

The California Motorcycle Accident Lawyers SITEMAP

California Cell Phone Motorcycle Accident Lawyers

California Motorcycle Accident Lawyer Henke Presents the Scientific Evidence That Driving While Engaged in Cell Phone Conversation (by Handheld or Hands-Free Cell Device) Results in DUI Level Driving Impairment And a 4 Fold Greater Likelihood that The Driver will Cause an Accident.

Before considering the scientific literature demonstrating the DUI level driving impairment resulting from driving under the influence of a cell phone, it is important first to consider the magnitude of this auto and motorcycle safety issue. The use of cell phones while driving on our American roadways is now epidemic and growing each year. In the year 2000 only two percent of American drivers on our roads and highways at any given daylight moment in time were actively involved in cell phone conversation. By December 2005 the number had grown to 10 percent of all American drivers on our streets at any given daylight moment in time, on their cell phones, actively involved in cell conversation. That means that 1 in every 10 cars we encounter when we drive now is being operated by a motorist who is driving under the influence of a cell phone. National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) (a probability based observed data study on cell phone use performed by NHTSA.)

There is now overwhelming scientific evidence, which we feel California motorcycle accident lawyers must come to understand thoroughly, which demonstrates without legitimate scientific controversy that those who drive under the influence of any cell phone, handheld or hands-free, are just as dangerous as DUI drunk drivers, and at least as likely to be involved in an accident as drivers DUI impaired under the influence of alcohol.

It is now incontrovertable that those who drive under the influence of cell phone conversation are DUI level driving impaired, and are at least equally as likely as the DUI drunk driver to cause an accident. Those driving while conversing on their cell phone are four times more likelty to cause an accident over those who are not involved in cell conversation. The epidemiological literature: Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions.” New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 453. McEvoy, Stevenson, McCartt, Woodward, Haworth, Palamara and Cercarelli, "Role of Mobile Phones in Motorvehicle Crashes Resulting in Hospital Attendance; A Case-Crossover Study,” British Medical Journal (July 12, 2005). The controlled experimental literature: Strayer, Drews and Crouch, “A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver,” Human Factors, Summer 2006. Strayer first announced his findings demonstrating DUI level impairment associated with cell phone use in 2003. Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. & Crouch, D. J. (2003). “Fatal Distraction? A Comparison of the Cell-Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver.” In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2003: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Published by the Public Policy Center, University of Iowa (pp. 25-30).See, Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). “Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular phone. Psychological Science,” 12, 462-466. McCarley, J. S., Vais, M., Pringle, H., Kramer, A. F., Irwin, D. E., & Strayer, D. L. (2001). “Conversation disrupts visual scanning of traffic scenes.” Paper presented at Vision in Vehicles, Australia. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., Albert, R. W., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). “Cell phone induced perceptual impairments during simulated driving.” In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2001: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2002). “Why do cell phone conversations interfere with driving?” Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2003). “Cell phone induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 23-23. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). “Are we being driven to distraction? Public Policy Perspectives,” Vol. 16, 1-2. (Published by the Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Utah) Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. (2003). “Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers.” In the Proceedings of the 47nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp.. 1860-1864). Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. & Crouch, D. J. (2003). “Fatal distraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver.” In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2003: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Published by the Public Policy Center, University of Iowa (pp. 25-30). Strayer, D. L., Cooper, J. M., & Drews, F. A. (2004). “What do drivers fail to see when conversing on a cell phone?” In the Proceedings of the 48nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp 2213-2217). McCarley, J.S., Vais, M.J., Pringle, H., Kamer, A.F., Irwin, D.E., & Strayer, D.L. (2004) “Conversation disrupts change detection in complex traffic scenes.” Human Factors, 46, 424-436. Strayer, D.L., & Drews, F. A. (2004). “Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers.” Human Factors, 46, 640-649. Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. Crouch, D. J., & Johnston, W. A. (2005). “Why do Cell Phone Conversations Interfere with Driving?” In W. R. Walker and D. Herrmann (Eds.) Cognitive Technology: Essays on the Transformation of Thought and Society (pp. 51-68), McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC.)

It is critical that California cell phone accident lawyers also fully understand that it is not only handheld cell phones which result in the DUI level driving impairment, hands-free cell phones result in the same impairment and the same four fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident.

Contrary to the "conventional wisdom" that it is only handheld cell phones which result in imapired driving, the science has demonstrated that the driving impairment is identical whether the driver is conversing by handheld or hands-free device. The misconception that only handheld cell phones impair driving unfortunately has been exacerbated by political compromise, such as that evidenced by the 2006 California legislation enacted banning only the use of handheld cell phones while driving. But the fact is that the science demonstrates unambiguously that it doesn't matter whether the motorist is using a handheld cell phone or a hands-free device; the DUI level driving impairment and 4 fold increased incidence of accidents is the same.

