Full ban on driver calls could be tough to enforce

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
FILE - In a Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011 file photo, Dan Johnson uses a hands-free device to talk on a cellphone while driving, in San Diego. The National Transportation Safety Board declared Tuesday, Dec. 13, that texting, emailing or chatting while driving is simply too dangerous to be allowed anywhere in the United States. But if lawmakers follow the advice of the federal board, police officers could be faced with decoding whether someone is using their cell phone or simply singing along to the radio, pleading with backseat children to stop fighting or reciting an important sales pitch. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File) FILE - In a Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011 file photo, Dan Johnson uses a hands-free device to talk on a cellphone while driving, in San Diego. The National Transportation Safety Board declared Tuesday, Dec. 13, that texting, emailing or chatting while driving is simply too dangerous to be allowed anywhere in the United States. But if lawmakers follow the advice of the federal board, police officers could be faced with decoding whether someone is using their cell phone or simply singing along to the radio, pleading with backseat children to stop fighting or reciting an important sales pitch. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File) FILE - In a Tuesday, June 24, 2008 file photo, a sign warning drivers that hands-free technology will be required starting July 1, displays its message over a highway in San Francisco. While most states have banned texting among drivers and a number have also prohibited hand-held phones, the Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2011 recommendation from the National Transportation Safety Board is to outlaw all behind-the-wheel cell phone use, wireless or not. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File) A driver uses a cellphone while driving Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011, in Los Angeles. The National Transportation Safety Board declared Tuesday that texting, emailing or chatting on a cellphone while driving is just too dangerous to be allowed anywhere in the United States and is urging all states to impose total bans except for emergencies. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes) A motorist uses a cellphone while holding the steering wheel and a cigarette in her other hand while passing through an intersection Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011, in Houston. The National Transportation Safety Board declared Tuesday that texting, emailing or chatting on a cellphone while driving is just too dangerous to be allowed anywhere in the United States and is urging all states to impose total bans except for emergencies. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip) Dan Johnson uses a hands-free device to talk on a cellphone while driving Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011, in San Diego. Johnson, an operations manager, uses his cellphone while driving frequently for business. The National Transportation Safety Board declared Tuesday that texting, emailing or chatting while driving is simply too dangerous to be allowed anywhere in the United States. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)eval("var currentItemd57851005a80479aaeeb90a12c70b9ff = 1;");eval("var nextd57851005a80479aaeeb90a12c70b9ff = 0;");eval("var previousd57851005a80479aaeeb90a12c70b9ff = 0;"); WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — A driver in the next lane is moving his lips. Is he on a hands-free cellphone? Talking to someone in the car? To himself? Singing along to the radio?

If lawmakers follow the advice of a federal board, police officers will have to start figuring that out — somehow.

The National Transportation Safety Board said this week that drivers should not only be barred from using hand-held cellphones, as they are in several states, but also from using hands-free devices. No more "Sorry, I'm stuck in traffic" calls, or virtually any other cellphone chatter behind the wheel.

Though no state has yet implemented such restrictive rules, the NTSB's recommendations carry weight that could place such language into future laws, or motivate the federal government to cut funding to states that don't follow suit.

Many of the men and women patrolling the nation's streets and highways wonder how they would sort the criminally chatty from the legally chatty.

"It would be almost impossible to determine if someone was talking on a phone or exercising their vocal cords," said Capt. Donald Melanson of the West Hartford, Conn., police department, which took part in a national pilot program aimed at cracking down on drivers' cellphone use. "That would be much more difficult to enforce, almost to the point where it would be impossible."

Officer Tom Nichols of the Port St. Lucie, Fla., police said a law written like the NTSB suggests would be difficult to enforce because so many variables would be at play.

"If you identify someone who has a hands-free set hooked up to their ear that doesn't mean they are talking on the phone," he said. "They could be talking to a passenger. They could be talking to a child in the back. They could be singing."

