Vote on Whether You Favor a Total Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving?

 Loading ...

Winter Weather Advisory in Effect

A Winter Weather Advisory has been issued for the Louisville and Jefferson County area until 9:00 a.m. Friday. While accumulations are expected to be small, periods of heavy snow are expected. Temperatures are expected to drop and icy roads are likely. Wind is also expected to create blowing snow and white out conditions. Travel may be hazardous.

NTSB Recommends States Ban All Cell Phone Use While Driving.

NTSB Recommends Banning Cell Phones in Cars

A new report from the National Transportation and Safety Board recommends that all states ban the use of cell phones while driving. This includes hands-free use of cell phones, through blue tooth devices.

“According to NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration], more than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents,” NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman said in a statement. “It is time for all of us to stand up for safety by turning off electronic devices when driving. No call, no text, no update, is worth a human life.”

While the agency does not have the power to enforce such a ban, it’s recommendations carry a huge amount of weight. Whether states are willing to enforce such a ban in today’s “anti-regulation climate” remains to be seen.

Other experts question whether the governments own studies support the claims the agency makes. Only recently, we reported on a study that called into question those statistics, believing they had been “overstated.” You can read about that report, here.

Furthermore, while an overwhelming amount of people tend to support such bans as “texting and driving”, the recommendation includes all cell phone use, including the use of hands free devices. Questions remain whether such a broad prohibition is as popular or even effective.

Would the ban of cell phone use while driving have the desired effect of preventing such distractions? It’s doubtful. Even though an overwhelming percent of Americans are in favor of “texting and driving” bans, almost half of adults and more than half of teenagers admit to reading or sending a text while driving. Making the behavior a violation of the law is no more likely to have an effect.

There is no doubt that “texting and driving” is a dangerous distraction that can lead to accidents. However, that doesn’t mean that the use of a cell phone, especially with a hands-free device, in all situations is an equally dangerous distraction. There simply is not a lot of information on just how distracting cell phone use is when compared to other distractions that are considered acceptable risks in operating a motor vehicle.

In fact, at least one study has concluded that its not the use of cell phones that cause accidents, but distracted drivers in general.  CNet reported on a study back in 2010 that found distractions, not cell phones per se, were the cause of most car crashes.  Experts noted that while cell phone use had exploded over the past several years, there has been no increase in the number of accidents.  You can read the entire article, here.

Studies May Have Overestimated Cell Phone Crash Risk.

Studies May Have Overestimated Cell Phone Crash Risk

A new analysis of previous studies regarding crash risk due to cell phone use may have overestimated the risk a new report shows.

“In the new report, Richard A. Young of Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit finds that two influential studies on the subject might have overestimated the risk.  The problem has to do with the studies’ methods.  Both studies — a 1997 study from Canada, and one done in Australia in 2005 — were “case-crossover” studies.  The researchers recruited people who had been in a crash, and then used their billing records to compare their cellphone use around the time of the crash with their cell use during the same time period the week before (called a “control window”).

But the issue with that is that people may not have been driving during that entire control window.  Such “part-time” driving would necessarily cut the odds of having a crash (and possibly reduce people’s cell use) during the control window — and make it seem like cellphone use is a bigger crash risk than it is.

If that information were applied to the two earlier studies, Young estimates, the crash risk tied to cellphone use would have been statistically insignificant.  That’s far lower than the studies’ original conclusions: that cellphone use while driving raises the risk of crashing four-fold.

But that doesn’t mean you should feel free to chat and text away at the wheel, according to Fernando Wilson, an assistant professor at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth.  A number of other studies, using designs other than case-crossover, have suggested that cellphone use — and particularly texting — is hazardous on the road, Wilson told Reuters Health.

“In wider policy, I don’t think this study is going to change the conversation about distracted driving,” Wilson said. “Most of the conventional thinking is that we need to do something to reduce it.”

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, about 450,000 Americans were injured in crashes linked to distracted driving in 2009. Another 5,500 were killed.”

You can read the entire article here.

