Arizona drivers experience a
vehicle collision every 10 years on average, according to a study by Allstate Insurance
Co., which found drivers in several major Valley cities have better-than-normal
records for auto safety.
Phoenix
ranked 71st among 200 large metro areas nationally in the frequency of
collisions, based on Allstate claims data. But Phoenix ranked as the nation’s
safest city among those with a population of at least 1 million people.
Similarly,
Tucson ranked first nationally among cities with populations from 500,000 to
749,999, while Mesa was tops among cities with 250,000 to 499,999 residents.
All nine Arizona cities in the report were ranked in the upper half nationally
for driver safety, though seven of the nine slipped a few places from the 2012
report.
Drivers
in Fort Collins, Colo., had the best record nationally. Drivers there have a
collision every 13.9 years on average.
Washington,
D.C., had the worst claims record for the sixth straight year. Baltimore,
Philadelphia and Miami also ranked near the bottom.
Allstate
has 10 percent of the nation’s auto policies.
Among
other findings, the company said 70 percent of auto claims are the result of
collisions in stop-and-go traffic under 35 miles an hour.
Zachar Law says:
Completely ignore this absurd comment
President
Barack Obama suggested Friday that the amount of time it takes to obtain a law
degree should be shortened as a way for students to save money. He
said "Now, the question is can law students, can law schools
maintain quality and keep good professors and sustain themselves without that
third year? My suspicion is that if they thought creatively about it, they
probably could," he said.
Really? Are YOU willing to
sacrifice quality legal services and representation so that your attorney can
save some money on his legal education? Doesn't this theory worry you
just a little?
Further, our President is likely
the last person from whom we should accept legal advice or recommendations.
His grades is law school were reportedly less than admirable. More
importantly, approximately 10 years ago both he and Michelle Obama voluntarily
surrendered their own licenses to practice law.
Wait. WHAT?? They
"voluntarily" gave up their licenses to practice? Do you know
who does that? NO ONE!! Attorneys work very, very hard to get
through law school, study for and pass the bar exam and obtain their licenses
to practice. No one "voluntarily" surrenders it. It is
too valuable. Even if you don't intend to practice law, the requirements
to be able to maintain a license are fairly simple.
Why would one voluntarily give it
up? One reason: They have done something that makes it likely if
they don't surrender it, then the State Bar Association is going to take it
away for some serious wrongdoing. The only way to avoid the embarrassment
and public disclosure of the wrongdoing is to quietly, voluntarily give in and
surrender your license. This is what BOTH Obamas did. (They refuse
to answer the questions as to why they did this,)
So, EXCUSE ME if I place ZERO
credence in the President's opinions on the issue of a legal education. I
worked extremely hard to obtain mine, and greatly value mine. Our
President has demonstrated otherwise.
Hands-free
technologies make it easier for motorists to text, talk on the phone and use
Facebook while they drive. But is there a cost to this convenience?
The answer is yes, according to the AAA Foundation for Traffic
Safety.
Today, AAA is
releasing the most in-depth analysis to date of mental distractions behind the
wheel. The study found that voice-activated in-car technologies are more
dangerous than hands-free or handheld devices.
“Mental distractions
are being built into cars,” said Linda Gorman director of communications and
public affairs for AAA Arizona. “As a leader in driver safety, AAA believes
this is creating a looming public safety crisis.”
In the study,
drivers engaged in six common tasks, from talking on the phone to responding to
voice-activated emails. Their brainwaves, eye movement, reaction time and other
metrics were evaluated by experts from the University of Utah.
Experts
assessed what happens to drivers’ mental workload when they multi-task. This
information was used to rate levels of mental distraction similar to the
Saffir-Simpson scale used to rank hurricanes:
Category
1 included tasks with minimal
risks, such as listening to the radio.
Category
2 included tasks with moderate
risks. This included talking on a cell-phone, both handheld
and hands-free.
Category
3 included tasks with extensive
risks. This included listening and responding to in-vehicle,
voice-activated email features.
“These findings
reinforce AAA’s position that hands-free is not risk-free,” said Gorman.
“Mental distractions create tunnel vision where motorists may not see hazards
right in front of them – even if their hands are on the wheel and their eyes
are on the road.”
