Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Metro Police’s Traffic Bureau patrols for motorists using cellphones near Flamingo Road and Maryland Parkway on Jan. 6, 2012.
By Jackie Valley (contact) 
Thursday, April 5, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Metro Police target distracted drivers
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV coverage of Metro Police spreading awareness about the law that prohibits drivers from using their cellphone, April 5, 2012.
Watch KSNV reporter Marie Mortera’s story about Nevada drivers still using cell phones at 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Channel 3.
Related Content
The days of ordering a pizza on the way home from work or making that last-minute call to make plans ended in January. Forgot to call mom? It will have to wait.
The Nevada Legislature last year said no more — no more talking, texting or surfing the Web on hand-held phones while driving — and joined a handful of other states making it illegal to do so. It was a resounding message to Nevada drivers: Start paying attention to the road or you’ll pay the price.
After a grace period of warnings in the fall, the primary law went into effect Jan. 1, meaning officers could stop and ticket motorists for using their cellphones without other violations taking place. Three months later, authorities said some Southern Nevada drivers have not gotten the hint.
Case in point: A driver recently ran a red light in Las Vegas, causing a collision that killed him. The one unscathed item? A cellphone was in the victim’s hand.
“Clearly, it’s an indicator that people still haven’t gotten the message,” said Sgt. Todd Raybuck of Metro Police’s traffic bureau. “Distracted driving for any reason is dangerous.”
Metro’s traffic officers have ticketed about 2,300 people for using cellphones in the three months since the law went into effect, Raybuck said.
In Henderson, police issued 799 traffic citations to drivers using cellphones through March, with the number decreasing each month so far, according to data provided by the department. Officials with North Las Vegas Police and the Nevada Highway Patrol said they could not easily provide data.
“Nobody’s really surprised about getting the tickets anymore,” Raybuck said. “Unfortunately, some people think that it’s a risk worth taking, and that risk leads to other problems.”
SB 140 (Cell Phones and Driving)
One concern troubling officers in the wake of the new law is more motorists trying to discreetly use cellphones — for instance, holding phones below the dashboard and dialing while looking down, said Raybuck, who called the practice “extremely dangerous.”
Erin Breen, director of UNLV’s Safe Community Partnership, said widespread adherence to the law would be difficult to achieve, given many motorists’ perceived sense of being untouchable.
“People really have this attitude of, ‘I can do whatever I want because I’m not going to get caught,’” she said. “I don’t think that’s law enforcement’s fault.”
That’s where the graduated fine system can help, authorities said. First-time offenders are subject to $50 fines, according to the Nevada Revised Statute. Fines double to $100 for the second offense within seven years and go to $250 for subsequent offenses.
All money from fines goes back to the courts and jurisdictions where the tickets were issued. The money lands in a general fund for the city or county to disperse, police said.
“I’ve always thought a citation is the very best education you can get,” Breen said.
The ban on hand-held cellphone use while driving, however, is a relatively new concept. Nevada is one of nine states in addition to the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands to legislate the ban, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Metro enforces cellphone ban
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV coverage of Metro Police adding patrol to intersections in town to crack down on drivers breaking cellphone use law, Jan. 4, 2012.
On a federal website promoting safe driving, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called distracted driving “an epidemic on America’s roadways” that killed nearly 5,500 people in 2009.
Nevada’s law still permits drivers to use hands-free communication technology, such as Bluetooth, but police caution against that, as well.
“If you can avoid using your cellphone for any reason, whether it’s Bluetooth and certainly in your hand, we’d ask that you wait until you get to your destination,” Raybuck said.
Breen said the conversation should start at home with families: Establish guidelines for teen drivers and communicate consequences for using cellphones, with parents setting the example of distraction-free driving.
“It’s going to take everyone being reminded constantly,” she said.
Billboards reminding drivers of the law dot the state’s highways, and Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie even recently appeared in a public-safety message to drive home the message.
But police acknowledged traffic citations aren’t the solution. Raybuck said Metro officers issued more than 200,000 traffic citations last year, which he pointed out haven’t eliminated speeding or reckless driving.
“We’re not going to write enough tickets to solve this problem,” he said. “It has to be a change in our community’s culture — the way we view car accidents, the way we view safe driving.”
And for those drivers too tempted by the allure of a phone call or the beep of a text message, authorities offered this suggestion: Make a conscious decision to put your cellphone in a back seat or trunk where it’s out of reach before driving.
“Your most important part of the day should be getting from destination A to B safely,” Raybuck said. “And you can’t do that being distracted.”
So a driver ran a red light and had a collision powerful enough to kill him and we're supposed to believe that a cell phone was still in his hand?
Come on now......
LV motorists don't obey ANY traffic laws. What made anyone think drivers would obey the one for cell phone/hand held devices. Make any traffic laws you want. They only matter to the dead.
"I've always thought a citation is the very best education you can get," Breen said.