First, it has been demonstrated in dozens of controlled experimental studies that the significant aspect of the cell phone impairment resulting in the increased incidence of accidents is “attentional”, specifically, an "inattentional blindness," deriving from the cell conversation, not from holding the phone. The science demonstrates persuasively that the impairment derives from the diversion of limited capacity for conscious attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks associated with safe driving. Id. When drivers are engaged in conversation on any cell phone, handheld or hands-free, as their attention shifts back and forth from the external-visual to the internal-cognitive, the driver will not consciously "see" what is right in front of him, even the objects upon which his eyes are fixed. “Our data imply that legislative initiatives that restrict handheld devices but permit hands-free devices are not likely to reduce interference from the phone conversation, because the interference is, in this case, due to central attentional processes.” See, Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). “Driven to Distraction: Dual-task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Phone.” Psychological Science, 12, 462-466. See also, Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2002). “Why Do Cell Phone Conversations Interfere With Driving?” Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

In controlled experiments comparing subjects using handheld or hands-free cell phones, subjects DUI level alcohol intoxicated, and subjects neither intoxicated nor on the cell phone, Strayer, et al., found the subjects conversing on cell phones and the subjects DUI alcohol intoxicated were equally impaired in their driving. Indeed, those on the cell phone were found to be significantly more likely to cause accidents than even the DUI alcohol intoxicated subjects. Strayer found that those conversing on the cell phone were more likely to fail to see traffic signals, more likely to fail to see a car braking ahead, they fail to see significant changes in the driving environment which would normally be expected to automatically draw attention, they will fail to see what is right in front of them, and fail to see even what their eyes are fixed upon. And because the nature of the impairment is an "inattentional blindness" it didn't matter whether the driver was using a handheld device or a hands-free device, the impairment was identical.

According to Strayer, et al., the authors of the greatest number of these controlled experimental studies: “These data call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones because no significant differences were found in the impairments to driving caused by these two modes of cellular communication." Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). “Are We Being Driven to Distraction?” Public Policy Perspectives, Vol. 16, 1-2. (Published by the Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Utah). Strayer has indeed made this clear at least since 2001: See, also e.g., Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2003). “Cell Phone Induced Failures of Visual Attention During Simulated Driving.” Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 9, pp. 23-23. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). “Are We Being Driven to Distraction?” Public Policy Perspectives, Vol. 16, 1-2. (Published by the Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Utah). Strayer has indeed made this clear at least since 2001: Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). “Driven to Distraction: Dual-task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Phone.” Psychological Science, 12, 462-466. See also, Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2002). “Why Do Cell Phone Conversations Interfere With Driving?” Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. See also, Shomstein, S., Yantis, S. “Control of Attention Shifts Between Vision and Audition in Human Cortex.” The Journal of Neuroscience, November 24, 2004, 24(47):10702-10706.

These findings of Strayer that the cell phone impairment is attentional deriving from the switching of attention from the external-visual to the internal-cognitive during the cell conversation is supported also by the neurological studies of Johns Hopkins Professor Yantis, who examined the brain activity of human subjects while the subjects engage in cell conversation. What Yantis found was that brain activity switched back and forth from the visual and auditory centers of the brain, and he concluded: “Our research helps explain why talking on a cell phone can impair driving performance, even when the driver is using a hands-free device.” Stromstein & Yantis, supra. In an interview, professor Yantis made plain the significance of his findings on the specific issue of cell phone driving impairment: “Our research helps explain why talking on a cell phone can impair driving performance, even when the driver is using a hands-free device ... Directing attention to listening effectively 'turns down the volume' on input to the visual parts of the brain. The evidence we have right now strongly suggests that attention is strictly limited -- a zero-sum game. When attention is deployed to one modality -- say, in this case, talking on a cell phone -- it necessarily extracts a cost on another modality -- in this case, the visual task of driving." Consumer Affairs, June 22, 2005.

It is a trap for the unwary or uneducated "California cell phone accident lawyer” to focus on the handling of the cell phone, because the science cited above demonstrates that holding the cell phone is not the factor contributing to the DUI driving impairment, it is the diversion of limited capacity for conscious attention to the cell conversation.

California cell phone accident lawyers must appreciate that drivers who use hands-free devices are just as impaired as those who use handheld devices. It would be a grave disservice to write off cases in which hands-free cell phone use is identified, and a grave disservice even to concede weakness in a hands-free cell phone case.

