A ban on texting while driving is not new. Seventeen states including Maryland, New Jersey and California already have such bans; in California the fine is $20 for the first offense.

A recent survey from Nationwide Insurance shows that nearly 80% of U.S. adults support laws banning text messaging while driving,

The survey of 1,008 Americans, found most were in favor of a texting ban. Surprisingly, this was rated high among young drivers born between 1977 and 1988. 

According to Nationwide associate vice president, Bill Windsor, in a recent WSJ article,

Generation Y’s support for driving-while-texting bans — a hot-button topic that has gotten considerable attention in recent weeks — was unexpectedly strong.

Another discrepancy in the texting debate is the contrast of views among drivers from the Northeast and West compared to drivers from the Midwest and the South.

93% of Northeasterners say yes to texting bans, compared with 72% of Southerners — something Mr. Windsors attributes to more congested traffic conditions on the East and West coasts. Drivers in the Northeast and South, however, were the most likely to say they often see other drivers on the phone.

Our message is that safety comes first. The texting while driving debate is going to heat up in Florida.  We look forward to sharing helpful information to readers that will keep our roadways safe. Let us know what you think of the texting while driving ban. We are interested in hearing from our readers on this important topic.

Read the following to lean more on the Texting while driving ban in Parkland and the Nationwide Insurance Survey on Texting while Driving.

As we mentioned previously on the Injury Law Blog, this law was named after two young teens tragically killed in a car accident that were not wearing seatbelts. It is believed that they would not have died, if they were wearing seatbelts when the accident occurred. Traffic Safety Champion, and former state representative, Irv Slosberg, said in a recent interview  "This new law is a major victory on the roads".

Capt. Patrick Kenny, of the traffic division in the Palm beach County Sheriff's Office, is in favor of the new law. According to a recent interview on the new Florida Seat belt law, with the Palm Beach Post, he stated the following:

"It's long overdue. Everybody knows that wearing seat belts, they do save lives. Making it the primary reason for a traffic stop gives us the ability to write more citations and make people aware that they need to wear a seat belt."
 

Data from NHTSA on Crash Safety Facts, shows that Florida ranked three in the nation, in 2007 with 3,214 deaths due to car accidents. Texas came in at number two with 3363 car accident related deaths and California came in at number one with 3974 car accident related deaths. 

Let's hope the passage of this new Florida seat belt law will help cut the numbers of unnecessary car accident deaths down in Florida.  It will be interesting to compare our numbers from this year after the seatbelt law goes into place with next year's data. Time will tell if the traffic deaths will continue in a downward direction.

 Important facts regarding Florida's seat belt laws: 

* At all times, passengers in the front seat must wear a seatbelt.

* At all times, any and all rear passenger under the age of 18 must wear a seatbelt.

* At all times, children ages 3 years and younger must be secured in a child restraint seat that is federally approved.

* At all times, children ages 4-5 years must be secured either by a seatbelt or a federally approved child restraint seat.  It is important to note that this can include the use of a booster seat in conjunction with the vehicle seatbelt.

* Drivers of vehicles are responsible for ensuring that children in the vehicle are properly buckled into their seats or using the required restraint devices, there are no exceptions.

In an effort to see how a few Personal Injury Attorneys in our law firm viewed witness videotaping, I shared Mr. Barnett's post and the post from Deliberations,  entitled "Why your witness did not get better after watching herself on videotape"., and asked for feedback.

I found the comments from my Attorneys insightful and decided to share a few thoughts on the subject from Brian F. LaBovick and Mark A. Greenberg.

Managing Partner, Brian F. LaBovick, provided the the following comments on the subject:

"We all understand ourselves!  How many times have you gotten into a fight with your loved one where you said one thing and they heard another?  I am sure the answer is plenty.  It is the same reason why witnesses who view themselves on video don't get better. We can't judge ourselves because we understand what we said in the first place.  