And there you have it: Passive-aggressive laws are better than driver education. This sentence illustrates the absolute failure of the concept of drivers licensing in the United States.
The law was unnecessary from the beginning as it duplicated legislation already on the books. No law will save someone from themselves, and the attitude exemplified in the quote above shows that the system has failed and that the only way we know how to obtain safer streets is via negative reinforcement, not better education and actual drivers licensing tests.
Chunky says:
He agrees with Mr. Jazzy13; hardly a day goes by for the Chunkster that he doesn't see super blatant red light running and aggressive driving. It's to the point where he won't even be the first one out in the intersection if he can avoid it. As far as cell phones go, some people don't even try to hide it.
While driving or riding in LA has it's own set of hazards, it does seem like the California drivers for the most part obey the handsfree cellphone laws. Now if they'd just take the driving test! ;-)
Whether on two or four wheels you've gotta have your game on when driving in Las Vegas or anyplace else for that matter.
That's what Chunky thinks!
I don't think it's a matter of passive-aggressive laws VS education.... It's just that affecting ones pocketbook DOES seem to be the only way to get their attention. It's much the same as when our HOA wanted people to get together to brainstorm ways to save money and avoid raising our dues.... things like suggesting people pitch in to keep the community clean rather than hire a handyman and spend our much needed funds in such a manner - unfortunately no one wanted to attend the meeting so they instead made the main focus of the meeting the possibility of having our hoa dues go up - guess what - they came out in droves for THAT meeting. So the bottom line is if you want to get their attention you need to hit em where it matters (at least to them) and that's in their wallets.
Can we start citing police officers for using their cell phones and other violations?
This law needs to be repealed. Most people are going to ignore it and simply hide their phones as best they can, which makes driving even more dangerous.
This is the reason pedestrian deaths are way up this year. This is called the law of unintended consequenses. They pass this law (with bogus statistics) thinking it will save lives, but instead it has killed more people.
Lets face a fact, people are not going to stop using their phones while driving, period. It reminds me of prohibition when nobody quit drinking they just went underground and the mobsters became wealthy.
I'm waiting to see which politician has the guts to do the right thing and try to repeal this unnecessary law.
Problem is, like so many of these Laws, the penalties are not stiff enough. Raise the fine for this to $2500. Give the person 3 chances and or they lose their license inside 2 years. We are talking about an issue which is causing FATAL accidents. What is the price of the lives in question?
I am tired of the ticket fixers. Tired of people laughing at our Judicial system. Tired of reading about how Prisons have Wendy's and Pizza Hut's in them. Justice needs to be harsh. Prison needs to be viewed as not even close to any option.
Raise the penalties on the children playing adults will either grow-up or be forced off the roads used by adults.
don't you think the ndot message boards are a distraction?
Here is where this is all going in the future: laws are being crafted to track your cellphone calls, whether you are engaged in a conversation. People with vehicles equipped with the BlueTooth technology will be exempt from road and highway law enforcement, due to "hands off technology."
But those who are using their cells, will get noticed, and real evidence of useage formulated against them, documenting active calls. Tickets, fines, (in my wishful thinking, let's throw in deportation for non-citizen residents, too), and possible imprisonment will be the consequences for violating the law.
Next, it would be a wonderful gesture for law enforcement to empower those who are doing school crosswalk duty to also enforce, document those drivers on their cellphones while driving in school zones, especially when children are present. That gesture would make these violators more aware of their disobeying the law and jeopardizing the safety and welfare of innocent children!!!
Blessings and Peace,
Star
Up the fine, up the penalty. $50 is way too cheap. First offense should have been $250. After that, if you haven't learned your lesson $1,000. Third time 3 months in jail mandatory and a license suspension. The problem is this is a good law with penalties just too low. We've got revolving door justice here in Las Vegas. Someone breaks into a car, a home, gets arrested...he's out the next day. I don't care if you have to stuff 10 people in a cell because of overcrowding. Keep them in jail.
I get more and more irate when people are on there 4th, 5th chance and just don't care. After the first offense the second one had to have teeth. $1,000 is a good start for a second cell phone offense. I want to hammer the people who don't it the first time around.
"Its just easier to ignore the law and do whatever the hell you want" - City motto. Third time this week I got to apply this motto to the local headlines. Out of state tags - check. Running red lights in a hummer - check. Talking on cell phone while driving - check. Skipping out on your mortgage - check. Ripping off the homeless kids foundation - check. Robbing tax payer money and throwing a party @ the M resort - check.
"Clearly, it's an indicator that people still haven't gotten the message," said Sgt. Todd Raybuck of Metro Police's traffic bureau. "Distracted driving for any reason is dangerous."
Valley -- and apparently neither have you. Why did you neglect to mention these aren't just tickets but actual crimes? Or the $1,000 bail waiting for them in court?
"All money from fines goes back to the courts and jurisdictions where the tickets were issued. The money lands in a general fund for the city or county to disperse, police said."