As
a safety advocate, AAA will use the results of this study to promote dialogue
about distracted driving with policymakers. The auto club engaged in more
than 100 bills introduced at the state capitol this year. This included a
bill that proposed a wireless device ban for young drivers during the permit
phase as well as the first six months of licensure. The bill was unsuccessful.
However, AAA will continue its legislative efforts in 2014.
AAA will also
use the findings to engage in dialogue with the automotive and electronics
industries. The auto club does not want emerging technologies to compromise
public safety. The auto club already has provided copies of this study to CEOs
of all major U.S. automakers.
“We
want to use this information to work in collaboration with automakers,” Gorman
said. “We have a shared goal of improving safety for all drivers."
The study comprised 102 drivers ranging in age from 18 to 36 years. To
measure effects in controlled and real world settings, drivers were studied on
both simulators and instrumented vehicles. Researchers used a generic system
that captured the essential elements of hands-free technology available on the
market today.
Americans are less likely to perceive a
serious threat from dangerous driving behaviors such as drunk, aggressive or
drowsy driving, according to an analysis of four years of public surveys
conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
The decreased concern is
accompanied by an estimated 5.3 percent increase in annual traffic fatalities,
totaling more than 34,000 in 2012. This is the first annual increase in seven
years, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
“Motorists may be growing more complacent
about potential safety risks behind the wheel,” said Peter Kissinger, President
and CEO of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. “A ‘do as I say, not as I do’
attitude remains common with many motorists consistently admitting to engaging
in the same dangerous behaviors for which they would condemn other drivers.”
Survey results during the
previous four years shows a decreasing concern for dangerous driving
behaviors:
The
number of people who believe driving after drinking is a serious threat
declined from a near universal 90 percent in 2009 to 69 percent in 2012;
The
number of people who consider drowsy driving a very serious threat declined
from 71 percent in 2009 to 46 percent in 2012;
The
number of people who believe that texting or emailing while driving is a very
serious threat declined from 87 percent in 2009 to 81 percent in 2012;
The
number of people who admit to texting while driving increased from 21 percent
to 26 percent during the same period;
The
number of people who consider red-light running to be completely unacceptable
declined from 77 percent in 2009 to 70 percent in 2012;
More
than one-third (38 percent) admitted to running a red light within the previous
month.
“We have made great strides in recent
years to reduce roadway deaths, but there are still too many needless
fatalities caused by dangerous driving,” said Jake Nelson, AAA director of
traffic safety advocacy and research. “It is clear that more must be done to
address the dangers of drunk, aggressive and drowsy driving to stem this
concerning trend.”
Someone dies on America’s
roadways every 15 minutes. Fatalities include drivers, passengers,
pedestrians, cyclists and every other kind of road user. Car crashes affect
young people disproportionately by killing more people aged 5-34 than any other
cause of death. More than 2.3 million people annually also suffer serious
injuries from crashes.
The AAA Foundation for Traffic
Safety analyzed four years (2009-2012) of survey data collected for the annual
Traffic Safety Culture Index, which tracks how the public’s views and
perceptions of traffic safety issues change over time. More than 11,000 surveys
were administered to Americans aged 16 and up from 2009-2012 to determine the
results.
Established by AAA in 1947, the
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety is a 501(c) (3) not-for-profit,
publicly-supported charitable educational and research organization. Dedicated
to saving lives and reducing injuries on our roads, the Foundation’s mission is
to prevent crashes and save lives through research and education about traffic
safety. The Foundation has funded over 200 research projects designed to
discover the causes of traffic crashes, prevent them, and minimize injuries
when they do occur.
Okay,
this is scary.
Likely,
the reason people are so less concerned about these accident and circumstances
is because they, for whatever reason, believe that it cannot happen to
them. They are so wrong. It can happen to anyone, anywhere,
anytime. When it happens, it can change or destroy lives. No one is
immune.
Despite
that the statistics show that people may be growing less concerned, in personal
injury cases, judges and juries still are very strong in holding wrongdoers
responsible for the harm they cause. Our civil justice system remains
strong.
Bike Helmet Safety can help prevent more injuries than if you were to be in a bicycle accident without one.
So what exactly should you know when it comes to bike helmet safety? We've compiled a list below.
How can I tell
if a helmet will keep my child safe?