In some cases it may be that a witness may observe that the auto driver was dialing his or her cell phone at the time of the accident, or texting a message on the phone, and this also might provide the cell phone accident lawyer good evidence of driver distraction important to the prosecution of a lawsuit based upon the distraction, but a cell phone accident lawyer must understand the science in order for him to know that this is not the same impairment which science has demonstrated to lead to the DUI level driving impairment and 4 fold increased incidence of accidents among cell phone users actively involved in cell conversation.

It is so very unfortunate that politicians such as the majority in our California legislature have seen fit to enact “handheld cell phone bans” as compromise to the comprehensive cell phone legislation offered by our more responsible legislators. Perhaps they feared the public backlash if they were to deprive the majority of their constituency of the use of cell phones while driving, a use to which, indeed, unfortunately, 70 percent of American auto drivers have become so accustomed. But the legislation is out of step with the science, and it is the science that has measured the risk associated with handheld and hands-free cell phones and found the risk to be identical. When our Governor signs the bill and then turns to the cameras and says "Don't worry, the legislation will not come into effect until 2008, plenty of time to pick up a hands-free device" he compounds the problem by misleading the public to believe that driving under the influence of a hands-free cell phone is somehow safe. This presents the California cell phone accident lawyer another hurdle to overcome, but again, it is the science that will prevail, and there is no scientific rebuttal.

Calling oneself a "California cell phone accident lawyer" doesn't make an attorney a qualified California cell phone accident lawyer. Consult the other cell phone accident lawyer web sites and you will find more misinformation than accurate information, some of them actually urging those who visit their sites to switch to hands-free cell phones to avoid endangering their lives. This is completely irresponsible, and the danger is that these attorneys may also fail to recognize that the same advantages that they purport to be capable of providing to those of their clients involved in accidents with drivers using handheld devices can with equal force be used to the advantage of clients injured in accidents caused by drivers using hands-free devices.

. Being a competent California cell phone accident lawyer means that one must first be competent to recognize the good cell phone accident case, and then to prepare and present the scientific evidence establishing that the other driver was DUI level impaired. In order to do this, the California cell phone accident lawyer must be conversant with scientific methodology, able to read and understand epidemiological and experimental literature and he must be willing to read and indeed immerse himself in this science to have the firm grounding essential to present the evidence in the context of a settlement conference or at trial.

There are extraordinary opportunities for the competent California cell phone accident lawyer to overcome contested liability cases where there is irrefutable evidence from cell phone records that the motorist was driving at the time of the accident while in conversation on a cell phone. There are important opportunities particularly in serious injury motorcycle accident cases to obtain complete compensation for the seriously injured motorcycle accident victim when appropriate investigation establishes that the cell phone conversation was business related. But there are huge pitfalls for lawyers who are not able or willing to become well educated California cell phone accident attorneys, and so the choice of an appropriately qualified and educated lawyer is essential.

California Cell Phone Accident Lawyers Must Prepare Their Serious Injury Motorcycle Accident Cases From the Initial Investigation, Through the Depositions, Build Their Case by Expert Preparation, Undercut the Opponent’s Case at Expert Depositions and Ultimately Present The Case Through Effective Direct and Cross-Examination.

In every serious injury motorcycle accident case the California cell phone accident lawyers must conduct the appropriate investigation to determine whether the other driver was using his cell phone at the time of the accident. This begins by inquiring of the plaintiff and the witnesses, but it is the rare case in which the attention of the plaintiff or the witnesses will have been drawn to see whether the other driver was on the cell phone in the seconds leading up to the accident. Often the cell phone use will go unnoticed, particularly where the cell phone is a hands-free device. The other driver commonly will not acknowledge that he was on the cell phone. And so the police report may make no mention of the fact.

It is therefore so very important that in every serious injury case and in every contested liability case that the California motorcycle or accident lawyer obtain the cell phone records of the other driver to determine if he was on the phone at the time of the accident.