In our firm, we believe training witnesses needs objective help. Objective help can't be the lawyer or his/her paralegal training the client.  Objective evidence can be a paid expert; someone who can teach the client how to improve. Objective analysis can include watching yourself on video while at the same time watching mock juror's response to the client. Observing jurors reactions, and or polling them to discuss what they felt during the testimony is the best. It hurts to hear sometimes, but the juror's "truth" is all that counts at trial. It is better to be prepared now, than to be blindsided when the final Verdict is read in court!"

• Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets
• Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets
• Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Caplets
• Hydroxycut Max Liquid Caplets
• Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets
• Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets
• Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix)
• Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets
• Hydroxycut Liquid Shots
• Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink)
• Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed
• Hydroxycut 24
• Hydroxycut Carb Control
• Hydroxycut Natural

If you have taken these products and are experiencing side effects, contact your doctor. It is better to err on the side of caution and discontinue use of the product. This could help save your life and prevent fatal results.

As a Florida law firm, LaBovick & LaBovick, PA handles personal injury claims from accidents.  We have worked with most insurance, if not all insurance companies, when working on behalf of our injured clients. This post does not mean to bash insurance companies or suggest not purchase insurance. There have been several instances where a client's Uninsured Motorist policy had to kick in, because the person responsible for the automobile accident, had no coverage or insufficient coverage.  It is wise, to have a good insurance agent that you trust and respect, to write an insurance policy. Personally, I have been with my Insurance Agent for 20 years.

Proper coverage is so critical to a driver on Florida's roadways. If you are involved in an accident, and the other party responsible does not have coverage, you will wish that you would have taken out the Uninsured motorist coverage for the extra few hundred a year.  It can save you lots of headaches in the future, if you are injured in an automobile accident. Talk to your agent about proper coverage for your vehicle.

All insurance carriers are not equal.  Some are better than others and some are worse. The AAJ took a look at several insurance carriers and came up with a list of the top ten worst insurance companies. They investigated court documents, records from the FBI and the SEC, Complaints and investigations from State Insurance departments, testimony and deposition from former agents and adjusters, and new accounts from around the country.  The final comprehensive list of the top ten worst include automobile insurers, homeowners insurers, health insurers, life insurers and disability insurers.

There are a few well know advertising insurance companies are absent from the AAJ list they are AFLAC, GEICO, and Progressive.  They must be doing something right, if they managed to avoid the list.

Did you know that the insurance industry takes over $1 trillion annually in insurance premiums? The insurance industry also, has more than $3.8 trillion in assets, according to the Insurance Information Institute. One would think that with all of this money, why on earth would the insurance industry have to deny benefits to clients that were entitled to them.  There is only one thing that comes to mind and that is corporate greed.

In this five part series, we will look at the insurance industry, discuss companies on the ten worst insurance company list and give readers a fresh perspective as to what the companies are doing to improve public opinion and to service customers.

According to the AAJ, the following companies ranked as the top ten worst insurance companies:

1. Allstate
2. Unum
3. AIG
4. State Farm
5. Conseco
6. WellPoint
7. Farmers
8. United Health
9. Torchmark
10. Liberty Mutual

Stay tuned for part two of the series on "he worst ten insurance companies" and what every consumer needs to know when choosing an insurance provider.

Read the PDF of the AAJ's "Ten Worst Insurance Companies"

The lawsuit stemmed from a discovery of unsafe levels of lead paint found in Mattel toy products that were on store shelves between September 2006 and August 2007. According to the CPSC, nearly 100 varied items were included in the lawsuits, representing several million individual pieces. Mattel issued a recall for the products, which included such popular toy brands as Barbie, Doggie Day Care, Dora the Explorer, and Polly Pocket. Other toys that were recalled included items associated with characters from Sesame Street and the movie Cars.

Parents have every right to feel anxiety about high levels of lead in toys. The CPSC says that lead in paint can cause irreversible brain damage, increased blood pressure, decreased muscle coordination, nerve damage, and reproductive harm in both children and adults. Parents who fear that their children may have been exposed to lead based paint should arrange for lead poisoning screening. Early treatments may reverse the effects of lead poisoning, while prolonged exposure to lead or lack of adequate care may cause permanent damage.

