On 14 Jul 2005 23:40:51 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>
>> In article >,
>> Jim Yanik .> wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> C.H. > wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:21:13 +0000, Dave Head wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, OK... its an activity that's traceable thru cell phone
>>>>>> records. Its just one type of distracting activity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately it is far more distracting than most other activities,
>>>>>resulting in an extreme increase (300%) in risk.
>>>>
>>>> Based on that one study which failed to distinguish between cell
>>>> phone calls made before and after the accident?
>>>
>>>There have been a number of studies now,and they all point to CPs as
>>>being a serious distraction while driving.
>>
>>>This latest one is by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
>>
>> The Insurance Institute For Higher Surcharges? Now THERE is a
>> reliable source.
>
>Well,if CPs were not a serious cause of accidents,then what benefit would
>the insurance companies have to ban CPs?

If it hasn't yet become blindingly obvious to you, its the same as the speeding
scam. Make a popular thing illegal, people will do it anyway, they'll get a
ticket, and then they'll get POINTS on their license, so the INSURANCE company
can say, Aha! Bad driver! SURCHARGE! IOW, they'll make a pile of money out of
getting cell phones banned.

>And why are they not calling for bans of CD players,and eating while
>driving,or other distractions?

Are we 100% sure they aren't? I've heard of eating and drinking prohibition
advocacy for drivers, but am not sure whether the IIHS was behind it or not.
Probably - they're likely the only ones that really have an interest in it.

Dave Head