With the first three votes—no votes—coming from members of the Public Safety Committee, an ordinance banning texting while driving for all ages failed at the board of aldermen meeting Monday.
State law already prohibits it for under 21.
Ward 1 alderwoman, Maureen Saunders was the last to vote—and the deciding vote. Yes would have tied it, giving the tie-breaker to Mayor Pat Kelly, who was for it. She voted no, defeating the measure 5-3. Aldermen Pat Toohey also voted no.
Aldermen Tom Kramer, Andy Leahy and Cindy Manestar voted yes.
“Three Public Safety people (aldermen Anthony Harper, Lee Wynn and Keith Robertson) voted no,” she said.
“Keith Robertson said we could just pull them over for dangerous driving, and I thought, that eliminates, texting, GPSing, or looking… if they’re looking at their phone regardless, they’re in a dangerous situation,” she said.
Chief of Police Dan Fitzgerald said if an officer sees a phone up and both thumbs moving, that’s what would signify texting.
“In my estimation, I think this is terrifying,” Fitzgerald said. “This is an awareness kind of thing. We’re not going to go out and start writing a lot of tickets.”
Harper asked what the vote was at Public Safety, “because I don’t remember it getting a positive vote.” Akande said it had to have received a positive recommendation to present it at the board level.
Harper asked how drivers would know when they enter Brentwood that if you’re over 21, you can’t text and drive. Kelly said there would be a press release, and it would be on the city website.
Saunders asked for the rational. “Will it make sure officers are focused on keeping us safe, and not have to worry about issuing tickets? Is it for revenue generation as opposed to safety?”
City Administrator Bola Akande said it was presented to Public Safety by the police chief because there was concern. “It’s more focused on traffic safety for everyone, and it has absolutely nothing to do with revenue generation,” she said.
Mayor Pat Kelly said it would send a message to the state legislators that they need to change the state code. He said Brentwood led the county in banning smoking in restaurants, as an example.
See also: Wine, liquor, beer store plans new Brentwood location
Fitzgerald said after the meeting he would continue to push for it.
“I still think there’s still some misunderstanding about this whole municipal court thing. I understand that’s on everybody’s radar, but this wasn’t about writing tickets, this was about making people aware of the problem,” he said.
“We’ll try again sometime down the line, maybe. This is not the first time it’s come up,” he said.
Fitzgerald said he was a surprised by the no votes from the Public Safety Committee members. “They seemed a little more supportive in the Public Safety meeting,” he said.
I don’t think the Mayor should be the decider on anyone else’s driving. I’ve witnessed his driving style many times.
No speed limit for him. Or Mrs. Mayor. And stop signs? Please.
I don’t text while driving because I think it’s dangerous. However, you people sound like the founding members of a mob. Do we really want the cops scrutinizing our every move? I’ll bet I can find something unsafe in or around each and every one of your homes. Should the cops be giving you the eye? Let’s get a grip, and not turn everything we don’t like into a crime. There’s been enough of that over the last 30 years.
Residents can watch the debate if they want to see why I voted against the ordinance and you can see how all three candidates felt about this ordinance.
Tom, We vote for people who we think, will know what is right. If, in the debate, the wording stated that, if people WHO WERE DRIVING THEIR VEHICLE, could not use their GPS, telephones, or texting devices, then you were correct in voting yes, because many GPS and telephones can be used via their own speaker or the vehicle’s speaker system.
If the new law said that people should not be TEXTING and DRIVING and you voted AGAINST THAT, you were wrong.
Texting requires a certain amount of attention to the screen of the device, which diverts the attention of the person’s eyes from the road.
If a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) actually SEES someone texting, that person is not concentrating on the road, and should be ticketed for that specific offense.
If a person is driving imprudently for another reason, he or she can be ticketed for some general law, like ‘careless and imprudent’ or something like that.
WAS YOUR VOTE DETERMINED BY THE DEBATE? (Because that isn’t good.) Your vote SHOULD be influenced by PREVIOUS LAW and/or LOGIC.
This law would have SPECIFIED a category for distracted driving to make a point to people using Brentwood roads that they should text and drive. I see NOTHING WRONG with that.
This may be a national problem, but if nothing is being done at that level, then we can start resolving it in Brentwood.
Just a couple weeks ago I witnessed a young man hit the stop sign across the street from my house. He was texting while he was making a u-turn on Kentland. He was not hurt. He was told several times by me and another woman about YOU SHOULD NOT TEXT AND DRIVE! He just kept apologizing to us. I hope it was a good wake up call for him….
I understand some of the outrage about this, however, I don’t think this is something that local municipalities like Brentwood should be taking up. This is a national problem and should be addressed at least at the state level with one uniform law, rather than having different laws and fines for every different city. Honestly, anytime you are behind the wheel of a 2000 pound machine, you should eliminate ALL distractions, including overly loud music, smoking, eating, texting, talking on the phone, checking your GPS….etc. By definition, anything that requires you removing a hand from the steering wheel is potentially dangerous. So let’s not pretend that texting and driving is any more, or less dangerous than eating and driving, or talking and driving, or reaching for that CD you want to put in and driving. Any distraction can be potentially fatal.
Can’t believe the no votes. unbelievable.
Cops text. Politicians text. While Driving. End of story.