Police could end up turning to technology for help. They might even end up with the cellphone equivalent of a radar speed gun.

Fred Mannering, a Purdue University civil engineering professor who is associate director of the Center for Road Safety, said that since all cellphones emit signals, a simple Bluetooth detection device could spot them.

Computers are already common in patrol cars, and Mannering said a relatively cheap add-on could fit them to track cellphone signals.

"It would be really easy for police to have a computer on board and pick up those signals," Mannering said, "but it is sort of Big Brother."

The NTSB's proposal, announced Tuesday as a unanimous recommendation of its five-member board, urges all states to impose total bans except for emergencies. It cited deadly crashes caused by distracted drivers across the country, and noted that many studies have shown that hands-free cellphones are often as unsafe as hand-held devices.

The recommendation poses an astounding number of questions. What about chauffeurs and traveling salesmen who spend their entire day on the road? And roadside Amber Alert and Silver Alert notifications that implore drivers to call in if they spot a specific vehicle? What comes of phone lines dedicated to those "How's My Driving?" signs on trucks? How will you let someone know you're stuck in traffic?

Joe Schwieterman, a DePaul University professor who studies people's use of technology while traveling, said he can't envision a law so restrictive ever hitting the books because phone use has become commonplace for drivers. He called such an approach "draconian" and said that if such a law were passed, the public would despise it as "imperial overreach," then ignore it.

"It's a little like speeding laws where it will become just culturally acceptable to violate," he said. He said a no-call law would be followed only if violations carried stiff penalties like those for drunken driving.

Lewis Katz, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said a nationwide ban on using cellphones while driving would be wildly unpopular, and likely the target of legal challenges. But he believed such a law, and the methods police might use to enforce it, ultimately would be deemed as constitutional as seatbelt enforcement.

"I'm sure that it would be challenged on all sorts of constitutional grounds, including free speech," he said in a phone call from his car. "But it seems to me that it doesn't in any way infringe on any constitutional rights. It's a simple safety issue."

Whether the NTSB's recommendations will motivate decision-makers remains to be seen, but they have certainly caught their attention.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who has made combating distracted driving the signature issue of his tenure, stopped short of an endorsement. His department is separate from the NTSB.

"My focus is going to be on preaching to people: Take personal responsibility. Put your cellphone and your texting device in the glove compartment when you get behind the wheel of a car," LaHood told reporters at a news conference in Chicago. "You can't drive safely when you have your hand on a cellphone and are trying to drive a 4,000- 5,000 pound vehicle."

Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon, a Republican, said he was wary. His state is among those that have resisted passing laws restricting drivers' cellphone use.

Cannon said future technological advances may prove more effective than legislation at addressing driver distraction issues. As an example, he cited his new iPhone, which can make phone calls and send text messages via voice command.

"In these attempts to try and prevent every bad thing from happening," he said, "it's all too easy to overly restrict personal freedoms and individual rights and responsibilities."

Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, the top law enforcement official in Palm Beach County, Fla., said that if lawmakers take the NTSB's suggestions to heart, they should address all manner of distracted driving.

"I see women putting makeup on. I see a guy with an electric shaver. I see one woman with a newspaper. I see a guy with a dog in his hands. All of those are worse than texting," he said.

Monique Bond, a spokeswoman for the Illinois State Police, said training would be key to enforcing any ban. Officers are already looking for unbuckled seat belts and swerving drivers; they'd have to add to their mental checklists.

"It's something that is not insurmountable," Bond said. "How you're going to spot it, or how you're going to look for it — you have to acclimate the troops and acclimate the operations as to how to do this."

Chief Walter McNeil of Quincy, Fla., president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said enforcement of a total ban would be difficult, but that distracted driving needs to be addressed.

"We certainly need to deal with the overall problem with distracted drivers, and getting some level of uniformity in how we enforce that would be helpful," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Dave Collins in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.