You should only
buy a helmet that meets the bicycle helmet safety standards of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Any helmet meeting these standards is labeled as such. Check the inside
of the helmet.
Do all helmets
meet these standards?
All helmets
manufactured or imported for use after March 1999 must comply with a mandatory
safety standard issued by the CPSC.
Can other kinds
of helmets be used for bicycling?
Each type of
helmet is designed for protection in specific conditions, and may not offer protection in all
bike crashes or falls. Bike helmets are very protective in head-first
falls at fairly high speeds, and are light and well ventilated for comfort and
acceptability. A multisport helmet, certified to meet the CPSC standard for
bicycle helmets, also is acceptable.
Where can I get
a helmet?
Helmets meeting
CPSC safety standards are available at bicycle shops and at some discount,
department, and toy stores in adult, children, and toddler's sizes and styles. Important Note: Never buy or use a used bike helmet because it may be
too old to provide protection or may have been in a previous
crash.
Which is better,
hard-shell or soft-shell helmets?
The essential
part of the helmet for impact protection is a thick layer of firm polystyrene,
plastic foam, that crushes on impact, absorbing the force of the blow. All
helmets require a chin strap to keep them in place in a crash.
Hard-shell
helmets
also have a hard outer shell of plastic or fiberglass that provides a shield
against penetration by sharp objects and holds the polystyrene together if it
cracks in a fall or crash. These helmets are more sturdy, but tend to be
heavier and warmer than the soft-shell models.
Soft-shell
helmets
have no hard outer shell but are made of an extra-thick layer of polystyrene
covered with a cloth cover or surface coating. The cloth cover is an essential
part of many soft-shell helmets. If the helmet comes with a cover, the cover
must always be worn to hold the helmet together if the polystyrene cracks on
impact.
Both types of
helmets meet CPSC standards; the main difference is style and comfort. The
soft-shell helmets are lighter than the hard shell versions but may be less
durable.
Although there
is no consensus on the relative safety of the 2 types, models of both types
have passed the CPSC test. The soft-shell helmets are lighter than the
hard-shell versions but may be less durable.
How should a
helmet fit?
A helmet should
be worn squarely on top of the head, covering the top of the forehead. If it is
tipped back, it will not protect the forehead. The helmet fits well if it
doesn't move around on the head or slide down over the wearer's eyes when
pushed or pulled. The chin strap should be adjusted to fit snugly.
Are there
helmets for infants?
Yes. Many
infant-sized helmets are of the soft-shell variety. They are light, an
important consideration for small children whose necks may not be strong enough
to comfortably hold a hard-shell helmet. Babies younger than 1 year have
relatively weak neck structure. Neither helmets nor bike traveling is
recommended for them.
How long will a
child's helmet fit?
An infant's or
child's helmet should fit for several years. Most models have removable fitting
pads that can be replaced with thinner ones as the child's head grows.
Can a helmet be
reused after a crash?
In general, a helmet that has been through a
serious fall or crash should be retired with gratitude. It has served its purpose
and may not provide adequate protection in another crash. If you are uncertain
whether the helmet is still usable, throw it away.
“A new school year brings a lot of excitement, so it’s easy for children to
become preoccupied on their way to and from school,” said Linda Gorman,
director of communications and public relations for AAA Arizona. “As a leader
in traffic safety, AAA reminds all drivers use extra caution when traveling
near schools, especially as the school year begins.”
Safety advocate AAA has wants parents to keep the ABCs of safety in mind as
Arizona children head back to the classroom:
Avoid
distractions:
Research from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows
that taking your eyes off the road for just two seconds doubles your
chances of crashing. Stay focused on driving and set a good example
for young passengers.
By
the numbers:
Teach children their home phone number and address, your work phone number
and how to dial 911.
Chart
your course:
Map out a route to school or the bus stop and walk it with your child
beforehand. Choose a direct route with the fewest street crossings or with
intersections that have crossing guards. Avoid walking by parks, vacant
lots and other sparsely populated places.
Don a
helmet:
Kids who bicycle always should wear a helmet. The Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety states that a helmet can reduce the risk of head injury
by 85 percent.