Do Siri and Other Voice to Text Messaging Apps Promote Safer Driving?

Do Voice to Text Apps Promote Safer Driving?

The recent release of Apple’s long awaited iPhone 4s brought with it an exciting new feature called Siri, a natural voice interface that uses artificial intelligence to interpret user commands and answer questions.  Ask Siri to text a contact and the commands are completed without any physical input by the user.  Elly over at Appchat has a short Youtube video demonstrating this Siri function, here.

While Siri is only available on the new iPhone 4s, there are other 3rd party voice to text apps available for other phones in both iTunes and the Android App Store.  These apps allow a user to record a message and turn it into text.  The user can then choose whether to email or text the message or send it as an update to Twitter or Facebook.  Other 3rd party apps read text and emails aloud, allowing you to respond with voice commands.  While these apps do turn voice into text and can initiate simple commands, they typically require a much larger amount of user input to function.

So, with this understanding can we say that functions like Siri and 3rd party iPhone and Android voice to text apps promote safer driving?

It’s clear that the a decrease in user input reduces the amount of time a user is distracted by his mobile phone.  Voice to text apps that eliminate the need to type or read text are clearly a better alternative than actually typing or reading the text itself.  However, that does not mean that these apps eliminate distractions themselves.

The US Dept. of Transportation maintains a website at distraction.gov that discusses the facts of distracted driving and the statistics on distraction’s role in car wrecks.   According to distraction.gov there are actually three main types of distractions:

• Visual-taking your eyes off the road
• Manual-taking your hands off the wheel,
• Cognitive-taking your mind off what you’re doing

According to distraction.gov among other statistics:

• Texting is the most alarming distraction, because it involves all three types of distraction
• 20% of injury crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving
• The under 20 age group had the greatest proportion of distracted drivers
• Drivers who use a handheld device were four times likely to be involved in crashes serious enough to injure themselves.

Anything that takes your eyes, hands or mind off the task of driving is considered a distraction.  The higher the level of distraction, like text messaging, the better the likelihood that the distraction will play a role in a serious injury causing crash.

Any app or function that reduces or eliminates distractions  clearly promotes safer driving.  Among all the voice to text apps and functions, Siri would appear to hold the most promise.  However, while Siri and other 3rd party voice to text apps may reduce the amount of visual and manual distraction involved in sending a text message, they do not entirely eliminate all the distractions that can contribute to a car wreck.  The more a user is required to look at his device or physically input information into his device, the more visual, manual, and cognitive distraction that occurs.  The more distractions, the bigger the risk of an injury causing wreck.

Remember the safest way to drive is to avoid all distractions, including using your cell phone, whether or not you use Siri or other third party apps.  Do not under any circumstances manually text message someone while driving since this act is the most distracting, most dangerous and likely illegal.

Women More Likely to Get Hurt in Car Wrecks Even When Wearing Seatbelts.

Women More Likely to Be Hurt in Car Wrecks

US News just reported on findings by the American Journal of Public Health that revealed that women who wore seatbelts were more likely then men who wore seatbelts to be injured in car wrecks.  The report only looked at cars from 1998 to 2008, so newer cars may not provide the same results.

According to the report women were 47% m0re likely to be injured then men.  However, men were still more likely to die in a crash.  The reason?  Experts believe that women’s smaller size makes them more vulnerable due to their seating position and interaction with the safety restraints.

While newer safety technology may or may not reduce these findings, the fact remains that both men and women will continue to be injured in car wrecks.  The fact that cars are safer, doesn’t eliminate all injuries.  That’s because the dynamics of car wrecks still involve an intolerable amount of stress to the human body.  The human body simply is not designed to undergo impacts such as those in car wrecks.

Cars are a relatively recent industrial phenomenon.  The fact that cars have drastically improved in both design and safety does not remove the fact that a collision causes significant stress and force to the human body.  While seatbelts, headrests, and airbags have reduced the chance of the human body impacting hard stationary object in cars, they have not reduced the force at which the human body travels before it hits the restraint.

