By Thomas Bullock, law enforcement specialist
Mention distracted driving today and the images that come to mind are of a driver talking on a cell phone or texting on a smartphone. However, distracted driving comprises considerably more than that — distracted driving is focusing on anything other than driving, while driving.
It involves such diverse behaviors as adjusting climate controls, changing a radio station or CD, drinking, eating, looking for a specific business, picking up a dropped item, talking to a passenger, rubbernecking, and more. The duties of a police officer can involve even more types of multitasking that divert an officer’s attention away from driving.
When you get into a police car today it can look like the cockpit of an airplane. Mobile data terminals, radios and mics, in-car camera systems, vehicle information displays, and light/siren control boxes. All of these devices have become standard for the “mobile offices” that police officers use on a daily basis. Officers sometimes forget the dangers of becoming distracted by these devices because they have become so used to juggling radios, phones and computers that give important information and fast communication with dispatchers and others.
The problem is that over time, officers who have multitasked without accident begin to feel comfortable with continuing to multitask, and eventually this may contribute to an incident.
A tragic example of this occurred on November 23, 2007. Sisters Jessica and Kelli Uhl were on their way home from a family photo shoot when Illinois state trooper Matt Mitchell crashed his patrol car into theirs, killing them both instantly. Mitchell was responding to a traffic crash at more than 120 mph while messaging on his patrol car’s computer, talking on his shoulder radio, and talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone when his vehicle crossed the median on the interstate and slammed into the Uhl sisters’ car.
In April 2010, Mitchell pleaded guilty to reckless homicide and aggravated reckless driving and was sentenced to 30 months of probation.
Virginia, like many other states, has restricted the use of handheld personal communication devices by civilian motorists but has an exemption for the operator of any emergency vehicle while he is engaged in the performance of his official duties. Even with this exemption, many agencies across the country are beginning to realize the dangers of distracted driving within their ranks and have promulgated policies that address this.
Washington State enacted legislation in 2010 that made texting and non-hands free cell phone use a primary offense, and the Washington State Patrol proactively applied it to its troopers. Moreover, in 2010, the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) mandated hands-free voice communication for its troopers. Finally, Illinois State Police (ISP) made dramatic policy changes the year after the deadly collision. They include limiting the speed at which officers can respond to an emergency call, requiring hands-free cellphones and mandating video recording equipment be activated in a squad car while emergency lights are in use.
It is paramount that all vehicles are operated in a safe manner, especially for operators of emergency vehicles when driving above the speed limit. To that end, it is prudent to take a proactive approach to eliminating unnecessary distractions in emergency vehicles when possible.
As always, the best time to address a problem is when you do not have one.
In an effort to guide its members toward minimizing driver distractions, VML Insurance Programs (VMLIP) has revised its Risk Management Guidelines, effective July 1, 2016, to include the following verbiage: ”…and restricts use of communication devices to hands-free mode only.”
In order to answer “yes” to this question, a member must apply this best practice to all drivers, even those operating emergency vehicles.
Is this an insurmountable best practice? Not if you take into account the risk versus the reward when using a cell phone while trying to operate a vehicle, as shown in the tragic case of the Uhl sisters. Risk avoidance is present in every facet of police operations and this is a great opportunity to apply this principle to cell phone usage like so many agencies across the country, such as the FHP and ISP.
Some highlights of their policies include:
- The FHP’s new Wireless Voice/Data Communications policy clearly sets forth the principle surrounding the usage of a cell phone or of another wireless communication device: “Members must be able to maintain both hands on the steering wheel while the vehicle is in motion and using the device.”
- Both FHP and ISP policies permit hands-free voice communication on cell phones or on other wireless communication devices although ISP troopers may not use them during emergency responses requiring lights and siren and may use only police radios for communication.
- FHP troopers can neither dial an outgoing call nor send or read a text message or e-mail while a vehicle is in motion. Similarly, the ISP prohibits texting or sending and receiving e-mail in moving vehicles.
VMLIP has several resources to assist its members with every element of the Risk Management Guidelines and this is no exception. Grant funding may be available to aid members with purchasing Bluetooth devices or alternative communication equipment to comply with the new element.
Additionally, there is a sample policy available on wireless voice/data communications that is specifically for operators of emergency vehicles. To obtain a copy of the sample policy, contact Law Enforcement Specialist Thomas Bullock at (800) 963-6800 or tbullock@vmlins.org.
1 – IACP Highway Safety Committee, “Midyear Meeting Minutes, June 16–19, 2010,” Branson, Missouri, http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=QpuHekwnlq4%3d&tabid=510 (accessed March 8, 2016).
2 – Jerome Burdi, “FHP Troopers Barred from Talking on Handheld Cell Phones while Driving,” The Palm Beach Post, October 5, 2010, http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/fhp-troopers-barred-from-talking-on-hand-held-954238.html (accessed March 8, 2016).
3 – 30 “Illinois State Police Directive ADM-019, Wireless Voice/Data Communications Equipment,” November 20, 2008, http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/pressreleases/wirelessvoice.pdf (March 8, 2016).
4 – Florida Highway Patrol, “Wireless Voice/Data Communications,” policy number 7.10, October 4, 2010 http://www.flhsmv.gov/fhp/Manuals/0710.pdf (accessed March 8, 2016).
5 – Ibid., iii and iv.
6 – Ibid., iii and iv.