Cell phone ban seen as
raising public awareness
Marlboro has issued
130 tickets since law
took effect in April ’01
MARLBORO — Flipping through stack upon stack of news clippings, Stephanie Luftglass reminisced about a time when the national spotlight shined on Marlboro.
As the fifth municipality in the United States to undertake the task of regulating cellular telephone use while driving, this town of 36,000 residents was transformed into a message board for what remains a polarizing issue almost two years later. Many called it a safety issue. Others called it an infringement on civil liberties. Some remember it as a battle.
Marlboro’s ordinance prohibits the use of hand-held cell phones by people who are operating motor vehicles. Signs placed at entry points into the community notify drivers of the ban on hand-held cell phone use.
"It was like David vs. Goliath," said Luftglass, director of the township’s office of public information.
In the summer of 2000, a small corner office in the municipal building was the scene of a public relations full-court press. At stake, officials say, was convincing the public that their intentions were sincerely for the public’s safety and not a way to make money through the issuance of fines.
"My original reaction was, ‘How can you regulate that? How can you take away our freedom?’ " said Councilwoman Mary Singer. "I really thought I was going to be against it, but the more we discussed it I realized it was definitely distracting and definitely dangerous."
On a normal day, the then two-member public information office staff of Luftglass and Angela Cipoletti might field calls from residents asking questions about when Marlboro’s next recycling day was. But that summer the calls were coming from The New York Times and major radio and television stations.
Many involved at the time say, in general, the media attention was favorable to the issue. But not all of the attention was good press.
"(Radio station) 101.5 bashed the hell out of us for getting involved with this," said Steven Gustman, who was the Township Council president at the time. He recalls the ordinance’s passage as one of the highlights of his career. "And the talk was all just to stir the pot and start controversy."
And controversial it was. Even today the issue periodically returns to the forefront when a new study is released, or a cell phone-related accident occurs or when officials in another town attempt to pass a similar ban on hand-held cell phones.
In South River, Middlesex County, an ordinance banning the use of hand-held cell phones by people operating motor vehicles was recently tabled by the Borough Council. Within the past week, officials in Hazlet adopted an ordinance modeled after Marlboro’s.
In March, a study conducted by English researchers at the Transport Research Laboratory declared reaction times of people driving while talking on cell phones to be worse than those of drunk drivers. Others have concluded that using hand-held cell phones posts no more of a risk than talking on hands-free phones, or even speaking to fellow passengers.
But the members of the Township Council, which adopted ordinance No. 2000-18 by a 4-1 vote, were convinced that talking on a hand-held cell phone was a danger. On the night of July 13, 2000, before a town hall meeting room crowded with news cameras and concerned citizens, it officially became illegal to operate a motor vehicle in Marlboro while talking on a hand-held phone.
The law took effect early in 2001.
"A birth"
"Everything needs a birth," said Mayor Matthew Scannapieco, leaning back on a chair in his municipal office. "To me, the birth of the issue (of driving while using a hand-held cell phone) in New Jersey was right here in our township."
And if every birth requires parents, the father in this case would likely be Councilman Barry Denkensohn.
While doing household chores and listening to CNN one day in May 2000, Denkensohn was struck by the story of Patti Pena, a mother in Pennsylvania who became an activist against driving while talking on hand-held cell phones. A driver ran a stop sign, broadsiding her car and killing Pena’s 2-year-old daughter, Morgan Lee Pena. The driver was using a hand-held cell phone.
Denkensohn said he researched the issue and found that only one municipality in the United States — Brooklyn, Ohio, — had legislation on the books of any kind. He said he decided to push the issue in Marlboro.
Enacting the ordinance was not easy. Other places, such as Hilltown, Pa., had cell phone legislation challenged and legally voided because it was ruled to have undermined existing laws on higher levels. To avoid this, Marlboro ordinance No. 2000-18 was enacted as an emergency safety measure which could coexist with state and national traffic laws. It was a model later copied by other municipalities.
Executives at AT&T expressed initial opposition to the township’s plan, but later backed off. To this day, Marlboro’s ordinance has not been challenged in court.
Ordinance No. 2000-18 is a primary offense, meaning that a police officer can pull a motorist over if he sees the motorist talking on a hand-held phone while operating a motor vehicle. The offense carries a maximum fine of $250.
Certain uses of hand-held cell phones are still permitted under the ordinance. Any public safety officers, such as police, EMT’s and firefighters, can still use them for work related duties. A motorist may use a hand-held cell phone to contact public safety personnel, or talk on a hand-held cell phone while pulled over to the side of the road.