This outs it for what it really is, revenue. Safety is just the window dressing.
"LV motorists don't obey ANY traffic laws."
jazzy13 -- one doesn't need to drive around Vegas much to see that. Red light runners are the worst and most dangerous. Not long ago I sneaked through a yellow that turned red just as I went under the light. An SUV followed me through and it was 3-4 car lengths behind me.
"Can we start citing police officers for using their cell phones and other violations?"
JerryWayne -- you noticed that too. But the law exempts them and a few others who sent their suits to Carson City.
"I'm waiting to see which politician has the guts to do the right thing and try to repeal this unnecessary law."
Noindex -- with you on that. As the article quoted the officer, the danger is driving while distracted. Whether it's eating, drinking, fiddling with the dashboard toys, dealing with the kids or the pet on the driver's lap, putting on make-up, reading -- seen 'em all -- it needs to be all part of the same law. All can have deadly consequences.
"I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically." -- Henry David Thoreau 1849 "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"
As the new Supreme Court ruling passed this week that the Police can Strip Search Anyone for Any reason, Anytime. The Police could just incorporate that into a new automatically haul them to jail policy and I'll bet behavior will improve Dramatically - Immediately!
It won't take the gready insurance companies long to jump on the bandwagon and treat cell phone tickets like drunk driving tickets. Your rates will go to the high risk policy.
"As the new Supreme Court ruling passed this week that the Police can Strip Search Anyone for Any reason, Anytime."
newnvres -- you were wrong in the other thread, you're twice as wrong here. The court ruled only jailers get to do that, as in you're being processed into jail. You can find the link to Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders @ http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/opinion/co...
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
I'm GLAD these idiots are getting caught! They always try to argue or come up with some sort of lame excuse as to why they shouldn't get a ticket even though the law has been in effect for quite a while now. It's not like they werent warned, but they stupidly did it anyway. I hope all these idiot people have to pay the Maximum fine every time, then maybe the rest of us can feel safer on NV roadways! There are too many stupid people out there as it is let alone them being on their phones while driving not paying attention!
Cellphone use in a car is just as bad as drunk driving in some cases. I'm glad they are enforcing the law but unless the fine is larger not much is going to happen.
IMMIGRATION IS GOOD EXCEPT..............
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YomYbiTt...
NumbersUSA: http://www.numbersusa.com
I like it, Dennis. How about...
first offense: $1000 fine, and your phone becomes police property (allowing them to search it, etc.); also 2 days to 6 months prison
second offense: $1000 fine, and your phone AND car become police property; also 10 days to 6 months prison; suspend license for one year
third offense: $1000 fine, and your phone AND car become police property; also 1 year prison; suspend license for one year afterward.
I honestly have used a headset for years, so this law doesn't affect me, but let's be honest, the real issue here is distracted driving. I whole heartedly agree that texting while driving should be banned, it's unbelievably dangerous. Talking on a phone? Let's analyze it:
Can you have a conversation with someone in your car? Yes.
Can you have a conversation with someone outside of your car while using a headset? Yes
Ok, apparently conversation isn't a problem.
Can you drive with one hand on the wheel? Yes.
Can you also hold a burger, soft drink, coffee, electric razor, or the Las Vegas Sun in your hand while driving? Yes.
Ok, apparently one hand on the wheel, or having something in your hand is not the problem.
So what is the problem? DISTRACTED DRIVING. There are laws against that. Talking to someone in your car while eating or drinking or any of those other things is no different than holding a phone to your ear. Will we next have laws banning talking in your car, or driving with only one hand? Or should we just ban texting? Texting takes your eyes off of the road, just like putting a cup of coffee in front of your face does. More laws aren't the answer to this perceived problem. Enforcing current distracted driver laws and driver safety courses are.
If they want to increase safe driving on the roads of Clark County, they need to do it all the way. Not just pick and choose certain things they want to enforce. Make the driving tests to get your license much tougher. Both the written test and the actual driving test. It's too easy to get a license and there are far too many bad drivers on the roads to begin with. Once people turn 60 years old, make them take an eye exam, written test and driving test every year. I'm sorry to say, but too many elder drivers put the rest of us in jeopardy out there.
You want to know why so many drivers run red lights? It's because there are too many unnecessary traffic lights installed all over the county. I'm not excusing people that run red lights. It's very dangerous but I sometimes sympathize with them. There are too many instances where a minor street intersects with a major street and there is a light installed there when there shouldn't be. You can barely drive 100-200 yards in the county without hitting a light. Minor streets do not need to have a traffic light. There should be no light for the major street and a stop sign on both sides of the minor street and people can go when it's clear. Everything is this town is designed to keep people from progressing in their cars. We get into cars to go somewhere, not to be stopped all the time unnecessarily.
"People really have this attitude of, 'I can do whatever I want because I'm not going to get caught,'" she said. "I don't think that's law enforcement's fault." Isn't that the same thought as how the democrats handle immigration?