It is important to establish that the other driver was impaired, and as noted above, in serious injury cases the other driver may be woefully underinsured to compensate the plaintiff for his injuries, and so his only chance for full compensation for his damages may depend upon the California cell phone accident lawyer's demonstrating, whenever true, that the other party was engaged in business conversation or cell conversation while operating his vehicle in the course and scope of his employment. As described above, this will permit the lawyer to add the employer as a party and hold the employer jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's damages, with the employer's insurance and assets available to pay the claim. In addition to obtaining the cell phone records, the competent California cell phone accident lawyer has a number of litigation tools available to him to advance his client's case. The lawyer should send "interrogatories," written questions which the other party is required by law to answer under oath to obtain the driver's cell phone number. The California cell phone accident attorney can propound document requests demanding the cell phone records. He can take the depositions of the defendant driver and the individual with whom he was engaged in cell conversation at the time of the accident. In this manner, the California cell phone accident attorney can determine whether the defendant was on his cell phone at the time of the accident, and he can determine the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the other party to the call, and specifically whether it was a business relationship. The California cell phone accident attorney can inquire at deposition about the content of the conversation to determine whether it had, in whole or part, a business purpose. And in this way California cell phone accident lawyers can establish whether the cell conversation was in the course and scope of the driver's employment. With this evidence the lawyer can name the employer as a party defendant in the litigation, establish his joint and several liability under California respondeat superior theory. Once established by this type of evidence, the employer's insurance policy and assets may be sought to pay for the full range of damages suffered by the plaintiff, which is particularly important where the driver's policy may be insufficient to fully compensate the plaintiff.

The evidence that the defendant driver was on the cell phone can also mean the difference between success in establishing liability and failure, but it will require a competent California cell phone accident lawyer fully conversant with the science and able to present it.

It is an unfortunate phenomenon in our modern society, but in a large percentage of motorcycle accident cases the auto driver at fault for the accident will be found unwilling to admit fault. In a substantial number of these "contested liability" cases furthermore, the trial of fault or "liability" comes down to a “swearing contest” or “he said, she said,” as some lawyers are apt to put it. Even where there are independent witnesses to an accident it is common that witness testimony will conflict. The jury in the motorcycle accident case is then faced with the conflicting stories and must somehow come to a judgment based often on vaguely grounded assessments of the relative “credibility” of the parties or witnesses. Unfortunately, since the judge will instruct the jury that “the plaintiff bears the burden of proof,” very commonly the jurors in contested liability cases will feel compelled by this instruction to find for the defendant. All too often this will result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appropriately qualified California cell phone accident lawyer has the advantage in contested liability cases where he can demonstrate that the defendant motorist was engaged in cell conversation at the time of the accident. When the California cell phone accident lawyer puts on the scientific evidence that the defendant motorist was driving DUI level cell phone impaired at the time of the accident and four times more likely to cause an accident, this can turn a contested liability case into a “no thinker” for the jury. It is powerful evidence, just as a Breathalyzer, urine or blood test demonstrating that the defendant was DUI level drunk at the time of the accident is powerful evidence.

If you have been seriously injured in an accident, there are an abundance of good reasons why you should consider obtaining the representation of lawyer experienced in the prosecution of complex cases and competent in the assessment, investigation, and preparation of cell phone accident litigation.

Again, we welcome you to contact us for a free attorney consultation. Simply submit the California Cell Phone Motorcycle Accident Attorney Case Evaluation Request Form. We look forward to the opportunity to speak with you.

The Motorcycle Lawyers of the Henke Office are Your Highly Qualified Trial Attorneys for Every Serious Injury Motorcycle Accident Case.

Attorney Ray Henke is the California motorcycle accident lawyer with the credentials and track record, and he's a biker, so yes, he knows motorcycle physics from the seat up. You can view his trial lawyer credentials and track record by viewing the "Henke, the California Motorcycle Accident Attorney" page and consider the "What to Look for in a California Motorcycle Accident Lawyer" page to find the questions you should ask any California motorcycle accident lawyer who you would consider to represent you in a your case. And yes, Mr. Henke is a biker, a motorcyclist just like you. See the "Henke, the Biker" page to learn why it is important that the California motorcycle accident lawyer you chose to represent you is a motorcyclist himself. "It's all about understanding" -- understanding motorcycle physics, like why a motorcyclist can't just slam on his brakes in a turn, and why it is important that your motorcycle accident attorney be able to convey his understanding of motorcycle physics effectively, as a superior lawyer, to insurance adjusters, defense counsel, or to a jury. "That's what a biker lawyer Henke can do for you that an auto driving personal injury lawyer can't." You can compare Mr. Henke's California motorcycle accident lawyer credentials with those of any other California motorcycle accident attorneys who you would consider to represent you. To aid you in this, at the accompanying page "What to Look for in a California Motorcycle Accident Lawyer," Mr. Henke provides you a list of motorcycle accident lawyer questions you should ask every prospective California motorcycle accident lawyer who you would consider for your motorcycle accident case. Mr. Henke also affirmatively provides you his accurate answers to the same questions, without your having first to ask. Mr. Henke also provides the "California Motorcycle Accident Lawyer Checklist" which you can download and throw into your saddle bag in case you are ever in a motorcycle accident in the future. It provides useful information about what to do and not to do immediately after a motorcycle accident and in the days following the motorcycle accident.

Free Consultation
CLICK HERE to Submit
Case Questionnaire