Quantcast
Home | Back

Billboard warns of 'Death by cell phone'

Share_email E-mail Story    |    Share_print Print Story    |    Comments    |   

An eye-catching billboard in Jett reads “DEATH BY CELL PHONE.”

Smaller words direct drivers to watch online stories about a boy and a grandmother killed in vehicle accidents involving cell phones.

In the video, Jennifer Smith describes the distracted driver who hit her mother, Linda Smith, 61, of Oklahoma.

“He ran a red light and T-boned her car at 45 to 50 miles per hour, which was the posted speed limit. My mother died within a couple of hours from blunt force trauma to the head, neck and chest. I just call it death by cell phone.”

The second story is told by David Teater who lost his 12-year-old son, Joe, in 2004. Joe was a passenger with his mother, when their car was hit by a woman who ran a red light while talking on her cell phone.

Following the stories are several statistics about the risks associated with talking and texting while driving.

The billboard (one of two in the state) is part of a campaign by the National Safety Council to change driving habits.

According to the NSC, drivers who use cell phones (handheld and hands-free - both are equally dangerous) are four times more likely to be in a crash and are responsible for 636,000 accidents and 2,600 deaths each year.

Nationwide, 80 percent of drivers talk on cell phones, and 18 percent text, according to a 2008 poll by Nationwide Insurance, which is sponsoring the campaign along with Lamar Advertising.

In Kentucky, cell phone related crashes have increased each year, and it’s likely the number reported is low, according to Sherry Bray, a spokeswoman for Kentucky State Police.

The numbers are “probably way under what’s actually out there,” Bray said.

Police reports often attribute crashes to distraction or human factors without being specific.

“Since (cell phone use) is becoming more of an issue, we’ll be better able to identify the cause of the distraction,” Bray said.

Last year, state and local law enforcement reported 973 crashes, 323 injuries and seven fatalities related to cell phones. Their use has claimed 31 lives since 2004.

In 2008, Franklin County reported 10 crashes, four injuries and zero fatalities. The county has reported no deaths since 2006.

Several states have passed cell phone legislation in the past few years - Washington and California the most restrictive.

Washington banned cell phone use and text messaging in 2008. California allows drivers to use cell phones with a hands-free device and bans drivers under 18 from using any type of wireless device in a moving vehicle.

Hands-free laws have been in effect for years in New York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut.

Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland and North Carolina all have text-messaging bans going into effect this year, and Illinois and Oregon have new bills ready to be signed by the governor.

Kentucky has two cell-phone laws - one for drivers under 18 and one for school bus operators. Bus drivers cannot use cell phones (or hands-free devices) while the bus is moving and transporting children.

The most recent Kentucky law is associated with graduated driver’s licenses and prohibits highway use of a cell phone in a motor vehicle for drivers under 18 who possess an instruction permit or an intermediate license.

Some lawmakers, however, want more restrictions.

Rep. Rick Nelson, D-Middlesboro, recently sponsored a failed bill to prevent drivers under 18 from using phones while driving motor vehicles, motorcycles and mopeds.

Nelson said he might file legislation in 2010 that would ban phones for drivers under 18 and texting for motorists of all ages.

“A girl passed me about a month ago,” Nelson said. “She almost hit me. She had her knees on the steering wheel and was texting with both hands. It’s pretty dangerous and concerns me more than a cell phone.”

Although such a ban would be hard to enforce, Nelson said it’s an important safety issue.

“When you get behind the wheel of a two or three ton vehicle, that is pretty serious business,” he said.

Another failed bill applied to all drivers and banned the use of phones without a hands-free device. Rep. David Floyd, R-Bardstown, a sponsor, said he was surprised by the research he had commissioned for the law.

He presented a report by The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice that found “handheld and hands-free mobile phones equally contribute to the risk of traffic accidents.”

The study recommended the limit of cell use in high intensity driving conditions and pedestrian areas and suggested an education campaign to warn the public about the dangers.

Floyd’s not sure whether lawmakers will sponsor the same bill in 2010 but says the cell issue is important and must be addressed.

The families who appear on the billboard video say they’re dedicating their lives to help educate about the risks.

