Um…say what? From Insurance Journal:
The Massachusetts House has approved a bill banning drivers from talking or texting on cell phones while behind the wheel, despite opposition from a lawmaker from a city where authorities say a man sending a message struck and killed a 13-year-old boy in a hit-and-run accident last month.[...]
The most vocal opposition came from Taunton Rep. James Fagan, a Democrat who argued that it’s a giveaway to insurance companies that will impose surcharges on violators. He said a violation would cost him $140 per year in surcharges for six years.
You’re arguing against making it illegal to drive while distracted, on the basis that it gives insurers the ability to surcharge more?
I could launch into a long discussion about how any increased premium revenue would in theory be offset by slightly decreased premiums on law abiding citizens, by pointing out that MVR’s are expensive enough that there’s a good chance violations won’t be surcharged at renewal in many jurisdictions, or even by pointing out that MVR’s are notoriously incomplete and it’s doubtful that folks would be ticketed just for texting without some other chargeable incident occurring (be it reckless driving, or an accident).
However…I’ll settle for observing that someone’s priorities are misplaced.
If there’s a flaw with a no-texting-while-driving law, it’s that there may be other laws that already govern, or that society would be better served with a generic no-driving-while-distracted law. Fear of insurance surcharges is a lousy excuse to oppose legal recognition of an idiotic behavior.