Hawaii

Honolulu Bans Cell Phones, Game Playing While Driving

May 5, 2009

Gaming while driving will earn you a ticket in Honolulu soon.

The Star-Times reports that on Thursday Mayor Mufi Hannemann will sign into law a bill that bans the use of all portable electronic devices by motorists. The measure, recently passed by City Council, contains an exception for hands-free devices.

Earlier this year Mayor Hannemann, acting on the advice of his police chief, vetoed a similar bill which would have made texting - but not general mobile phone use - illegal while driving.

Honolulu Mayor Vetoes Ban on Gaming, Texting While Driving

February 13, 2009

The mayor of Honolulu has vetoed a recently-passed law that would make it illegal to text or play a video game while driving.

As reported by the Honolulu Star, Mayor Mufi Hannemann (left) notified City Council by letter that he was exercising his veto power over concerns about enforcement of the measure. The gaming/texting while driving law was passed by City Council late last month. The Mayor explained his veto in his letter:

I applaud the Council's intent to address this public safety matter. A police officer operating a motor vehicle will only have a second or two to determine if the driver is committing a violation by text messaging or playing a video game.

As GamePolitics has previously reported, Honolulu's police chief also expressed concerns about the ability of his officers to enforce the measure. Mayor Hannemann has indicated that he would support a more generalized ban on cell phone use while driving.

Meanwhile, City Councilman Charles Djou criticized the Mayor's decision:

The facts are as they stood two weeks ago. The Council should override, and the only reason a Council member should change one's mind is politics.

Honolulu Passes Ban on Texting, Gaming While Driving

January 29, 2009

A proposal to ban texting and playing video games while driving has been passed by the Honolulu City Council, according to the Honolulu Advertiser.

As GamePolitics previously reported, the measure does not enjoy the support of the city's police department due to perceived difficulties in enforcement. City Councilman Nestor Garcia commented on the passage of the bill:

Most citizens will abide by it so if we can prevent one accident, whether it be by texting or playing a video game, then the imperfect law on the books will have done its job.

However, Councilman Rod Tam, who cast the only dissenting vote, criticized the measure:

This is bad legislation — unenforceable — an embarrassing situation.

The 2008 case of a city bus driver who was photographed playing a handheld game while driving was part of the impetus behind the new law. In discussing the bill, sponsor Charles Djou (left) harkened back to the bus incident:

Although the bus driver received some administrative punishment, there was nothing wrong or illegal with that bus driver engaging in that activity. This Honolulu City Council needs to make a very clear statement that that sort of activity should not be allowed on our public roadways.

ECA IconA PUBLICATION OF THE ECA RSS IconSUBSCRIBE User LoginLOGIN / REGISTER

Crispy Gamer




       

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 03/19/10 at 01:50am
hayabusa75: Flamespeak: Shhh, the Dems might hear you ;)
Posted 03/18/10 at 09:41pm
ZippyDSMlee: And not taxing the 30-500K bracket so much, sure you make 500K at the end of the year add in life thats minus 200K add in the company you made there's another 200K.
Posted 03/18/10 at 09:39pm
ZippyDSMlee: Flamespeak: we should be taxing the ultra rich alot more(those that have more than 10 million in wealth),.
Posted 03/18/10 at 08:04pm
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:44pm
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:05pm
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:04pm
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Posted 03/18/10 at 05:21pm
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:58am
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:57am
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:53am
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:41am
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:40am
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:30am
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
Login or register to post shouts