Safety features are a good thing and they continue to reduce the likelihood that someone in a car wreck will be seriously injured or killed.  However, that does not necessarily mean that they prevent all injuries.  Don’t be surprised if studies continue to show that injuries and deaths continue to occur in car wrecks no matter what safety features are involved.   Unfortunately, for women who are generally smaller then men, their size and muscle build may make them more likely to be injured in a car wreck, even while wearing a seatbelt.

How to Transport Children in Cars Safely

Transport Your Child Safely

USA Today recently published an article discussing a recent study by  the non-profit group Safe Kids USA that shows that most parents aren’t using child seats correctly. Only 30% are using the tether straps that keep the tops of child seats — and children’s heads — secured in crashes, and many are not using the safest seats for their children’s ages.

In light of this report USA Today published a follow-up article showing How to Transport Children Safely.  The article discusses the appropriate stages of child car safety from rear facing car seats to booster chairs for younger children, and when each is appropriate.  According to the guidelines:

• Children should ride in the back, facing the rear in safety seats until they are 2 or until they exceed the weight limits of the safety seat.
• Children above the age of two should ride in the back in forward facing safety seats until they exceed the weight limits.
• Children who have exceeded the height and weight limits of safety seats should ride in a booster seat until the lap and shoulder belts fit property, usually between 8 and 12.
• Seat belts fit correctly when the child can remain with his or her back against the seat and the knees bend naturally over the edge of the seat.  The lap belt should fit comfortably across the hips and the shoulder belt across the mid chest.
• Children under 13 are 40% safer in the back seat, whether or not they have airbags.  Never put a rear facing child safety seat near an active air bag.

These are must read articles for parents who transport children in cars and who might be unsure how their children should be secured or whether or not their child is ready to move to the next safety level.

Data Shows Health Insurance Denial Rates Routinely 20%

Bad News Regarding Your Health Insurance

USA Today posts an article on data compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) pursuant to the recently passed health care law, showing the denial rates for health insurance.  Using this data a Government Accountability Office study of 459 insurers published earlier this year found an average of 19% of applicants nationally were denied coverage.  The study showed a wide range of denial rates.  A quarter of insurers had denial rates of 15% or below and a quarter had rates of 40% or higher.

The article noted that a House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation into four large for-profit insurers last year found that the denial rates have steadily increased from 11.9% in 2007 to 15.3% in 2009. The companies reviewed were Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealthcare and WellPoint.

The article quotes Kentucky resident Amanda Hite who says she felt “really healthy” when she applied recently for health insurance. But Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield denied her, because she had seen a chiropractor a few months earlier for a sore back and later had visited an emergency room because of back pain.  Hite’s case isn’t unusual. Many of the plans offered by Anthem Blue Cross in Kentucky reject about one in five applicants, according to data provided by insurers to the HHS. Rival insurers in the state have even higher denial rates: Humana rejects 26% to 39% of applications in Kentucky, while UnitedHealthcare denies 38% to 43%.

This is yet another example of how insurance companies seek to avoid risk.  Health insurance companies only want to insure healthy people who don’t use their benefits.  Car insurance companies only want to insure people who don’t get into accidents.  The difference?  Well, most states require insurance companies to offer minimum car insurance, while also requiring all drivers to have this minimum insurance.  Health insurance companies for the most part were not so obligated.  However, the recent Health Care Law bans health insurance companies from denying coverage for health reasons starting in 2014.

Insurance companies are in the risk business.  The more risk a person has, the more premiums that person will pay to offset the risk the insurance company takes on by insuring that person.  Mandatory insurance requirements favor consumers, because they inherently spread the risk among a larger group of people, while denying insurance companies the luxury of cherry picking only those consumers who carry the lowest risk.

Good Neighbors Are Hard to Find When It Comes to Insurance.

Good Neighbors Are Hard To Find When Filing Claims

By now we’ve all seen the commercials where some catastrophe befalls an insurance customer for a national insurance company.  Surprisingly, the customer is not too worried.  They sing a little jingle about “good neighbors” and poof! an insurance representative shows up to handle the situation.  This representative calls the person by name and tells them not to worry, they will handle whatever problem has presented itself.