Associated Press

Technology

News

Read More

Wells Fargo gives staff tough healthcare choices

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
By Rick Rothacker

Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:27pm EDT

n">(Reuters) - Wells Fargo & Co, one of the largest U.S. employers, plans to cut costs by moving its workers into insurance plans that encourage them to spend less on healthcare.

The bank told Reuters that it is rolling out a new insurance approach next year that will give employees accounts to help cover medical expenses. They can either put their own pretax dollars in the accounts, or pay higher insurance premiums and have the company fund the account.

If employees opt to put their own money into the accounts, they are on the hook for more of their medical expenses if they get sick. If they stay healthy, they benefit from lower premiums.

These types of accounts are believed to be useful in encouraging consumers to think more about how they are spending healthcare dollars.

For most employers, these accounts are one option among many for health insurance, said Alexander Domaszewicz, a principal with human resources consulting firm Mercer.

Only a handful of other companies, including General Electric Co and JPMorgan Chase & Co, are going the same route as Wells Fargo and offering only account-based healthcare plans.

"It still isn't common for very large firms," Domaszewicz said in an interview this week.

But other companies may follow suit. Account-based health plans can cut employees' and companies' premium costs by 15 percent, according to Mercer.

Other employers often follow big companies like Wells Fargo when it comes to benefits, Domaszewicz said.

In materials sent to employees recently, Wells said it was making the change "because rising health care costs and the impact of federal health care reform require us to take a new approach to managing costs together."

Studies are mixed over whether the new U.S. healthcare law will drive up employers' healthcare costs, but overall U.S. health insurance premiums have surged over the last decade.

A study last month by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer increased 9 percent to $15,073 in 2011 from the year before. Since 2000, premiums have risen 134 percent.

Employers pay nearly three-quarters of that premium, a rate that has held fairly steady for the last 10 years, according to the foundation's data.

"This is one of the fastest-growing expenses employers have," said Randall Abbott, a senior consultant at healthcare consulting firm Towers Watson.

Cost-cutting is particularly crucial in the financial sector, where the mortgage crisis, low long-term interest rates, and weak loan demand are depressing revenue. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo is looking to shave $1.5 billion from its quarterly operating expenses by the end of 2012 under a program known as "Project Compass."

Wells earned $7.3 billion for common stockholders in the first half of the year, up from $5.3 billion in the first half of last year.

A Mercer survey found that health benefits costs on average will rise 5.4 percent in 2012, the smallest increase since 1997, because employers have been so aggressive about cutting these expenses.

"We view this as effective use of healthcare services, not as cost-cutting measures," bank spokesman Ancel Martinez said on Wednesday.

LESS BARGAINING POWER

U.S. employers began widely offering healthcare coverage after World War Two to get around government salary controls.

With 275,000 full- and part-time employees, Wells Fargo is the 12th-largest employer among public companies, according to Fortune Magazine.

About one-third of the bank's employees already use some sort of account-based plan. Wells will still offer traditional plans in California and other states where switching would force too many employees to change their doctors.

Under the bank's program, employees can have a "health reimbursement account," which Wells funds, or a "health savings account," which workers fill with their own pretax dollars.

Both accounts will help cover out-of-pocket expenses until a deductible is met.

After that, Wells will cover between 80 and 90 percent of medical expenses, with the employee picking up the rest. After an employee reaches an out-of-pocket maximum, Wells covers 100 percent of additional expenses. An insurance company administers the claims.

Eligible preventive care, such as routine checkups, annual screenings and immunizations, is covered 100 percent. Employees can earn money to put into their accounts through participating in health and wellness programs.

A Wells employee in North Carolina covered on an individual basis would pay a premium of about $23 per two-week pay period for the health savings account option, compared with $48 for the health reimbursement account plan.

An employee in an individual plan can put up to $3,100 into a health savings account under IRS rules next year. The deductible in that plan is $3,000.

