The Akron Legal News

Eating french fries while driving could be illegal under distracted driving bill

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 15, 2015

Members of a House committee have accepted changes to a bill that would create an offense of distracted driving.

House Bill 86, sponsored by Rep. Cheryl Grossman, R-Grove City, states that “distracted” means engaging in any activity that is not necessary to the operation of a motor vehicle, motorcycle, snowmobile, locomotive, watercraft or aircraft and impairs, or reasonably would be expected to impair, the ability of the operator to drive.

The definition also includes using a handheld electronic communications device with certain exceptions.

In vetting the bill before members of the House Armed Services, Veterans Affairs and Public Safety Committee, Grossman said the concept behind the bill was originally proposed in the as-introduced version of House Bill 53, the transportation budget proposal.

She said the substitute bill reflects a variety of changes stemming from meetings with lawmakers and interested parties.

HB 86 would create an enhanced criminal penalty for distracted driving.

Grossman said the enhanced penalty would only apply in situations where a motorist was determined to be “reasonably distracted” during commission of a moving violation.

“Thus, a law enforcement officer must have witnessed the moving violation and the underlying distraction,” she said.

“Absent an existing moving violation (example: running a stop sign, marked lanes violation, speed), there would be no offense for distracted driving.”

Handheld electronic devices in this scenario would exclude items such as Bluetooth or On-Star, speaker phone and other similar gadgets.

Any such violation of “distracted driving” would subject a driver to a $100 fine for each offense.

The cited driver would have two options under the proposed legislation: pay the citation at the maximum amount of $100 and thereby waive a court appearance; or appear before the appropriate court to contest the citation and a judge could impose a fine of up to $100.

“Also, the judge will have the discretion to simply dismiss the citation,” Grossman said. “The fine money will be dispersed to the appropriate governmental jurisdiction as opposed to a particular fund.”

The enhanced penalty of distracted driving would be similar to being cited for speeding in a construction zone.

“The speed is the traffic offense but the option for doubling the fine does not add any points to your driver’s license and the fact that the driver was cited in the actual construction zone does not appear on that person’s driving record (just the speed does),” Grossman said.

The exceptions outlined for handheld devices include using the gadget’s speakerphone function; a wireless technology standard for exchanging data over short distances; a “hands-free” device, as defined in Ohio law; a “hands-free’ system built into the motor vehicle; and earphones, earbuds, headphones or a headset, provided that at least one ear remains uncovered in accordance with state law.

After presenting sponsor testimony for the bill, Grossman told lawmakers that traffic officers would have discretion to determine if an activity reasonably distracted a driver.

Depending on the officer, actions such as eating, makeup application and reading could apply.

Some committee members questioned whether an officer would be able to classify an animal riding in the driver’s seat as an unlawful distraction.

Grossman said that could be the case if the measure is signed into law.

The original version of HB 86 called for a fine of $300 for a second or subsequent distracted driving offense. Funds would have been allocated to a newly-created driver education fund.

Grossman urged lawmakers to move HB 86 forward.

“This bill is important to act as a deterrent to bad driving behavior,” she said.

HB 86 has not been scheduled for additional hearings.

[Back]