Austin Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents - Most Popular

Text Messaging While Driving Is More Dangerous Than DUI

Brooks Schuelke — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:51:10 GMT

In the wake of revelations that the Metrolink train engineer involved in the deadly collision near Los Angeles was texting while driving his train, a new British study has concluded that texting while driving is more dangerous than driving under the influence of alcohol or marijuana.

The study, performed by the Transport Research Laboratory, found that reaction time was worse for those texting than those under the influence of alcohol or marijuana, that steering control was far worsened by texting than by driving under the influence, and that texters were much more likely to be traveling too closely behind other cars.

One of the main researchers on the study noted:

When texting, drivers are distracted by taking their hand off the wheel to use their phone, by trying to read small text on the phone display, and by thinking about how to write their message. This combination of factors resulted in the impairments to reaction time and vehicle control that place the driver at a greater risk than having consumed alcohol to the legal limit for driving.

Despite these findings, few states have regulations on texting while driving. Only Alaska, Washington, Louisiana, Minnesota, and New Jersey have full bans on texting while driving. Twelve other states have partial bans (such as limits for those under the age of 18).

If you are interested in this topic, I have a previous blog post with numerous links to articles about text messaging while driving.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brooks Schuelke

Texas Considers Mandating Usage Of Car Booster Seats

Brooks Schuelke — Tue, 12 May 2009 11:29:38 GMT

This is a fairly common conversation at my house:

Kid -- Do I have to use my booster seat?

Me -- Yes.

Kid -- But _________ doesn't use a booster seat.

Me -- I must love you more than ___________'s parents love him or her.

The fact of the matter is that usage of a car booster seat is critical for the safety of our young children. Most car seats are designed to work for adults. If a child is using a seat belt without a booster seat then the seat belt won't fit properly. If a serious wreck occurs, then the belt likely won't restrain the child, resulting in serious injury. And even if the child remains restrained, the improperly fitting seat belt could cause serious injuries to the child's organs.

I originally wrote about these dangers in another post, and I received thanks from a parent in one of the comments. At that time, the parent asked whether this conduct was illegal, and I responded that I would hope that common sense was enough, and I questioned whether we needed a law on this.

The Texas legislature may answer that question for me. Yesterday, the Texas House passed a law that would require all children ages 5 to 8 who are under 4'9" to ride in booster seats. In part of the debate, an official from Dell Children's Hospital noted that usage of booster seats can reduce a child's risk of injury from a wreck by 59%.

I don't know whether it's a good idea to have a new law on this or not, but I do think it's great to have awareness on the issue. The more that the usage of booster seats is discussed in the media, the more parents might keep their kids confined and safe. And that's a good thing, with or without a law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brooks Schuelke

Reduce Car Wrecks By Raising The Driving Age?

Brooks Schuelke — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:32:40 GMT

It is undisputed that driving safety is an issue for teenage drivers. More than 5,000 U.S. teens die each year in auto accidents, and the rate of crashes for teens is almost 10 times the rate for drivers aged 30 to 59. But what do we do about it?

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research group funded by the auto insurance industry, intends to present a proposal today to raise the driving age from 16 to 17 or even 18. The president of the association knows that it's a tough sell, but noted that car wrecks are the leading cause of death among teenagers.

The industry point to New Jersey, the only state with a 17 year old driving age, for support. Various studies have shown that the overall rate of teens killed in New Jersey has been much lower than in nearby states.

But not everyone agrees with the proposal. Many teens are obviously against it, as are some parents, who also enjoy their teens new freedom. And even safety experts wonder if this focus will take focus off other driving dangers, such as drunk driving.

So readers, what are your thoughts on the proposal?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brooks Schuelke

Will Austin Ban Text Messaging While Driving?

Brooks Schuelke — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:18:41 GMT

A few weeks ago, young Griffin Jones was seriously injured in a car wreck near Bastrop. His family's car was stopped to make a turn when another vehicle slammed into them from behind at full speed. Griffin's parents believe that the other driver was distracted by a text message.

Unfortunately, text messaging while driving is becoming an increasing cause of car wrecks. In fact, some recent studies have shown that text messaging while driving is more dangerous than driving while intoxicated.

