On the books
Lifesaving laws now in effect – and, ideally, not ineffective
by Linda Singerle and Regan White
|
|
| It is now illegal for drivers under the age of 18 to be driving and using a cell phone at the same time. Violators will be charged with an infraction and fined $25. |
Some legislative bills invite enough deliberation that citizens are well aware when the bill is ratified into law. Even so, with months intervening between the creation of law and the date it actually goes into effect, some rather important legislation flies right under the public’s radar even as it goes live.
For instance, today and beyond, any teenager in your home who’s newly licensed to drive may be breaking state law if he or she operates a cell phone and a car simultaneously. Since when?
Friday, Dec. 1, sees several state laws enacted. Some of them, including the ban on cell phone use by teenage drivers, were either spearheaded by or brought to Charlotte Weekly’s attention by senators who are impassioned about the potentially lifesaving benefits. Two laws in particular – the cell phone ban and stricter monitoring of registered sex offenders – grabbed media attention when they were ratified following the General Assembly’s session that concluded July 28. They beg for closer examination now that they’re in effect.
Quiet ride for teen drivers
It is now unlawful in North Carolina for any person under the age of 18, who holds either a limited or full provisional license, to operate a motor vehicle while using a mobile telephone or any additional technology associated with a mobile telephone. Exceptions include when drivers are communicating with police, fire, medics, hospitals or physicians in the event of an emergency or when speaking with a parent, legal guardian or spouse. Violators will be charged with an infraction and fined $25. No drivers insurance points, insurance surcharge or court costs will be issued.
“Is it the best phone restriction it could possibly be?” asked Rob Foss, senior research scientist and manager of alcohol studies for the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. “The answer is ‘nearly.’ The one flaw is that it contains too many exceptions. Talking on a phone is dangerous no matter who is on the other end.”
The law covers its bases when defining exactly what is meant by a mobile telephone and additional technology. Neither manual nor hands-free telephone use is allowed. Additional associated mobile phone technology that is now prohibited while driving includes camera functions, electronic mail, music, the Internet or games. The name of the game is ruling out distractions.
State Sen. Edward Goodall Jr. voted for the law in part because of his experience with his own daughter, a confident, responsible driver who often told him she couldn’t talk to him when he called on her cell phone while she was driving. “When she was so confident with her driving, (that admission) told me she was having trouble at 16 and 17 talking on the cell phone (while driving),” he said. He added that he’s typically hesitant to vote on regulations but felt an obligation to vote for the cell phone restriction because of the fatality rate of drivers under 18. “It’s something like four or five times greater than the rest of the population,” he said. “That’s just a statistic that’s unbearable.”
Car crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. A recent study conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that since North Carolina’s graduated driver licensing system was first implemented in 1996, crash rates have decreased 35 percent for 16-year-olds and 18 percent for 17-year-olds. It’s a statistic that AAA hopes will only improve with the addition of a cell phone ban for the same population.
“I think this will save lives and I think this tells teenagers that when you’re behind the wheel you ought to be concentrating on your driving,” said Tom Crosby, AAA Carolinas’ vice president of communications. “There are tons of distractions out there. We’ve already restricted the number of passengers who are allowed to accompany young drivers; and now with the prohibition of cell phone use while driving, we think this will hopefully build a generation of drivers who won’t allow things inside the car to distract them from their primary duty of keeping both hands on the wheel and paying attention.”
Foss stated that the UNC HSRC will be conducting a study within the next year to gauge the cell phone ban’s impact on teen driver fatalities. He added that while approximately 13 other states also have cell phone prohibitions for teen drivers under 18, none of the restrictions have been studied yet to determine their effects.
As for enforcement, the law is primarily in place to send a strong restrictive message. “Our intentions weren’t for law enforcement to be out there watching cars go by and guessing at a person’s age,” Goodall said. “The law was (enacted) to be a deterrent more than a trap for arresting young drivers. We want that to be a complement and a reinforcement of what parents are telling their young drivers.”
