ILNews

Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana: Don't use cell phone while driving!

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


OK, the information you are about to read may save your life! Yes, that is correct, and your families, colleagues, and even your clients will thank you for reading this article. After all, none of them want you to be injured or killed while making a cellular call, texting, or e-mailing. Cell phone use while driving, no matter your age, is dangerous.

On Jan. 12, 2009, the National Safety Council called upon "motorists to stop using cell phones and messaging devices while driving." The NSC reported that "a study from the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis estimates that cell phone use while driving contributes to 6 percent of crashes, which equates to 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries, and 2,600 deaths each year." See also Insurance Information Institute's February 2003 article "Cell Phones and Driving" and Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 2009 article "Text Messaging During Simulated Driving."

My observations during the past month have pushed me onto the proverbial soap box. Picture what I witnessed the other morning: a 30-something male driving in morning traffic at speeds up to 30 mph. He traveled through three traffic lights without ever touching the steering wheel because his hands and eyes were glued to his PDA. He was completely oblivious to his surroundings, including me in the vehicle next to him, at all three lights. I watched in disgust and horror because, having children of my own, I feared he would repeat this behavior when his young child was in the clearly visible car seat.

Another incident involved a colleague of mine who, while driving home at night, took his eyes off the road for a second to reach for his cell phone in the passenger seat. When he looked up, a deer was in front of him. He swerved and missed the deer but hit a nearby telephone pole, totaling his car. He was lucky. It could have been much worse.

Most of you own and use a cellular phone or PDA on a daily basis for work or pleasure. Moreover, many of your family members have such devices for talking and texting with friends and family. Ask yourself whether you are teaching them good habits and setting a good example the next time you use your cellular phone or PDA while driving.

Driving a 2,000-pound car in traffic while listening to the radio, navigating via a GPS device, monitoring speed with a radar detector, applying makeup or shaving, inserting a CD or DVD, and eating food are more than enough distractions without attempting to text or talk on your phone or PDA. Even a Bluetooth hands-free device is a distraction. We are bombarded with distractions, including sights and sounds from numerous sources. Unfortunately, such multitasking is common on Indiana roadways. However, most of these distractions are voluntary choices we make. Cars are not extensions of our offices and homes, so concentrate on driving.

Next time you get in your vehicle, ask yourself these important questions:

1. Is that phone call or e-mail so important that you are willing to risk your life or the lives of your family and friends who are in the vehicle with you or the innocent pedestrian or driver and passengers in the vehicle you hit?

2. Who will care for, raise, and play with your family when you are disabled or dead?

The answers are sobering if you use a cell phone or PDA while driving. We must change our behaviors. Be safe and concentrate on the road! Your family, friends, clients, and fellow Hoosiers will thank you.

David A. Temple is a partner in the Indianapolis firm of Drewry Simmons Vornehm and is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT