Partly Cloudy

57°F

Powell, WY

Partly Cloudy

Humidity: 39%

Wind: 18 mph

Distracted driving ordinance passes on third reading

Local resident Ken Mitchell voices his concerns with a City of Powell ordinance that will make it illegal to drive while operating a handheld device like a cellphone. The council unanimously passed the measure at Monday’s meeting. Local resident Ken Mitchell voices his concerns with a City of Powell ordinance that will make it illegal to drive while operating a handheld device like a cellphone. The council unanimously passed the measure at Monday’s meeting. Tribune photo by Don Cogger

An ordinance banning the handheld use of cellphones while driving within Powell city limits passed unanimously on its final reading at Monday’s City Council meeting, but not before a resident had his say on the matter.

Ordinance No. 21 stemmed from Councilman Scott Mangold nearly being run over in the downtown area by an inattentive driver talking on a cellphone. No members of the public spoke about the ordinance at its first two readings before the council, and Monday’s third reading represented the final opportunity for feedback from the community. Ken Mitchell, a Park County resident who grew up in Powell, took that opportunity.

“I guess I would preface this with when does the long arm of Big Brother stop?” Mitchell asked, adding, “I personally was coming out of the drugstore here in Powell when a young lady pushing a stroller and texting at the same time almost hit me. Are we going to have an ordinance about no walking and texting in Powell?”

“What if she was driving?” asked councilman Floyd Young.

“If she was driving we already have laws on the books about that. It’s called inattentive driving,” Mitchell said, adding, “Why do we need another rule that doesn’t have a lot of teeth to it?”

He went on to cite various examples of inattentive driving, such as hand-holding, listening to the radio and carrying on a conversation with passengers.

“I don’t think I need a law or anyone else needs a law, or a city ordinance, or anything else that says, 10 and 2 [o’clock with hands on the steering wheel], turn down the radio, shut your mouth and pay attention,” he said.

Mitchell also questioned whether the positive feedback council members have received outside City Hall was a fair representation, guessing most of the people the council talked to “were in my age group.”

“But if you had talked to people in their teens and 20s and 30s, I doubt many of them would honestly say the same thing. I don’t believe that an ordinance is necessary.”

Mitchell then addressed Mangold directly about the incident that precipitated the introduction of Ordinance No. 21.

“I’m sorry you almost got clipped,” Mitchell began.

“It wasn’t ‘almost,’” Mangold interjected. “I got hit. And as I got off the hood of the car and was brushing myself off, she didn’t get off the phone, and drove away. And I didn’t get her license number.”

Mitchell again apologized, but then asked what Mangold would have done, had the ordinance been in place, to get the driver cited. Mangold replied there was nothing he could have done.

“See?” Mitchell said. “So the ordinance wouldn’t have any teeth.”

Mayor John Wetzel theorized the driver could have been cited prior to the accident if observed on her cellphone. Mangold concurred and took the argument a step further.

“Maybe she wouldn’t have used that phone if there were an ordinance in place,” Mangold said.

Mitchell then questioned the enforcement of the new ordinance, turning to Powell Police Chief Roy Eckerdt.

“I have seen his staff driving up the street talking on a cellphone; I have seen his staff driving around town without a seat belt in place. How many rules do you think it’s going to take? And for what reason?” Mitchell said.

After Mangold pointed out the police department is subject to the same laws as the rest of the community, Mayor Wetzel allowed Mitchell his final thoughts.

“So I guess the bottom line is you’re not in favor of this ordinance,” Wetzel said.

“I’m 100 percent against it,” Mitchell replied. “Because where’s it going to stop?”

Wetzel took that opportunity to defend the council’s position, saying he doesn’t believe the city is overly aggressive in writing ordinances.

“As a council, we pass maybe 20 ordinances a year,” Wetzel explained, adding that about half involve cleaning up language and that many have been repealed in recent years.

“We do feel pretty strongly this is a safety measure,” Wetzel said of the cellphone ordinance. “You have your opinion, and we appreciate it. It doesn’t matter if you live in city or town, we will listen to people at this council.”

With no further discussion on the matter, the council voted unanimously to approve Ordinance No. 21. It takes effect on Jan. 1.

After the meeting, Chief Eckerdt talked about the implementation process of “advertising, education, signage.”

“Make it a New Year’s Resolution not to talk on your phone while you’re driving in Powell. Or at least use hands-free,” he said.

Eckerdt also asked the public to be aware of the details of the ordinance.

“It’s been referred to and called the ‘cellphone ordinance,’ but it’s implemented and written as a hands-free device,” he explained. “Part of that was from an enforcement perspective of, if we say you can’t talk on your cellphone, what about using it as your GPS or changing your music or whatever. It covers all of that.”

Simply put, if a driver has their phone in their hand and are looking at the screen, the driver is in violation of the ordinance.

“The council obviously expects us to enforce this ordinance, but we have to be able to prove whatever it is you’re in violation of,” Eckerdt said. “One conversation we’ve already had is, you can’t text and drive, but how do we prove you’re texting, and not surfing the web, or changing your playlist or checking your GPS? Those are all issues that come into play.”

Eckerdt reiterated that enforcement will be on a case to case basis, with the goal on implementation to consist primarily of warnings. That said, citations will be given out if the situation warrants it.

