[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
PoliticsOL.com Editorial - Week of May 13, 2001
Driving While Talking: The Cell Phone Debate
We've probably all had it happen to us more times than we'd like to remember. Without warning, someone cuts in front of us, veers
over the line, runs a red-light or a stop-sign -- all the while talking on a cell phone.
It didn't take long before all sorts of studies were published, almost all purporting how much more likely it is to cause an accident if you are talking on a cell phone. Soon after, communities across the country began taking aim at such drivers, armed with the studies.
Legislation such as mandatory seat belt can be argued as good public laws -- and they save lives. So, could stiffer penalties imposed on drivers cited for driving while talking on a cell phone.
But, what smacks of political shilling is when legislators propose laws allowing insurance companies to ask whether you have a cell phone when writing you an auto insurance policy. Insurers argue that such persons are more likely to eventually
use the cell phone while driving at some point and, therefore, are a higher risk to insure. But, using that flawed logic, so are men with battery-operated shavers, women who wear makeup, parents of young children who are unruly, drivers who like to fumble with the radio, etc.
What differentiates all these other so-called 'risks' from the cell phone debate, is that the insurers are often the groups that pay for the studies used to promote the legislation, then target cell phone owners because it is easier to identify them as such on a policy. The same basic argument was made by insurers who would ask if a driver smoked (and, therefore, was more likely to have one hand on the wheel).
Insurance companies frequently fund the cost to cities of red-light cameras. Why? Because the more drivers caught, the more drivers that will have an extra 'point' on their record -- and pay higher premiums. Now, insurers see another cash-cow with the cell phone debate.
If legislators want to craft laws to punish or deter drivers from using cell phones while driving as a public safety issue -- fine. Just don't allow insurers to penalize such drivers -- or even be permit them to ask whether a prospective policyholder has a cell phone.
If a politician argues otherwise, you better check their campaign coffers. They are likely to be filled with insurance industry donations.
PoliticsOL.com reserves the right to shorten or to edit letters for clarity. Only signed letters will be considered for publication. (i.e., include name, city & state of residence)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