“Anything we can do to support that, we’re anxious to do that,” says the father who lost his son.

The leading cause of accidents is driver distraction, and the number one distraction is mobile device use in the car, Teater says.

“Hopefully the day will come, and hopefully in my lifetime, I can close my eyes and envision … where we’ll say ‘Hey do you remember when we all used to talk on cell phones while we drove? What idiots we were to do that.’”

Staff Writer Paul Glasser contributed to this report.




Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. State-Journal.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

Login above or Register to comment.
Jump to Page: 1 2 3
   Next 10 Comments of 26 Total Comments
26.
    Posted by jennifer.masri1 July 21, 2009
Posted by Orbit July 11, 2009
recommended bumpersticker: 'Maybe you'd drive better with that cell phone up your a**'

That is the best bumper sticker I've heard of!

25.
    Posted by jennifer.masri1 July 21, 2009
I hope the law goes into effect to keep people of cell phones while driving. I got rear ended two years ago and it ruined my life because some ass hat was gabbing away and not paying attention to the fact that he was driving 75 in a 55. Stupid kid had no insurance either and all he got was thrown in a ditch. I had to comfort a toddler through a year of nightmares and never wanting to get into another car. Hell yes there should be a law!

24.
    Posted by ronandlane July 16, 2009
Drivers today are distracted beyond the safety limits. Lets be honest people for one moment. Just drive around and OBSERVE other drivers in their car and tell me what you see. I will tell you what I see--People absolutely not paying attention to job 1 and that is driving their vehicles safely because they are too busy doing what they should not be doing. We need both hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road, its a no brainer.
Its time to set our prioprities straight. There are too many accidents on the road today because drivers are too busy doing everything other than driving responsibly.
Its time require drivers to use hands free devices when operating cell phones in their cars. PERIOD END OF CONVERSATION :-).

23.
    Posted by melli July 13, 2009
Oh give it a rest daniel. Whatever feud you have with trying and hothead, this is really not the place. Quite frankly, I can't follow your reasoning. It's ridiculous.

22.
    Posted by daniel2497451 July 13, 2009
trying, it is not just in this thread, but ALL threads. You never have a substantive argument. hothead is in the same boat. Besides, I was not totally off topic with:

"Research has indicated that using a cell phone while driving is the equivalent of driving while intoxicated. Therefore, cell phone usage = impairment = drug use. Maybe they should require all welfare recipients to take random cell phone tests."

By your standards, it makes perfect sense. Who should care what the reason for the impairment is if it is present. It is just showing the ridiculousness of your so-called "reasoning".

21.
    Posted by trying July 12, 2009
Why should we make counter arguments here? You went totally off topic and on top of that took a very serious topic to use it for your pro drug crusade. I'd say, shame on you!

20.
    Posted by daniel2497451 July 12, 2009
hothead and trying,

Are you just incapable of making a counter argument on the substance of my post? I layed out several substantive issues and the logical reasons for or against them about why the current policy is insane by definition (doing the same thing and expecting a different result). And all you can do is make one or two line personal attacks about me. Is that the best ye got? I am not having a 'bad day'...I am trolling for the likes of you. But when I snag you, you go limp on the line.

Why do you even bother...it can't possibly be ANY fun?

19.
    Posted by daniel2497451 July 11, 2009
Jimboy is a realist, who cuts through the hypocrisy and myths with facts and reason. If you can't see that then it tells more about you than it does me.

What good does it do to test someone after an accident and determine that they smoked a joint a month ago? Science or witch hunting? What is right about that?

My "crusades' are all about exposing these inconsistencies of reason and myth. YOU live there...how would you know?

18.
    Posted by trying July 11, 2009
Just shows, when it comes to drugs jimboy is a nutcase.

Your crusade for drugs is really not fitting. Although, yes, if they cause an accident I surely hope they'll have to take a drug test. It's just right.

17.
    Posted by daniel2497451 July 11, 2009
hothead; "Either way, it's not funny."

It is not supposed to be funny...it is pointing out the absurdity of these arguments posted by some.

   Next 10 Comments | Home | Back