The commercial is meant to give the viewer the impression that if you have insurance with this particular insurance company that any problems you might have will be met by a known, friendly, and helpful insurance agent.   This scenario couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Consider a typical situation when you first buy car insurance.  You go to a local insurance agent and request insurance for your car.  You might have had a previous relationship with this agent over many years.  He is a representative of the insurance company.  The agent’s job is to take down some information, have you fill out the necessary paperwork, and submit your application, along with your first month’s premium to the insurance company.  He then receives compensation in the form of commissions based on each application he submits that is later approved by the insurance company.  Your interaction with an insurance agent is likely to be very pleasant.  Does this commercial show anything remotely similar?

Now consider a typical situation when you file a claim against an insurance company after some type of loss, such as a car crash.  This might be your insurance company or somebody else’s.  You get a call from the insurance company adjuster who says he will be handling your claim.  It is doubtful you have ever met this person before.  Unlike the agent who is an independent representative of the insurance company, the adjuster is an employee.  He is paid a salary by the insurance company.  His job is to get information about your claim, review the damage (called adjusting), and then offer to settle your claim.   Your interaction with an insurance adjuster isn’t likely to be as pleasant.  But, the commercial comes a lot closer to showing this scenario doesn’t it?

The purpose of the commercial is to make you identify with something about insurance that you like, such as your insurance agent, while giving you the impression that your agent is involved in the claims process.  Well, they aren’t.  The unknown, potentially adverse, and likely biased insurance adjuster is.

The insurance agent facilitates  your purchase of insurance with the insurance company.  The adjuster is the insurance company. The insurance adjuster’s job is not to facilitate anything, but to make sure the insurance company doesn’t pay out anything unless it has to, and only then as a little as possible.  Insurance companies don’t make money paying out claims.

But what if you disagree with the adjuster about the value of your claim?  What if you believe the adjuster is improperly delaying or denying your claim?  What if you think the adjuster is being unfair?  What if you think the adjuster has undervalued your car, or other property?  Do you think the insurance company is acting like a good neighbor then?

Don’t be fooled by commercials or catchy jingles.  Insurance companies are in business to make money.  They do not make money by paying out more on claims than they take in on premiums.  Adjusters know this.  The next time you suffer a casualty loss or turn in an insurance claim, remember no amount of catchy singing is going to make your dealing with the insurance company pleasant.  When you ask an insurance company to settle your claim remember good neighbors are hard to find.

Ky. Supreme Court Asked to Allow Damages in Wrongful Death Case Involving Early-Term Fetus

Kentucky Supreme Court

The Courier Journal reports on the case of Desiree Amber Stevens who, along with her 14 week old unborn fetus, was killed when another driver caused a horrific crash.  The driver and Progressive Direct, Steven’s insurance carrier, settled the wrongful death claim filed on her behalf by her father, Thomas Stevens.  However, both the driver and Progressive Direct refused to pay damages for the wrongful death of  Steven’s fetus.  Circuit Court Judge Thomas Jones upheld this decision, writing; “Harsh as it seems, damages for a nonviable fetus are not recoverable.”

The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the Judge’s ruling, the second time in two years it has denied damages for the negligent death of an early-term fetus.  This decision is in accordance with other Kentucky decisions that have rejected damages for a nonviable fetuses, generally defined as those that are less than 24 weeks.  Tom Stevens has now asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

Perhaps Mr. Steven’s attorney, J.T. Gilbert, said it best; “It is important to protect the rights of anybody who is injured and to hold the wrongdoer accountable.”

Had the conduct of the offending driver been criminal, she could have been convicted of a homicide under Kentucky’s fetal homicide law.  It seems completely arbitrary for Kentucky to hold that the death of an unviable fetus can form the basis of a legal action against someone, but that same act, if only negligent, cannot.

It is time for Kentucky to join that the other nine states who recognize the right to recover damages for the negligent death of a fetus, regardless of whether or not it is viable.