But Austin may be taking steps to address this danger. Yesterday, the City of Austin public safety task force passed a resolution asking the city staff to develop a proposal to ban text messaging while driving. While this is merely the first of many steps, with any luck, it will help make Austin's streets safer.

For more information, you can visit my firm's text messaging while driving resource page.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brooks Schuelke

Government Covers Up Research Showing Link Between Cell Phones And Auto Accidents

Brooks Schuelke — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:29:52 GMT

The New York Times wrote that two public interest groups had obtained documents from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that show the link between cell phone usage and auto accidents. The documents and a requested study of 10,000 drivers were all shelved because the NHTSA was more worried about politics than the safety of our drivers.

Shockingly, the research found that a motorist talking on a cell phone was four times as likely to be involved in a crash as other drivers, and are as likely to cause an accident as someone with a .08 blood alcohol content.

And using hands-free devices didn’t help much. . In fact, the agency had prepared a letter to the governors of each state warning them of the dangers of even using hands-free devices.

Having said all the above, there's nothing really new. People know the dangers of driving while talking on the phone, and yet people do it all the time. I just hope that more information like this gets out and that we don't have to wait for more deaths before this practice is curbed.

Car Wreck Victims, Please Don't Become Victim To Insurance Company Swoop And Settle Techniques

Brooks Schuelke — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:27:43 GMT

I think the sign of genius is being able to take something from those you disagree with. I have frequently written about my displeasure with attorneys or chiropractors that improperly (and perhaps illegally) solicit accident victims (eg here and here). Last week, I received an email from someone that disagreed with me. I'm cutting and pasting the email (including the errors), but leaving off the individual's name because I don't have the person's permission to post the email:

I read your ridiculous article on solicitation of MVA victims. I have done this type of solicitation and I want you to know that most victims are so thankful that someone was helping them with their pain and also getting them adequate representation for their claim.
The insurance companies are making a killing on the public's ignorance and oft times abuse the system by showing up at the injured's house or even at the sight of the accident with a check which cancels any further obligation with the insurance company. One thing you'll never see in the news is Allstate or State Farm's profit from the previous year. If the public was aware of it there would be riots. I don't know what kind of law you practice but you've obviously not dealt with those creeps. You are lucky nowadays to just get your medical paid, let alone any further compensation for injury and suffering. As long as people maintain attitudes like your's we'll all just take two aspirin and forget about getting osteoarthritis. You are not for the plaintive, that's for sure.

Obviously, I disagree with a lot of things in the email, but I won't go into that because I don't want this discussion to escalate into an argument. However, I do want to emphasize the one point that the author makes that is important is that insurance companies "abuse the system by showing up at the injured's house or even at the sight [sic] of the accident with a check." I call this "swoop and settle." They adjusters will come in with ridiculously low offers, often making false statements to the auto accident victim about the victim's claim, and then obtain a release. When those of us in the plaintiff's bar discussed our position on barratry, the one issue that gave some pause was the swoop and settle conduct.

So if you're in a car wreck, don't fall prey to these tactics. I always tell clients that the biggest mistake they can make is settling the claim before they know the extent of their injuries. While some are often anxious for money, plaintiffs are almost always rewarded for their patience.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brooks Schuelke

Uninsured Motorist Protection Vital in Accidents

Staff Writer — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:29:58 GMT

Uninsured motorist coverage can save the day in the event you are involved in an accident with a hit & run driver. Learn how your own insurance policy can protect you in such a situation.

An man was just "cruising" on his motorcycle when another car crossed the center dividing line and caused him to lose control of the bike and crash into a tree. As a result of the crash, he sustained several broken bones and a head injury. There were two witnesses who saw the whole accident, but no one was able to get the other driver's license plate number. The question posed by this gentleman was, can I make a claim with my insurance company since the other driver left the scene?