Though some parents have vowed to only allow their children to use organic, unpainted toys, this is an effective but unnecessary step at lead exposure prevention. In order to decrease the contact children may have to possible lead based toys, parents should stay abreast of all product recalls. The CPSC keeps an updated list of all recalled toys at on the Consumer Products Safety Commission website under recalls. Parents should check this site regularly if they are at all concerned about possible lead contamination. Parents should also frequently examine toys and remove those that have chipped or peeling paint, as ingested or inhaled lead is the chief cause of damage. Parents should also attempt to keep children from biting or sucking on painted toys.
 

While the percentage of motorists wearing seatbelts has increased over the last several years, Florida’s percentage of those that adhere to seatbelt laws is still below the national average. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that the national percentage of seatbelt use in 2008 was 83 percent. In Florida, the percentage of seatbelt use in 2008 was just under 82 percent. Even though Florida’s seatbelt use percentage is close to the national average, 1 in 5 drivers still do not wear their seatbelts according to the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). Furthermore, the Florida DOT states that 3 out of 5 motor vehicle fatalities are the result of a failure to buckle up.

Florida joins 28 other states plus the District of Columbia with the passage of th new primary seatbelt law that will allow Florida law enforcement officers to pull over and ticket motorists for simply not wearing their seatbelts. No other type of violation will be necessary under the new seatbelt law for Florida law enforcement officers to make a traffic stop. When the driver or any passengers in the vehicle are not wearing their seatbelts, a Florida law enforcement officer will have a legal right to pull over the car and ticket those not wearing their seatbelts. The state fine for a seatbelt violation will be $30, and each county may impose additional fines and court fees as well.

According to Florida Governor Charlie Crist, "The most important function of government is to protect." With that said, Governor Crist signed into law the Dori Slosberg and Katie Marchetti Safety Belt Law. The Florida Highway Patrol predicts that at least 124 individuals will be saved each year as a result of the state’s new seatbelt law. It is important for drivers and their passengers to be aware of these changes to the state’s seatbelt laws, and drivers should ensure that they and their passengers are buckled up before hitting the Florida roadways beginning June 30.

Check out  the Governor's Highway Safety Association website to learn more about the various state seatbelt safety laws.
 

One significant highlight this year is the Supreme Court 6-3 decision in favor of Diana Levine, in Wyeth v. Levine. The Supreme Court decision held that FDA drug regulation does not preempt common law claims for damages under state law. A major step in the right direction.

Additional highlights include three important new bills that were introduced on Capitol Hill:

The Nursing Home Arbitration Act , introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Linda Sanchez (HR 1237) and in the Senate by Sen. Mel Martinez (S. 512). These bills would prohibit binding mandatory arbitration agreements in nursing home contracts, safeguarding the legal rights of an all too vulnerable population.

The Sunshine in Litigation Act , introduced by Senators Herb Kohl and Lindsey Graham (S. 537). The Sunshine in Litigation Act, is a bill to restrict protective orders and secrecy agreements in Federal cases where the result of such agreements would be to withhold public health and safety information from the public.

The Medical Device Safety Act, introduced in the Senate by Senators Kennedy and Leahy (S. 540) and in the House by Representatives Waxman and Pallone (HR 1346). This bill will restore the rights of patients injured by faulty medical devices – a right patients lost last year as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Riegel v. Medtronic.

Although these bills are a step in the right direction, there is much work to be done. We can only hope that it is made clear that Congress does not intend for FDA regulation to preempt claims against device manufacturers.

Last but not least is The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009  introduced by Rep. Hank Johnson (HR 1020) in early February. This bill will eliminate unfair binding mandatory arbitration contracts in consumer agreements.

Let's see what the future continues to hold for consumer friendly legislation.