Enforcement
Although the ordinance was adopted in July 2000, the first summonses were not issued to motorists in Marlboro until April 2001. To make it fair and uphold its legality, about 50 signs alerting motorists to the law were installed at entrances to the township.
Since its inception, police have issued about 130 summonses and 150 warnings, according to Marlboro Police Capt. Danny Schick. Whether a warning or a summons is issued to a driver is at the discretion of the officer who makes the motor vehicle stop, he said.
"I’m glad our officers aren’t inundating the public with summonses. That would be counterproductive," Schick said.
When asked to react to these numbers, some of the council members who voted to adopt the ordinance said they were disappointed.
Denkensohn said he would like to see stricter enforcement, but knows the difficulty of enforcing an ordinance accepted in only a "patchwork quilt" of towns.
The larger amount of warnings issued was welcome news to at least one council member.
"I know that our police can’t be all over the place, but I’m glad they’re giving out a lot of warnings," Singer said. "I think by giving out warnings we’re showing that it’s not about generating money through summonses, but saving lives."
Police say enforcement has generally gone well, but add it would be much easier if the law was passed on a broader level.
"I still feel this should be a statewide law, because it’s difficult for a motorist to realize they’re within the boundaries of Marlboro, especially if they’re from far away," said Police Chief Robert Holmes.
Current council President Dr. Paul Kovalski Jr., the lone dissenting vote on ordinance No. 2000-18, agreed. Kovalski said he is in favor of the hand-held cell phone ban, but believes it should be enforced on a state or national basis, rather than on a town-by-town basis.
"To me, there doesn’t seem to be any major compliance with this ordinance," Kovalski said. "If your family from Albuquerque comes and visits, they don’t know where Marlboro begins and ends. People don’t know where the lines are and that’s unfair and confusing."
Violations Continue
Has the cell phone ordinance actually worked? The answer seems to depend on who you ask.
On a recent night in front of the A&P supermarket at Route 520 and Route 79, drivers on hand-held phones were not hard to spot. Of a sample of people here, most said they did not believe the ban had accomplished any major effect.
Ironically, several said even though they believe the ordinance is positive legislation, they violate it themselves. In fact, in a March Quinnipiac University poll of New Jersey drivers, 85 percent said they believed banning hand-held cell phones while driving was a good idea. Yet an online NJ 101.5 April poll said that if a ban was approved, 60 percent would continue the practice.
"If I need to use the phone, I’ll pick it up anyway," said Agnieshka Wasilewski of Marlboro. "I’m not saying (the ordinance) is wrong, but it’s an inconvenience."
The same goes for Doug Stracquidanio of Marlboro, who believes it is inattentive people, not the phones, which cause problems.
"It doesn’t really stop me," Stracquidanio said. "If I see a cop, I’ll just put it down."
Schick and Holmes of the Marlboro police said while they know people continue to violate the ordinance, they have noticed an increase in the number of people pulling over to the side of the road to talk. And at the A&P that night, some drivers could be seen rolling into the lot talking on hands-free sets.
Many people interviewed did concede that the ordinance caused them to think over the issue. And to some extent, officials say that creating discussion and public awareness on the issue was one of the ordinance’s main purposes.
Several other municipalities and the state of New York have since enacted legislation on the issue. Denkensohn said officials in other municipalities have reached out to him and other Marlboro officials for thoughts and advice on the matter.
But after the fever pitch of initial feedback, some are disappointed with the way the issue seemed to have died out without more official action.
"There hasn’t been the momentum across the state," Kovalski said. "It’s picked up in a few towns, but as far as a ground swell, it never developed."
A statewide bill on the issue failed last year, but a new one sponsored by state senators Martha W. Bark (R-Atlantic, Burlington, Camden) and John O. Bennett (R-Monmouth) is being worked on for the 2002 session.
Former Marlboro Councilwoman JoAnn Denton, who voted for the Marlboro ordinance, has scheduled meetings to discuss the state legislation with Bennett and Sen. Richard J. Codey (D-Essex) in the month ahead.
"Both have given us verbal support," she said.
Denkensohn, for his part, is watching with great interest. If the bill doesn’t pass on a statewide level soon, he may once again take matters into his own hands. Denkensohn said he is considering a future run on the Democratic ticket for a seat in the state Legislature, with the banning of hand-held cell phones a central issue of his campaign.
"What’s very disconcerting is a number of countries throughout the world have already banned driving while talking on hand-held cell phones," Denkensohn said. "We have one state (New York) out of 50 that has done that."
— Karl Vilacoba