People do stupid things against the law all the time politician and police are not immune The end of the story will be Brentwood resident Hit or killed in an accident
I have been following the comments also. I find it problematic that something in terms of single brain function–which is a fact, and a so mentally consuming task of formulating and transmitting messages can be lumped in with the vagaries of “distracted driving.” This puts the police on the spot to “mind-read” who is and who is not distracted. I firmly believe this will come up again and pass after the elections. re The national reputation of the State of MO., this Brentwood ‘no-brainer gone wrong’ is just one more punch line. Brentwood has some the best FR’s in the country–and their rights to enforce the laws are being chiseled away. Texting is common enough that it needs to be identified as a separate offense while driving. I do not want to see our own FR’s on the defensive when they stand between us and an increasingly chaotic and idiotic decision-making culture.
This should have been a no brainer. Those that voted against it are a perfect example of dumb.
Texting should be banned for any ages in our Cities Counties and in our State just as Illinois has done, the implementation was the issue and how it would be enforced. Not a single ticket would have had to be written but it would tell Brentwood residents and the State Assembly that Brentwood was supportive of a state wide ban. Our city officials once again on TV made the city of Brentwood look bad when they could have sent a positive message to our community. It is a shame that nothing can bet done with this current BOA on anything important that residents feel strongly about. We will have a new Mayor and 3 new Alderman in April and hopefully they can pave a road for more consensus and stop all the negativity that is always apparent at the meetings. I hope this comes up at the Mayor Forum
Toohey, Maureen Saunders, Anthony Harper, Lee Wynn and Keith Robertson. Those people don’t mind ‘DISTRACTED DRIVING’ in their City of Brentwood.
When another subject arises, concerning traffic rules, and the lives of the adults and children of Brentwood, and they talk about safety, ask them how they voted for THIS proposition.
It looks like I won’t be voting for Mr. Toohey to be our next Mayor. I hear he throws a good party trying to get votes, though.
Chief Fitzgerald has been in this community for a long time. He sees and hears much more than ANY of us. If he says that we need this action, then we need this action.
Lee Wynn should be excused for two reasons. He has no modern communication skills, like e-mail or telephones, because he won’t respond to either one. AND he’s leaving.
You five, who voted against this, can rationalize you votes, any way that you want; liberties would not have been infringed and lives might be saved.
Smart phones and other such devices have changed our lives for good and bad.
Public service campaigns and in-school educational programs need to emphasize and make clear distracted drivers are becoming an epidemic and driving has become more and more dangerous EVERYWHERE.
There are laws that cover dangerous driving and as Mr Lee points out additional laws will not change behaviors.
Mayor Kelly stated adopting the ordinance would send a message to the STATE legislators that the Missouri law needs to be revised to ban texting for all ages.
That may well be the case, in the interim a more direct route would be for citizens to send a ‘real’ message to your STATE representative that texting and driving is a public safety issue for everyone, everywhere.
I talked Doug and another reporter and stated I would be willing to bring this bill back to the Board. I explained that there was confusion between staff and public safety committee as to what transpired at the public safety meeting. It was unclear whether the texting bill received a positive or negative recommendation and why. There were questions as to how to the police would know whether the driver was texting versus looking at their phone for directions or for some other reason, which I felt in both circumstances the driver was distracted and thus dangerous. In todays world, it seems as though people are always hurrying, then you add in texting, reading texts, looking at your phone for directions etc. and you have the recipe for disaster. I explained that I was willing to bring this bill back to Public Safety and the Board, but we need to permit our police officer to pull drivers over for dangerous (distracted) driving not just texting with the intent of keeping our community safe. The stupidity lies with the state officials who decided that the cut off for driving and texting was the age of 21 and not all drivers. In addition that only texting was dangerous but reading texts, looking at your phone etc. For now, I would encourage all residents to write their state officials to remove the age restriction. I do take the blame for not better presenting my arguments. My brain was overloaded having tackled compensation and the new code earlier in the meeting, which leads me to another critical issue. I support and championed staggered reading of the bills, instead of doing both readings at the same Board meeting. If the bills were staggered, the texting bill would have been read last night, there would have been discussions, questions, etc. but the bill would not be voted on until the next Board meeting. This allows time for the aldermen to resolve any questions and permits residents to ask questions and give input to their aldermen. The Board is only permitted to discuss a bill as a group at a public meeting, according to the sunshine law,to promote transparency in government. The first reading is the first time the Board hears the issue as a group and it only makes sense that all questions can’t be answered and digested in this first discussion. I have pushed for staggered readings prior to being on the Board but to no avail. Had we followed best practices and just read the texting bill last night, many of the issues could have been addressed prior to voting on the bill and we would have a stronger bill.
Maureen Saunders
Cant you just at someone’s text message history and see when the last text went out?
No. Police can’t get into your phone without a warrant.
I don’t believe that the police are having their hands tied. I believe that this is enforcing the 4th Amendment right against search and seizure.
If dangerous driving already covers it, then it’s already covered. The point is to have police have to power to do what they need to do. Additional laws don’t stop people from texting. I’ve seen people do it in Illinois where it is supposedly banned. In addition to laws, people need to be educated. Don’t text while the car is moving. Find a place to pull over and get off the road. BTW, people actually text with two hands? I can do it with one and I use the swype feature.
Agree with Maureen.
Unthinkable that public safety folks could vote “no” in good conscience. Explanations are due.
I have a very close friend who’s husband died in a motor vehicle accident, while he was texting. He swerved into oncoming traffic and was run over by a dump truck carrying gravel.
This absolutely should have passed. It is not about “generating revenue”—it is about the simple fact that driving and texting IS VERY DANGEROUS. It’s right up there with driving under the influence–if not worse. I am very disappointed that the BOA defeated this measure.
Comments are closed.