In Homa v. American Express Company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejects the credit card company's arguments that federal preemption, its mandatory arbitration clause banning class actions, and the Utah choice-of-law provision in American Express's agreement would allow it to bar New Jersey consumers from bringing class actions against it. The decision also dismisses -- as inapplicable dicta -- language in an earlier Third Circuit decision that has prompted several U.S. district courts in New Jersey to dismiss class actions in the last year. Companies throughout America have been using language from this earlier Third Circuit case to argue that the lower courts disagree about -- and the U.S. Supreme Court must decide -- whether state laws preserving class actions are preempted, i.e., wiped out, by federal law.

This decision has a huge impact on consumer issues including mass torts and deceptive and unfair trade practices that are practiced by large corporations.

Click here to read the decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

This case argues that Snyder, Attorney for the Reliance Insurance Company, assisted and participated in a tort against Hi-Health and its owner Mr. Chalpin, when the company refused to cover a driver-at-fault accident involving Mr. Chalpin’s daughter. Mr. Chalpin’s daughter was covered under the company policy as an occasional employee.

Two additional points of note are that 1) Reliance initially accepted the claim, and 2) Snyder initially held that the claim was valid. It was not until the claim exceeded a five million dollar expense that Reliance sought to disallow the claim. In fact, Snyder advised Reliance Insurance to sue their insured, Mr. Chalpin as a means of minimizing the value of the policy and thus reducing the acceptable settlement amount in the accident claim.

Two courts dismissed motions for summary judgment filed by Hi-Health and allowed the case to go to trial. Their reason was that the evidence as presented raised a credibility issue that was best decided by jury.

The subsequent appeal noted that the credibility issue would not have been present if Snyder had addressed the points of the suit in the motion. In short, Hi-Health claimed that Snyder knew that Reliance had improperly revisited its original decision to cover Mr. Chalpin’s daughter only after it realized the amount of exposure the company would suffer and that the subsequent suit was in fact an effort to shift its losses.

The court noted that Reliance failed to avail itself of a number of alternatives when issuing the original coverage, including modified coverage and deeper initial investigation of the person covered. The fact that Snyder was aware of these options, and initially held that the coverage was legitimate, was Snyder’s undoing.

Under general rule, “a lawyer is subject to liability to a client or non-client when a non-lawyer would be in similar circumstance.” Moreover, “when a lawyer advises or assists a client in acts that subject the civil liability to others, those others may seek to hold the lawyer liable along with or instead of the client.” (Paragraph 45 of the ruling) Thus, the court held that Snyder, due to active involvement in the misdirection of the case and its subsequent motions, was indeed liable and that aiding and abetting was a valid cause of action.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s orders dismissing the aiding and abetting claims and granted summary judgment of the malicious prosecution claim.

Ironically, if Reliance Insurance had authorized the original settlement amount, consistent with the coverage obtained by the policyholder, this case would never have gone to trial.

Voting in America is easy. Because of that, many people take their right to vote for granted. How often do we hear about "elections" in far away lands where there is only one party running? How often do we hear about military juntas hunting down opposition voters and terrorizing or killing them to keep their party in power? How many countries are affected by election or voter fraud? There are too many, far too often. 

Here in America we have peaceful organized and honest voting. We have such smooth elections that our voting right is now boring. This is especially true for the primary elections. What was the worst voting problem to happen during an American election in the past decade? Do you recall the hanging Chad? Thankfully, no one rushed to pick up arms and start shooting at the Republicans or Democrats. You may laugh, but that is exactly what could happen in many places around the world.

I believe every citizen has more then just the right to vote. I believe we each have an obligation to vote. We live in the "freest" country in the world. It takes no longer then 15 minutes to vote. You only need to vote once or twice every few years. Your vote is the easiest formal action you can take to insure the freedom of our great land.

Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Independent, I don't care. Exercise your right to vote. I recognize you are one vote among millions and millions. It does not matter. Your vote can make a difference.

Thanks for exercising your freedom to vote.