In the health reimbursement option, the company can put between $200 and $1,000 in an employee's account. The deductible is $2,000 for individual coverage. Employees must pay $25 for a primary office visit, which is less than the full cost. There are also co-pays for generic prescription drugs.

Employees who use health savings accounts can roll their money into the next year if they do not use it all and take it with them if they leave the company.

(Reporting by Rick Rothacker in Charlotte, North Carolina; and additional reporting by Bill Berkrot in New York; Editing by Dan Wilchins, Martin Howell, Lisa Von Ahn and Carol Bishopric)

New Automobile

Health Management

Read More

In tough economy, Americans having fewer babies

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Last year, just over 4 million boys and girls were born in the 50 states.A new Pew report says America's birth rate plunged after 2007It says the decline in fertility rates correlates to the start of the recessionHistorically, there's evidence to back up Pew's analysisBaby busts also occurred during the Great Depression and in the 1970s

(CNN) -- 4,316,233.

That's how many babies were born in the United States in 2007, the highest number ever.

But after that, the number dropped. Last year, just over 4 million boys and girls were born in the 50 states.

The likely reason? The economy, of course.

A decline in fertility rates that began in 2008 is closely linked to financial woes that started at the same time, said a new Pew Research Center report issued Wednesday. Changes in personal income, per capita GDP, unemployment rates and claims, and state-level foreclosure rates all had an effect.

In 2007, there were 69.7 babies per 1,000 women of childbearing age. Provisional data for 2010 showed that number had dropped to 64.7.

The actual number of births from 2008 to 2009 rose only in one state, North Dakota, which also posted one of the nation's lowest unemployment rates at 3.1%.

"This does not conclusively prove that the economic changes led to fertility changes," the Pew report said. "However, the timing is consistent with the time it might take people to act upon fertility decisions."

Historically, there's evidence to back up the Pew analysis.

Demographer Carl Haub said baby busts have occurred in other bleak economic eras of U.S. history. During the Great Depression, the fertility rate fell to 76.15. During the oil shock decade of the 1970s, it plunged to 64.99.

In that sense, what's happening now is normal.

"It's almost certainly due to a lack of confidence in the economy," said Haub of the private Washington-based Population Reference Bureau.

Having children, he said, is expensive. You have to feed them, clothe them and send them to day care. And that's hard when you're without a paycheck or booted from your house.

The same kinds of trends affect European nations as well. Fertility rates plunged, for instance, in Eastern Europe when the breakup of the Soviet Union destroyed the local economy. And they are down now, amid the current crisis, Haub said.

"Unemployment is rising and the airwaves flood our living rooms and cars with one bit of scary news after another," Haub wrote in a 2009 report predicting birth rate declines in the current recession. "Bad news travels fast and furiously these days, much more so than in the 1970s and 1930s."

But that's not to say that Americans don't want children anymore, Haub said. They are simply waiting for more prosperous times.

The Pew report said Hispanics, whose employment levels and household wealth were hit hard by the recession, experienced the largest fertility declines of any racial or ethnic group. From 2008 to 2009, birth rates dropped by 5.9% among Hispanic women. For African-American women, rates dropped 2.4%, and they dropped 1.6% among white women.

In 2009, the Hispanic birth rate of 93.3 births per 1000 women was the lowest since 1999. That came after a year when unemployment among Hispanics increased 2.0%.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, Hispanics have also been the biggest losers in terms of wealth in the recession -- Hispanic households have lost 66% of their median wealth from 2005 to 2009.

Haub said the drop in American birth rates is not significant enough to be alarming -- there's not going to be a shortage of people anytime soon. But the decline could have a significant impact on markets that cater to children and families and also affect the need for teachers or other providers of children's services.

And things don't appear to be changing anytime soon.

"We're probably in for a somewhat longer term depression of the birth rate," Haub said. "The economy has definitely put a damper on it."

Education Information

Technology

Read More