Exemplify
safety:
Do not exceed 15 miles per hour in or near a school zone. According to the
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle
traveling at 15 mph is nearly two-thirds less likely to be killed as
compared to a pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling 25 mph. Remember
that fines double when “STOP WHEN CHILDREN IN CROSSWALK” signs are
present. Also remember, school zones are non-passing zones. Always stop
for buses that are loading or unloading students. It is illegal to pass a
school bus with flashing red lights.
Forego
strangers:
Teach kids never to accept rides or gifts from strangers.
Grab
a buddy: Have
kids walk to school with a relative, friend or neighbor.
Safety is the top priority for children. If your child is walking or on a
bicycle on their way to school, follow these simple guidelines to assure their
safety.
1.
Always stay on the sidewalk.
2. Never walk or drive in between parked vehicles. Someone may not see them.
3. Always be sure to stay in cross-walks when you have to cross the street.
4. When in the crosswalk, always
get off and walk your bike.
5. Always stay near
the crossing guard when in the street.
The
beginning of school is an exciting time for the kids. As adult drivers,
we need to understand that kids do dumb things and won't always think safety
first. As such, we need to use more care and caution when near the
schools.
Lets
hope for a safe and fun school year for everyone.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, motor
vehicle crashes involving tire-related issues contribute to 195 fatalities
annually. The Arizona heat can destroy tires much faster than most states,
which is why you should always keep an eye on your tires, and educate yourself
on tire safety.
“Only 1 out of 6 drivers know how to properly check tire pressure,” said
John Walter, director of automotive services for AAA Arizona. “As a go-to
source for automotive information, AAA recommends checking your tire pressure
each month to help fuel economy, make tires last longer and optimize vehicle
safety.”
A new national survey by The Rubber Manufacturers Association,
which represents tire manufacturers in the United States, conducted the survey
to gauge motorists’ awareness. Among its findings:
More
than half (52%) of drivers don’t know where to find the correct inflation
pressure for
their vehicle. Find it on a label on a vehicle’s driver side door jamb or
owner’s manual. Forty-eight percent of drivers wrongly believe that the
correct pressure is listed on the tire sidewall.
40
percent of drivers don’t know that tires should be checked “cold” – before driving or
after sitting for at least three hours. As tires roll, they warm up, which
causes the pressure to increase and could give a false tire pressure
reading.
52
percent of drivers do not know how to tell if their tires are bald. Stick an upside-down
quarter into a tire tread. If you see all of Washington’s head, the tire
is bald and needs to be replaced. All tires have “wear bars” when the
tread depth is at 2/32nd of an inch. When tread is worn down to
that point, the tire needs to be replaced.
2
out of 3 drivers do not check the tire pressure in their spare tire. Don’t be unpleasantly
surprised if you get a flat tire and don’t have a properly inflated spare.
Nearly
3 out of 4 motorists cite checking tire pressure as a top fuel-saving tip. The U.S. Department of
Energy estimates that drivers can save 11 cents per gallon with properly
inflated tires at current fuel prices.
Fuel
savings is certainly a valid reason to regularly check your tires, but safety
is the most important reason to do so. Diligence is often the key to
safety. Even if not once per month, an occasional check of your tires is
recommended for good driving and safety.
Recently, more than
14 people sickened in a recent E. coli outbreak linked to a West Valley
restaurant have hired an attorney who specializes in food-poisoning lawsuits,
the attorney said Wednesday. Two suits have already
been filed. Kore are certainly on the way, as at least
30 customers who dined at a Federico’s restaurant at 13132 W. Camelback Road
near Litchfield Park were sickened by the bacteria, including 12 who were
hospitalized, according to the county Health Department. Officials
became aware of the cases on Aug. 1., and preliminary lab results suggested
customers were infected by the rare 0157 strain of the bacteria.
A spokesman for Federico’s said
Wednesday that he did not know how the restaurant’s parent company, Femex LLC,
would respond to any lawsuits filed by the Washington, D.C-based Marler Clark
law firm, which is representing the customers. “We’re
eager to get to the bottom of this,” he said, adding that the owners “care very
much about their customers.”
For an
incident that occurred only weeks ago, why file a lawsuit so quickly?
Answer: Marketing, marketing, marketing.
When an incident like this
occurs that affects many people, the attorneys who handle the cases know it is
important to let the public know that it is involved in the case. The ONLY
way to do this is to file a lawsuit and get the publicity from all media
sources. That accomplishes several things, including 1) more potential
clients for the law firm and 2) control of the investigation process to aid
those who have suffered injuries.