Stepping off the soapbox!

Brian

The consumer rights organization, American Association of Justice, released the comprehensive report, The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America: How They Raise Premiums, Deny Claims, and Refuse Insurance to Those Who Need It Most." This report highlights 10 of the worst insurance companies for consumers based criteria such as, SEC and FBI records, testimony from former insurance agents and adjusters, court documents and more. 

The report ends with making a call for "Pro-Consumer Insurance Reforms" and making a suggestion for the following three points:

1. Require Insurers to Work in Good Faith

2. Require Prior Approval of Rate Increases 

3. Establish an Insurance Consumer Advocate

The remainder of the top 10 list of worst insurance companies for consumers is rounded out by the following:

1. UNUM, - Disability Insurance, Life insurance, supplemental and accident insurance
2. AIG,  - Auto insurance, life insurance, accident and health insurance,  property and casualty
3. State Farm, - Auto, life, health, home owners insurance and health insurance
4. Conseco, - Health Insurance, Life Insurance and Annuities
5. WellPoint, - Health benefits Company
6. Farmers Insurance  - Auto, Life and Homeowners Insurance
7. UnitedHealth, - Health care Insurance
8. Torchmark, - Holding Company offering life and supplemental health insurance
9. Liberty Mutual - Auto, Life, Homeowners and Commercial Insurance.

Over the past 16 years, I have handled thousands of Personal Injury cases against several of the companies on this list and a host of others.  I can attest firsthand that some companies are better than others at handling claims for their Insured and helping the needs of the injured.

I find it no surprise that Allstate made the top of the list, nor am I not surprised by the findings of the report: The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America". I do find it strange however, that the insurance companies are so quick to harm and work against the interest of their own insured clients.

Randy David, blogger for Gotcha Covered, wrote the post Is Allstate the Worst Insurer in America? He added to the discussion that "the designation is not surprising, given the ongoing war between the insurer and trial lawyers over auto insurance accident claims." 

David Gottlieb, blogger for No Fault Paradise, wrote the post, Top Ten Insurance worst Insurance Companies for Consumers.  He has some pretty interesting comments on his blog regarding the post.  Great discussions on the subject of the insurance industry and how premiums are increasing at an alarming rate faster than the incurred losses for the Insurance carriers.

John Day, blogger for Day on Torts, wrote the post, Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America and listed the top 10 Insurance companies that were in the AAJ report.

I look forward to see how the Insurance Companies and the public respond to this AAJ report on their industry that outlines how consistently they put profits over their policyholders.

 After reading the AAJ report, I would love to hear from consumers on how they feel their insurance company is treating them.  Has the report made you think differently about your provider?

I welcome comments...

When told of the news of Judge Winikoff's death, Attorney Carl Wald, stated "Judge Winikoff is one of the finest Judges I  have ever appeared before. The Judiciary has lost one of its finest, but his memory will live on forever."

Funeral Services for Judge Winikoff  will be held Friday at 12:30 p.m. at the Beth Israel Memorial Chapel, 11115 Jog Road west of Boynton Beach, with burial afterward at Eternal Light Memorial Gardens, 11520 State Road 7 west of Boynton Beach.

This sad and untimely loss raises the importance of supporting the American Heart Association. If you want to find out more on how you can get involved or support the American Heart Association, contact your local American Heart Association office today.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to all of the family and friends of Judge Winikoff. The Sun-Sentinel has a Guest Book in honor of Judge Winikoff. Loved ones and members of the Community give their heartfelt sympathies to the Winikoff family.  Click on the following Sun-Sentinel Guestbook link to add your words of encouragement to the family.

It is important to note that the Florida Legislature regulates court fees and not local officials. The Court fees have not been adjusted since 2004. The list includes Traffic Court Information such as Speeding Ticket fines. If you are always in a hurry and get a lot of speeding tickets, it will cost you a lot more for speeding.  Driving 20 miles over the Speed Limit will cost you at least 231 and driving 30 miles over the Speed Limit will cost you $331. Ouch... That is a $100 difference between 10 miles.  Be wise and don't Speed.