Foss added, “Most people comply with laws that they consider to be reasonable, regardless of active enforcement. … Currently the night driving restriction and the passenger restriction (for drivers under 18 as part of the GDL provisional license system) are similarly difficult to enforce, but we have substantial evidence that both are complied with to a very large degree.”
Sgts. David Sloan and John McWhirter with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s HITS traffic enforcement unit added that most charges resulting from violation of the cell phone law would occur when accidents – and corresponding phone records – reveal cell phone use was in play with a driver under the age of 18.
The ‘worst of the worst’ offenders
Also effective Dec. 1 is State Law 2006-247, spearheaded by N.C. Sen. Austin Allran of Hickory and the N.C. Child Fatality Task Force, which targets changes to child protection and sex offender laws. The push to institute tighter controls on offenders was spurred by similar legislation passed in Florida last year. That act, called Jessica’s Law, took its name from the highly publicized kidnapping, assault and murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford at the hands of burglar and known sex offender John Evander Couey, who’d been arrested 24 times by age 46.
“A number of constituents called me and said we needed to do something about bringing a Jessica’s Law here to North Carolina,” said Allran, who immediately sought endorsement from the Child Fatality Task Force. “Otherwise it (the bill) wouldn’t have been eligible for the short session” of the General Assembly, which began in May and concluded July 28, he explained.
The task force and drafting committee immediately began researching the current North Carolina law and found it to be superior to what Florida had before passing Jessica’s Law. “But we still had some shortcomings that we wanted to remedy,” said Allran, specifically citing gaps in monitoring of registered sex offenders.
Prior to the new law, sex offenders within North Carolina registered once a year with sheriffs of counties in which they lived or worked – and were able to do so by mail. Under the new law, they must register, in person, every six months. The penalties for willful failure to register or to notify the sheriff of an upcoming relocation (even if temporary) are steeper, constituting a felony in most cases.
The new law requires what many people consider the “worst of the worst” offenders to enroll in a GPS monitoring program. In this category are offenders who have physically, mentally or sexually abused a minor and who require the highest level of supervision, as assessed by the Department of Correction. Also in this category are sex offenders convicted of an aggravated offense or classified as recidivists or sexually violent predators; such offenders are enrolled in GPS monitoring for life.
Allran’s law adds new criminal offenses such as human trafficking and sexual servitude to the list of felonies encompassed by child protection/sex offender law. It also changes the definition of existing offenses, such as sexual battery and involuntary servitude, to be more encompassing.
Some proponents of more stringent monitoring and sentencing of predatory sex offenders voiced discontent that the North Carolina law does not saddle offenders with a 25-year minimum sentence, as Florida’s law does. But Allran said neither he nor the drafters and supporters of this piece of N.C. legislation were concerned because the state has structured sentencing that yields imprisonment of about the same duration. “Anyone who commits the types of sexual offense that in some other state would warrant the 25-year minimum would probably get that kind of sentence in North Carolina anyway,” he explained. All circumstances of a particular case are examined and then a corresponding sentence is derived from consulting a structured sentencing grid. “When we were drawing up the legislation, we didn’t see that as a gap in North Carolina law.”
Overall, the legislation improves on gaps but does little to change the way the state addresses online sexual predators, a topic being researched by a House-elect sex-offender study committee, said Emily Johnson, an attorney in the bill drafting section of the General Assembly.
In terms of outcome, Allran and company are satisfied with what they’ve accomplished. “It was really gratifying that we were able to introduce and pass a piece of legislation through both houses and get it funded in just a few months,” said Allran. “That’s pretty impressive.”
Want to know more?
For more information on legislation that takes effect Dec. 1, visit www.ncleg.net. To access the Sex Offender Notification System or consult the sex-offender registry for this region, visit www.mecksheriff.com. As of Wednesday, Nov. 29, the North Carolina Sex Offender & Public Protection Registry showed 586 registered sex offenders living or working within Mecklenburg County’s borders. None of those were designated as “predator” status.t
|