The first step is to determine if you have "uninsured motorist" coverage. If so, the next inquiry is whether there was "contact" between the vehicles? The reason I need to know about your coverages is because whenever you are involved in a collision with another vehicle and you can't determine if they have coverage, you must look to your own policy. Uninsured Motorist protection is a MUST on your auto policy in my opinion. Uninsured motorist coverage generally provides protection for you and your passengers if you are involved in a collision with an uninsured driver or hit-and-run driver. If this coverage applies, it basically serves as a substitute policy for the other driver and your complete claim is made with your own insurance company. Under these circumstances, your insurance company will evaluate your injuries, medical expenses, and causation before making a settlement offer to you. The reason for the second inquiry is because most uninsured policies require "physical contact" between your car and the alleged "hit-and-run" driver before coverage will be provided for a "mystery vehicle."
The rationale for this may be to reduce the risk of fraudulent claims by people who merely fall asleep at the wheel or who are otherwise involved in a one car collision without another vehicle being at fault. Therefore, if there was no contact, it's possible that your accident may not be covered by your uninsured motorist policy. You should call an attorney immediately.

Regardless, you should also check with your agent to see if any other provisions of your policy may be useful, such as "personal injury protection" or "medical payments" coverage.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Amen! New Legislation Seeks To End Chiropractic Solicitation Of Car Wreck Victims

Brooks Schuelke — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:04:41 GMT

I’ve previously written about the problem with chiropractors soliciting car wreck victims and then directing the clients to attorneys, many of whom provide questionable representation. In the 2007 legislative session, the Texas Trial Lawyers Association (our state-wide group of plaintiff’s attorneys) and others joined to try and pass a bill that limited the ability of chiropractors to solicit victims. The bill passed both the House and the Senate by almost unanimous margins only to be vetoed by Governor Perry. At the time, I had some harsh words for Perry.

But now, it’s time to give Perry his due. During the last session, the House and Senate passed HB 148, which amended the barratry statute that already applied to lawyers and now makes it illegal for chiropractors to solicit car wreck or other accident victims in person or by telephone until the 31^st day after an accident. Governor Perry signed the bill into law on June 19, 2009, and it will go into effect on September 1, 2009.

With any luck, this new legislation will at least minimize the improper case running that has been going on.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brooks Schuelke

Governor Perry, Please Sign SB 61 Mandating Use Of Booster Seats

Brooks Schuelke — Tue, 26 May 2009 22:01:07 GMT

In today's Austin American Statesman, Dr. Todd Maxson, the trauma medical director at Dell Children's Hospital (and dad of two of the kids on the little league team I helped coach this year), wrote an editorial encouraging Governor Perry to sign SB 61, which would mandate the use of booster seats by children aged 5 to 7 and under 4 foot, 9 inches.

In calling for Governor Perry to sign the bill, Dr. Maxson states:

As the trauma medical director at two of the leading pediatric medical centers in Texas — I'm at Dell Children's Medical Center after a stint at Children's Medical Center Dallas — I have witnessed the devastating consequences of injuries due to the improper restraint of children in motor vehicles.

I cannot begin to share with you the grief and dismay that parents — who obeyed current Texas child restraint law, yet in a crash saw their children killed or disabled — feel when they realize that the law does not match the best proven safety standards.

Senate Bill 61, awaiting signature by Gov. Rick Perry, will prevent death and permanent disability to children 5 through 7 by ensuring that they are appropriately restrained in a vehicle during a crash.

Current Texas law requires children to be restrained in a seatbelt. That restraint, however, does not provide adequate protection during a crash. Children ages 5 through 7 who are restrained only by a seatbelt are susceptible to injuries, paralysis and death. The simple addition of a booster seat allows the vehicles' restraining device to better protect the occupant.

I hope all of you will join me in encouraging Governor Perry in signing this important legislation.

And let me add, that I know my last three posts have all dealt with this issue. I do not want to beat a dead horse, but right now, there are probably few things that I could do that are as important as helping protect all of our children.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brooks Schuelke

Austin Hit and Run Auto Accidents In The News

Brooks Schuelke — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:48:03 GMT

I have previously written on the rapid increase in the number of Austin's hit and run car wrecks. This week, KXAN ran a story that detailed the problem. The story notes that there were 10,786 hit and run accidents in 2007 resulting in 13 fatalities. While the overall number of hit and run accidents appears to be down this year, we're on pace for more fatalities than last year. The one bright spot is that the Austin Police Department has been able to arrest more than fifty percent of those that fled the scene in fatal accidents.

The story is playing below:

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brooks Schuelke