If you take the Florida Turnpike or other Toll Highways and fail to pay the toll, it will now cost you $181, plus the toll amount.  Keep your Sunpass Transponder updated and fully loaded.  Otherwise, the Florida Turnpike and our Toll Highways will start to become just as painful as it is to fill up your pump.  Be Wise, keep change in your car and keep your Sunpass funded. The auto-replenishment method, is starting to sound like a bargain.

 Click on the following link to view a list of the new court fees. 

The court, in its first few paragraphs, related the story of the Dalkon Shield, an intrauterine device that harmed thousands of women. The court made a broad accusation that the Dalkon Shield created a barrage of tort lawsuits that proved the common law tort system (read: American System of Justice) is defective and unable to properly handle tort claims related to medical devices. The court gave no basis for this opinion, except for the fact that there were many tort claims filed because thousands of woman here harmed by the Dalkon Shield. For most of America the Dalkon Shield cases were proof, similar to Ford Pinto cases, that Corporate profit motives outweigh human safety all too often, even with Federal oversight.

Are medical devices so special that they get special handling or special rules compared to any other "device" produced today. If the court system cannot properly handle medical devices then why it is able to handle front-end loaders that have a "device defect" that kills people. Why can the court properly handle tire defect cases, roof crush, seat belt failures, or any other "non-medical" device that harms people? It is illogical. The only logical position is that medical devices interact with the human body in a more intimate and significant way so they need additional protection from lawsuits. I feel the exact opposite. The fact that a medical device is such an intimate thing leads me to believe that the law should garner the human participant in using the medical device MORE not LESS protection from device defects.

The language of 21. U.S.C. section 360 states as follows:
Except as provided in subsection (b) see below of this section, no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement (emphasis added) -
(1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and
(2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter." Section 360k(a).
(The exception noted in subsection (b) allows the FDA some latitude in giving local and State government oversight in some limited instances, which were not covered by the court in the opinion.)

Justice Ginsberg noted this exact point in her dissent but was preempted in the argument by Justice Scalia in his controlling opinion with the indictment that the entire tort system is not deserving of "preservation" and that "juries...see(s) only the cost of a more dangerous design, and is not concerned with its benefits..."

Juries are given both sides of a matter. Drug and medical device companies spend significant money on hiring the best and brightest lawyers money can buy. The typical medical device case has a small law office representing the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s attorney usually attended a local or state college and a local law school. He or she may have graduated in the middle of their class and may have a paralegal and a legal secretary helping out on the case. I am sure the attorney is bright and passionate. If that attorney is lucky, he or she may even have an associate with the same legal pedigree. By contrast, the Drug or Medical Device Company has a team of legal scholars at their disposal. Most of their team, a team of maybe 10 or 20 attorneys and a cadre of paralegal assistants, investigators and legal secretaries all graduated at the top of their class from the best law schools in the nation. They are a highly trained and well-paid group of white shoe legal assassins. There is no doubt in my mind the battle is David vs. Goliath and the Plaintiff’s attorney is the David in this story. It is only the fact that the jury often finds truth and passion in the Plaintiff’s story that permits plaintiff’s to ever win a case. Justice Scalia’s argument relies on the myth that Plaintiff attorneys are a secret society of Svengali’s who use Jedi mind control to blind the jurors into believing their side of the case. That is just ridiculous and I am sure every egocentric defense attorney looks at Justice Scalia’s opinion as a direct insult.

The court directly took up the challenge that the legislature did not intentionally, without any comment, struck down any reference to public redress or access to the court system. Justice Scalia says that is "exactly what pre-emption clause for medical devices does by its terms. The operation of law enacted by Congress need not be seconded by a committee report on pain of judicial nullification... It is not our job to speculate on congressional motives."