Some people might think that
attorneys do this out of greed. That is not very often the case.
With so many injured, the risk is that many of the victims start talking—to
anyone and everyone. The information gets distorted and before you know
it, you have umpteen different versions. That wreaks havoc for attorneys
on both sides handling these cases. The consolidation of these cases with
one firm, or perhaps a co-op by several firms allows the information and
evidence to be gathered in a very organized and cogent form. It helps
everyone in the process that will certainly follow.
Also—back to the “greedy
lawyers” comment. Did this thought run through your mind initially?
Shame on you.
The United States is a nation
of laws. Many of those laws are intended to protect the public against
evildoers or wrongdoers. The laws accomplish this by allowing victims to
hold the wrongdoers financially responsible for the harm they cause.
Without these laws, what incentives would business-minded people have to assure
the placement of safe products into the marketplace?
If a person owned a business,
whose goal was profit, and knew that he/she could manufacture a crappy, unsafe
product, makes lots of money and never be held responsible for any harm that
might result, the floodgates would open. Every day, the safety laws in
the United States prevent that from occurring. WE know that if another
gets hurt, we are responsible for the harm we cause.
So, in the Arizona Ecoli case,
a GREAT BIG message and reminder has already gone out to everyone who is aware
of this story: Make good products, for if you do not and you cause injury
to someone, you WILL be held accountable.
We are all a bit safer today
because there are lawyers who are willing to stand up and fight. Remember
the words of Theodore Roosevelt:
“No man is above the law and
no man is below it, not do we ask anyone’s permission when we ask him to obey
it”.
We call motor vehicle
crashes "accidents" because they are thought to be unexpected and
unintentional. But, are they really “unexpected”?
When you drive with
your eyes somewhere other than on the road (radio, cell phone, etc..), you
cannot say that a crash is “unexpected”. Indeed, when you choose to drive
with your attention elsewhere, I say that you can very well “expect” to be
involved in an accident.
Before your next
fender bender, be sure you understand when you should inform your insurance
company and when you should resist the temptation to put in for a claim and pay
out of pocket.
When a crash occurs,
there are numerous things to think through:
After
a car accident, if possible, move your vehicle safely off or to the side of the
road;
Turn on flashers;
Check for injuries;
4, Summon
medical help as needed;
Call
the police.
From the insurance
perspective:
Obtain
the name, address, phone number, driver's license number, plate number, and
insurance information of any other drivers involved in the accident
Obtain the names of
anyone with injuries and any witnesses;
Never argue over who
is at fault or admit blame;
If
possible, take photos of the scene (a cell-phone camera can come in handy) and
draw a diagram showing the cars' positions.
Should
you report the accident?
If the accident involves another vehicle (as 7 in 10
accidents do), then you may have a duty to contact your insurance company. Likely,
they will request a "recorded statement.". This is where it gets a
bit tricky. Understand, you interests and your insurance company's
interests may not be the same. given that they are in the business and
you are not, you are at a disadvantage.
They
will want to know your version of the accident and will want to know about any
injuries you may have sustained. It may seem reasonable at the time, but
injuries often don't manifest until a day or two later. If you tell them soon
after an accident that you are not hurt or OK, this may cause some serious
issues later should your pain onset be delayed. If you don't report the
accident in a timely and detailed manner, the insurance company will be limited
in providing the protections for which you have long been paying.
OK, confusing.
It seems like a very fine line to walk here. How do you know when,
and what to say and not say? This is not an easy answer and truly cannot
be explained in a manner that covers all situations. This is why is is so
important to seek an experienced attorney soon after an accident, preferably
before you give a recorded statement to any insurance company.
In fact,
the number one problem we see is when an accident victim decides to give a
recorded statement prior to attorney involvement. Once recorded, there is a
record that cannot be un-done. Does that imply that responses with the advice
of an attorney would be false? Absolutely not. Insurance companies
craft their claims questionnaires very carefully to lure claimants into
responses that may well compromise a claim. The involvement of an
experienced accident attorney will assure that the questioning is fair, and the
responses clear.
It is
crucial that the claim get off on the right foot. Having an experienced
accident lawyer puts you on the best footing for this to occur.
