targets only one population of drivers, while more experienced ones may also have issues 'dialing and driving.' In addition, the bill does not take into consideration that driving is a very complex task that requires full attention from everyone, not just teenagers. Cell phones are only one component of the distracted driving issue. Drivers can just as easily be distracted by driving while shaving, reading, putting on makeup, or listening to the radio. In addition, it is likely that enforcing this legislation will be extremely difficult for law enforcement because it must pick and choose which drivers are allowed to use cell phones while driving and which are not. This might lead to arbitrary enforcement."

Reply New Comment

Line

13) Rep. Tobocman's "no vote journal explanation" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Rep. Tobocman, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted against HB 5133 because I do not believe that the Legislature should be regulating each and every activity of drivers. At some point, we must make general rules to govern bad drivers and inexperienced drivers without regulating the specific activity they pursue in the car. Is a younger driver on a cell phone more dangerous than an older driver eating fast food? How about reading a map? Statistically, driving with children is a more dangerous condition than either of these, but we contain no regulations on such an activity. Is it because younger voters are ineligible to vote?

Simply put, I believe this bill is an overly prescriptive discrimination against younger drivers."

Reply New Comment

Line

14) Not teens [by Anonymous Citizen on October 21, 2005]
Teens have a greater capacity for doing more than one thing at once - it should be older drivers who are forced to pull over.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Why Teens? [by Anonymous Citizen on October 21, 2005]
Why are you targeting teens who are not allowed to vote? Your representing the voters. 17 and under cannot vote. They have no say in the matter. Teen drivers are inexperience, but they try not to get into accidents. It may sound shallow, but the senior citizens are also very dangerous drivers. Are you not targeting them because that would cause you political suicide? Are you targeting teens because they are not able to vote you out?
Reply New Comment

Line

16) This is just another example of the camel's nose under the tent principle. [by MCP-001 on October 20, 2005]
First you target a politically unrepresented group or introduce a bill under the guise of a "secondary nature".

Then once that's passed, you expand it some more by claiming that the original goal of the bill cannot be met under the current circumstances.

Then once it's firmly entrenched, you enjoy raking the extra dough that you bill brings in, don't forget to bribe a few groups with their own money to show that "you care".
Reply New Comment

Line

17) I AGREE WITH GET A LIFE [by Anonymous Citizen on October 19, 2005]
MICHIGAN REALLY HAS SOME PROBLEMS WITH OUR REPS IN LANSING. THEY ARE IN SESSION ALL YEAR LONG, SO ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS THINK OF NEW LAWS. NOW, INDIANA AND OTHER STATES ONLY HAVE THEIR REPS IN SESSION FOR 6MONTHS IF THAT. TALK ABOUT SINGLING OUT OR DISCRIMINATING. IF YOU ARE GOING TO PASS THIS, IT OUGHT TO BE FOR EVERYONE. WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT MYSELF,MANY OF YOU IN LANSING ARE ON THE CELLS WHILE DRIVING, WOULD IT PUT A CRAMP IN YOUR STYLE, IS THIS WHY IT IS DIRECTED ONLY AT TEENS??? EVEN THOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS LAW, WE HAVE CARELESS DRIVING ALREADY ON THE BOOKS TO COVER PHONES. I HAVE SEEN SOME ADULTS OVER 20 ON UP WHO ARE MORE DISTRACTED OR SENILE THAN SOME TEENS I HAVE KNOWN. YOUR WAY OFF BASE WITH THIS ONE, AS YOU ARE WITH THE SEXUAL REGISTRATIONS TRYING TO MAKE CITIZENS FEEL MORE SAFE. SO FAR ALL THE KILLINGS ECT. WERE REGISTERED AT ONE TIME, IT'S THE ONES TRYING TO COMPLY YOU ARE RUINING PLUS THEIR FAMILIES! AS FAR AS PREDATORS, A REAL PEDOPHILE DOESN'T CARE IF HE LIVES NEXT TO A SCHOOL OR NOT, IF HE HAS THAT INTENTION, HE WILL FIND A WAY. YOU PEOPLE SITTING UP THERE HAVE NO COMMON SENSE WHATSOEVER! YOUR VERY DISAPPOINTING.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Get a life [by Anonymous Citizen on October 19, 2005]
There are already enough laws on the books to deal with issues like this. I don't care if this is for a new driver or not. As soon as the legislature gets their foot in the door with the kids then you and I are next.

Stop creating new nonsensical and unnecessary laws and simply enforce those already on the books.

If someone causes an accident due to using a cell phone, it is called "Careless Driving" and the cause can be eating, changing the radio, putting on lipstick, flipping off another driver or whatever else you can think of.
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Another Excuse [by Anonymous Citizen on November 1, 2005]
To pull over, fine and mess with young drivers.
It's all about the money and we are all next.
It's no wonder kids have no respect for the revenue agents oops I meant cops.
Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site