On November 28th, the Bozeman City Commission decided to ban the use of hand-held electronic devices by drivers of motor vehicles. Mayor Jeff Krauss was the only opposing vote to the measure. The passage of the law means that starting January 17th, the use of hand-held electronic devices within the city limits of Bozeman will be against the law. The fine for violating the law is $100. Programming a GPS is also illegal, but reading the GPS map to navigate is OK. Pressing a button on your cell phone to see what time it is will be illegal.

While the media has reported the new law as a ban on cell phones, it also bans the use of iPods, pagers, cameras, TomToms, video recorders, personal computers, radios, even garage door openers, keychain vehicle doorlocks, flashlights, or any hand-held device which is electronic. The person who has pushed for the law perhaps more than anyone is Bozeman resident Tom Keck. His son was killed by a truck while he was riding a bicycle somewhere back east, and reportedly Keck suspects the truck driver was distracted by a cell phone the truck driver may have been using.

Interestingly there are exceptions in the law for electronics device usage. The first is that it is acceptable to use two-way radios in vehicles if the usage is for work-related purposes (such as trucking). And cell phones are two way radios, so it’s unclear if it’s OK to use cell phones if say one is a real estate agent, trucker, UPS driver, pizza delivery person, etc that uses it for work. And a CB radio could be construed as work related if it is used by a trucker to communicate with other trucks or company headquarters. Will pizza delivery guys now use CB radios and walkie talkies? Will bicyclists now be ticketed for wearing and listening to iPod Nano’s while riding ?   They can be distracting and technically now it’s against the law.

The other exceptions include use of cell-phones for emergency purposes, and of course for all law enforcement personnel. Passengers in cars can continue to use any electronic hand-helds as well.

And cell phones and electronic devices can still be used as long as the user doesn’t actually come into physical contact with the device. So bluetooth devices which are voice activated are OK, and cellphones in which the control buttons are built into the steering wheel or dashboard are OK since they are not technically “hand-held”. Somehow they are deemed safer.

So really the ban is about holding the phone up to your ear with one hand or texting. Anything else is basically permissible. For instance using the speakerphone mode on your iPhone and setting it on the dashboard or seat is OK because the device is not “hand-held”. That’s similar to using a hand-held cellphone with vehicle bluetooth. And the use of your cell while wearing a bluetooth earpiece should be OK, because that’s really no different than the vehicle bluetooth system and you’re not holding the device. As with many new laws, the meaning and application vary depending on who is interpreting the law.

At the city council meeting on Nov 28th in which the law was discussed, 16 people testified, about half for the ban, and half against. Jeff Krauss has described the bill as an unnecessary “feel good” measure that really accomplishes nothing. Critics say that there are many other activities that drivers engage in that are far more distracting than using cell phones. These include putting on makeup, eating, drinking, holding dogs in the drivers lap, trying to read a vehicle GPS mapping system on the dashboard, adjusting the radio, spilling hot coffee, and so on. Will these activities be banned next ?

The other reason that the cell phone ban is considered by many to be an unnecessary “feel-good” proposition is that there is already a “distracted driver” law on the books. It is already against the law for the driver to engage in activities which are distracting and increase the risk of accidents. That law covers any distraction such as using cell phones, texting, chomping down a Big Mac, guzzling down a skinny Americano, intimate physical contact with passengers, or applying eyeliner.

All sides agree that distracted driving is dangerous and there should be penalties for distracted driving. As the law currently stands, if one is distracted by the use of a cell phone (or any distracting activity) and causes an accident or even just appears to be distracted, it’s illegal. Nothing changes with the new law other than adding on a $100 fine and complicating the legal process with yet another law. A sixteen year old who is texting while driving is already breaking the law if the officer feels it is a distracting activity.

Justice of the Peace Bryan Adams says that since the law is new, there are several factors that have yet to be worked out by the courts. For instance, if there is a citation or an accident, can the cell phone records for the accused be subpoenaed? Does the accused have to produce cell phone records to prove their innocence (usually we prove guilt), or does the court have to issue a search warrant to obtain the records? Will prosecutors routinely ask for records looking for lawbreakers and where to lay blame for violations or accidents? Does the law now mean that personal electronic devices are now contributing factors to accidents? What about the same devices which are OK to use if they are not hand-held?

The Bozeman Police department says that they have to be able to see the hand-held device being used before they’ll stop a vehicle. This suggests that anything built into the vehicle likely won’t be considered probable cause. If somebody is pushing buttons on the steering column or dashboard, it’s pretty hard to discern if it’s the cruise control, FM radio, heater, or GPS unit.
The bottom line is, those who use hand-held electronic devices now will keep them low and out of view of officers, and the police will continue to stop drivers who appear to be distracted and inattentive to their driving.

Mike Comstock is an MSU graduate; software engineer by day, math tutor in the evenings, musician on the weekends, and freelance writer in his spare time.