Original cellphone bill gets watered down

Remember the old saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Well, this came to mind when I found that a local legislator’s efforts to strengthen Pennsylvania’s flimsy distracted driving laws were weakened by an amendment sponsored by another local lawmaker. Oddly, both are Republicans.

Rep. Rosemary Brown, R-Monroe, introduced the bill which bans use of a hand-held cellphone while driving, but, before its passage, an amendment by Rep. Doyle Heffley, R-Carbon, was approved which changed the violation from a primary to a secondary offense.

This means that police cannot stop motorists solely for texting while driving as they can now; drivers must be in violation of careless driving or some other offense, too. As for being on their phones while driving, this would now become a secondary offense as part of the same law, if passed, whereas now it is not illegal. Violators would face a $150 fine plus fees. It’s similar to the seat belt law where police cannot stop a motorist for just a seat belt violation.

The amended bill maintains the primary offense status for cellphone use — talking or texting — by drivers who are 17 or younger.

Heffley’s amendment was approved 117-79 after which the full House voted 120-74 in favor of the amended legislation that now goes to the state Senate where its future is uncertain, according to a spokesman for the Republican caucus. Republicans control the Senate, 27-21.

In submitting his amendment, Heffley said that enforcement of the law against texting while driving has been “ineffective and hard to enforce.” When I asked him on what he based this comment, he said it was mostly anecdotal, not necessarily statistical.

Brown agreed, citing frustration among police and other law enforcement officials, and said that is why the stronger law is needed.

Heffley also stressed that he and Brown are amicable colleagues, and he commended her on the amount of work she put into developing the bill. He said that he and Brown had discussed her bill and his objections prior to the vote, but they could not come to an agreement, which prompted his introduction of the amendment. Heffley said that he did not believe the bill would have passed without the amendment. Brown disagrees.

In pointing out that legislators want to make the roads in the state safer, Heffley said, “Many folks are responsible and perfectly capable of holding a phone, holding a conversation and driving a car at the same time.”

Brown again disagrees, saying she wants to work with like-minded senators to get the strongest bill possible to Gov. Tom Wolf’s desk and “help our roadways become more safe.”

Based on Heffley’s comments, this might be a hard sell in the House if it goes back there with the stiffer requirements, but, Brown believes, that with further education of opponents, the original intent of the bill could prevail.

Many others disagree with Heffley, too, which is why five of the six states adjacent to Pennsylvania are among 20 nationwide that have banned hand-held use of cellphones by all drivers. Others have banned them by those under 18.

Brown’s Monroe district borders New Jersey, which is one of the states with the ban. She said that part of her motivation was to establish continuity for drivers who live in Pennsylvania but work or frequently travel to New Jersey.

Joining Brown in objecting to Heffley’s amendment, Rep. Mike Carroll, D-Luzerne, top minority member of the House Transportation Committee, called the bill “a step backward.” “We will have additional people texting and driving,” he said, leading to more deaths.

Some urban legislators saw the original bill as yet another pretext for police to stop African-American motorists. Rep. Jordan Harris, D-Philadelphia, insists there are places in Pennsylvania where people of color cannot drive and feel safe from unwarranted stops by police.

The revised bill might wind up costing the support of some influential statewide organizations. Ted Leonard, executive director of the Pennsylvania AAA Federation, said the amendment virtually removed the positive impact of the bill and hinted that the organization might not continue to support it in its present form.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com