Then why go out of your way to force the issue and push for Federal pre-emption?
A casual reader may think that the opinion is only about Medical Devices. However, how long will that last? How simple will it  be for Congress to slip in Federal oversight preemption language into bill after bill until all torts are preempted by Federal oversight. It is against my Republican sensibilities to create Federal agencies to oversee private industry so that private industry can escape liability for harming the public with a faulty or defective product.

I am sure the burden on the court system will be greatly lightened when individuals can’t obtain  help for their injuries. Certainly if we do not permit people to bring lawsuits there will be less lawsuits. However, what is the effect of that? I wonder who pay the medical costs associated with the injury. Will the person's health carrier have to pay? What if they do not have health insurance? Will the local hospital and doctors care for the person? How much is the Federal Government willing to spend to take care of those harmed by the negligence of corporations whose products are sold to our people, our children without the worry that the company can be held accountable for injuring those people? With regard to many medical devices, we are going to find out real soon.

Brian

Click here to read the Supreme Court decision for Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U. S. ___ (2008)

New Jersey is among four other states, New York, California, Connecticut and Washington, D.C., to have such laws. According to a survey done by Nationwide Insurance, 73 percent of drivers use cell phones and 20 percent text while driving. The New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed the legislation giving police more authority to target drivers using hand-held cell phones, and making it illegal to send text messages while driving - distractions legislators contend make for risky driving. The law however, allows drivers to use hands free devices to talk on the phone.

Do Hands Free devices make the roads safer? According to reports from the transportation officials, nearly half of the 3,580 phone-related crashes in New Jersey involved a hands-free device, Five of 11 fatal accidents involving a cell phone that year also involved a hands-free device. This data was from 2006. Russ Rader of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said those figures are consistent with recent research showing no difference in crash risk between hand-held and hands-free cell phones.

Although, Florida has not joined the pack in banning texting and cell phone use without a hands free device, We urge you to use caution and common sense.  If you are driving, pay attention to the road and do not text and drive.  If you must send a text, pull over, stop driving and send your text message. After you are finished, compose yourself and proceed with caution to get back on the highway if you have pulled over.  If you do not have one, go out and purchase a hands free device for your cell phone. However, as the statistics above show, driving while not concentrating can cause accidents even with a hands free device.  Always exercise caution while driving and talking.  Your primary focus should be operating your vehicle safely and paying attention to what is happening on the roadway, not your phone conversation, which can be a distraction.

Click here to read more on texting and cell phone use bans from 6ABC.com, AP and the Gainesville Sun

I recently read a Washington Post.com article Telecom Firms' Need For Immunity Stressed.  The article made me think of how the path to hell can be paved with good intentions.  How often are actions that are meant to do good, in the end lead to disaster? The post 9/11 terrorist / "Patriot act" / Telecom Immunity is exactly that type of mentality. If we continue to follow President Bush to restrict our right to privacy then we might as well congratulate Osama Bin Laden on winning the war, because the war isn't about oil, money or land. The war is about the idea of freedom. The beautiful thought of freedom.

In the closed societies of the Taliban, Hammas and many other places in the world people do not have the freedom to speak, to organize, to freely think in the privacy of their own homes. They can't talk out about the government without facing criminal sanctions. In fact, this Blog may deserve a jail sentence in many parts of the world. We must realize that our need for security is balanced by our need to keep the freedoms we take for granted alive. We must be diligent not to let these rights slip away under our noses while we hunt for terrorist threats. This isn't to say I don't believe in the terrorist threat, I just believe we need to play by our own rules in catching them in our own country. Changing the rules to hunt for terrorists leads to changing the rules to hunt for criminals, which leads to changing the rules for you and me.

As a former prosecutor with the Department of Justice, also married to a former prosecutor, that has complete trust and faith in our system, albeit imperfect, I am not ready to change the rules on privacy so quickly.

Off the soapbox:

Brian

Click here to read more on Phone firm phones and immunity to privacy suits by the Washington Post.com and the recent article Telecom Firms' Need For Immunity Stressed in the Washington Post.com