Almost every state has responded
to rising smartphone use with a law banning drivers from texting, many in the
past few years.
Arizona is one of nine states
that have yet to make that leap, according to a Governors Highway Safety
Association report released in July.
Those who
oppose a ban argue that drivers should be able to make their own decisions, or
that Arizona’s statutes regarding reckless driving and reasonable and prudent
speed apply to distracted drivers. They say making a separate law banning
texting or cellphone use is unnecessary.
Sen.
Steve Farley, D-Tucson, who has introduced bills in the Arizona Legislature the
past several years that would institute a texting-while-driving ban, cited
studies showing that drivers are 2,300 percent more likely to get into an
accident while texting. Those numbers merit a separate law, he said.
“(Texting
while driving) is so far out there as a danger than anything else — eating a
burger, putting on makeup, anything else — it deserves to be called out as a
specific practice that needs to be banned,” he said.
The
report looked at bans on the following activities: use of handheld devices;
cellphone use by novice drivers or school bus drivers; and text messaging by
novice drivers, school-bus drivers or all drivers. Of those, Arizona bans only
cellphone use by school-bus drivers.
A total
of 41 states have texting bans for all drivers, up from 28 states in 2010, the
GHSA report says.
Vinnie
Sorce, 47, a software tester in Chino Valley, wanted Arizona to join that list.
His fiancee, Stacey Stubbs, was killed in a crash in 2007. It was later
determined that the teenager who struck her car — 18-year-old Ashley Miller,
who also died — was texting while she was driving.
For some
time, Sorce was an advocate for a texting-while-driving ban, but after several
years with no progress, he said he’s grown weary of the fight.
“I can’t
stand to see people arguing over it,” he said. “I got tired of trying to convey
it to people; nobody seemed to be listening.”
The
Arizona Department of Transportation’s annual crash report includes some
distracted-driving data. The 2012 report lists distracted or inattentive
driving as a factor in 11,139 out of 195,762 crashes. Use of an
electronic-communications device was a factor in 197 crashes. Of 3,260 crashes
involving motorcycles, 138 listed distraction or inattention as a factor, and
one listed the use of an electronic-communications device.
Arizona’s
data is less specific than that suggested by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria Guideline, which is widely accepted nationwide, said Jonathan Adkins,
GHSA deputy executive director.
The
guideline suggests law-enforcement officials specifically note whether drivers
involved in a crash were manually using a phone — texting, e-mailing, or
similar actions — talking on a hands-free phone or talking on a handheld phone,
among other behavior, the GHSA says.
“It’s
more than having one little check box,” Adkins said. “You have to do training,
have to look for a whole host of factors.”
By
comparison, ADOT’s data note that the number of crashes involving inattentive
or distracted driving or the use of an “electronic communications device.”
Other
states collect more specific data, including Nevada. When indicating whether
drivers were inattentive or distracted during a crash, law-enforcement
officials are also prompted to note whether the drivers were talking on a cellphone
or texting. Nevada has laws banning text messaging and the use of handheld
communication devices.
The state
began collecting the more specific data this year, and it was an easy switch to
make, said Kim Edwards, senior analyst for the Nevada Department of
Transportation.
Farley
said he still hopes to see a texting ban in Arizona, but he doesn’t think it
will happen anytime soon. In the meantime, he is pushing for more specific data
collection and better enforcement of Arizona’s reckless driving statute.
“I’m not content to wait, because
lives are at stake,” he said.
A strong
texting-while-driving ban could qualify Arizona for part of a $22.5 million
fund for highway-safety programs and repairs, Adkins said.
Another
potential benefit is lower automobile-insurance premiums, Farley said.
Brad
Hilliard, a public-affairs specialist for State Farm Insurance, said many
factors play into determining insurance premiums but added that lower premiums
are a possibility, especially if there were data available showing the effect
of a texting ban.
“If the
data is there, and you see the trend, and the trends are that Arizona is a
safer state ... you can review that and consider rate changes because of it,”
he said. “Safety is always going to be our No. 1 concern, and that’s why State
Farm would support any bills reducing distractions while driving.”
Distracted driving is a horrible epidemic that is a nationwide problem. Arizona needs to put their focus on this and create a law where it would be illegal to use your cellphone while driving. The safety of others on the road is the biggest concern for anyone. Stop texting and driving!