“We issue far more warnings than we do citations; the whole goal of traffic enforcement is to gain compliance, not to hand out tickets,” he said. “But back to the totality of circumstances, if there’s a pattern of behavior there that proves a warning isn’t going to be sufficient to correct this behavior, then obviously it’s a citation.”

Regarding Mitchell’s claims of seeing officers routinely violate seat belt laws and use cellphones, Eckerdt said that, without knowing the specific instances Mitchell was referring to, it’s hard to put the claims into the proper context.

“Not only is it state statute that we wear our seat belts, it’s in our policy to wear our seat belts,” Eckerdt said, though he added there are exceptions.

“We train that our seat belt doesn’t go on until after we start driving, and it comes off before we stop; we have to be able to get out of the vehicle quickly,” the chief said. “I don’t know for sure where he was coming from.”

Eckerdt said he was surprised more people didn’t make their voices heard throughout the city council process, but said the community members he’s spoke to have been overwhelmingly supportive of the ordinance.

11 comments

  • posted by Dustin

    November 28, 2017 3:30 pm

    You have multiple cars that don't run in an alley so then you have to park in the street. Could make more useful ordinances, like get the crap out of your alley so we don't have to spend millions to widen the street.

  • posted by Chris

    November 27, 2017 11:28 pm

    I understand Mr. Mitchell is concerned about big government but the time to act was long ago. The ordinance isn’t new to the land, the state passed a statute into law in 2009 that is almost exactly the same, minus making a phone call.

    Google Wyoming statute 31-5-237

  • posted by Munkey

    November 27, 2017 3:29 pm

    I've seen more police officers on their cell phones driving around in Powell than anywhere else I have ever lived. It's pretty bad. Just sayin.

  • posted by Dustin

    November 27, 2017 1:40 pm

    Sounds like our current and former mayor do not have a clue what laws we currently have. Inattentive driving means you are not paying attention. Rather you are using your phone or slapping your kids in the back seat, if you get into an accident it is under inattentive driving, not Powell City Ordnance No 21. So glad we are now going to have two laws doing the same thing.

  • posted by Jacob Dawes

    November 27, 2017 12:14 pm

    The thing about this is that there are ways for people to get around it. For example you could just put your phone on speaker or just use Bluetooth which keeps you just as distracted. Also I agree with Robert they can't search your car or anything without a warrant. But that's just my opinion.

  • posted by Christopher Kuntz

    November 26, 2017 9:30 pm

    Toothless Ordinance. IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. The Police Officers in Powell, those being the PPD, WHP & PCSO ALL use their cell phones while driving. I will use my cell phone while driving... I'll just use it to photograph the aforementioned officers on duty in their squad cars utilizing their cell phones. I encourage all of Powell's citizenry to do so.

    Mangold, Wetzel and all the rest... run the government... not our lives.

    P.S. I was struck by a dear while riding my motorcycle, so please pass an ordinance banning all deer within Powell City Limits.

    I was also struck by a motor vehicle while riding my motorcycle, please ban all motor vehicles with in the city limits of Powell.

    I was shot at several times in Iraq and Afghanistan, please ban all Muslims form the city limits of Powell.

    See... Fascism never ends.

  • posted by Salty Dawg

    November 25, 2017 6:22 am

    Cell phones have turned into a nuisance like CB radios did years ago...humans "think" they have to have one because others have them,resulting in the current mass problem everywhere.I have to admit,the world was a better place without all this ignorant technology where there is little privacy,or morals,anymore.

  • posted by Richard Brady

    November 24, 2017 8:27 pm

    My comment is, knowing that when we run up to Billings which has had a similar law on the books up there for between 5 or 6 years now, to this day we see car after car with drivers having a phone planted to their ears while they drive! It’s very easy to see this anytime we are stopped at an intersection red light and all of the cars turning on the green drive with one hand on the wheel while their phone is stuck in their ear!
    I would think it’s a nice idea to have the law on the books but as far as I can tell the rule or the law is totally ignored! In my opinion the cell phone in general gets my vote as the worse item ever invented!

  • posted by Errell Beaudry

    November 24, 2017 7:12 pm

    Well argued Mr. Mitchell!

  • posted by Deb

    November 24, 2017 6:49 pm

    I hope this ordinance will aid in discouraging drivers from using their phones while driver in but I have my doubts. I for one am tired of following adults not driving the speed limit, weaving all over the road and not obeying traffic signs! Grow up, be responsible and do the right thing!

  • posted by Robert

    November 24, 2017 2:25 pm

    Easy way around that... no I wasn't officer.. no you can not see my phone without a search warrant.... I would love to meet the cop willing to bother whatever judge to sign a search warrant for a local ordinance...

Leave a comment

All comments are initially screened to avoid spam and profanity, and your comment may take some time to appear on the site. The Powell Tribune reserves the right to not publish inappropriate comments.
Fields marked (*) are required.

Subscribe

Get all the latest Powell news by subscribing to the Powell Tribune today!

Click here to find out more!

E-Edition

Our paper can be delivered right to your e-mail inbox with a subscription to the Powell Tribune!

Find out more here!

Stay Connected

Keep up with Powell news by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.

Go to top