Gainesville, Ocala & Daytona Beach Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents - Most Commented

Gainesville Florida Law Enforcment Cracks Down on Drunk Driving

Jeffrey Meldon — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:02:57 GMT

Gainesville, Florida law enforcement has joined a nationwide effort to increase DUI arrests and hopefully reduce the number of accidents, injuries and deaths caused by drinking and driving. The crime of Driving Under the Influence, in Florida, includes not only alcohol but also all drugs that impair a person's ability to drive safely. These drugs includes illegal drugs as well as those drugs prescribed by a doctor or available over the counter. Many people think that just because a doctor prescribed a drug it is legal to take that drug and drive. In fact, legal prescription drugs and certain over-the-counter drugs significantly contribute to the carnage and death on our highways.

The Gainesville Police Department, The Alachua County Sheriff's Office, and the Florida Highway Patrol have joined together to toughen up DUI enforcement between now and Labor Day as part of the "Drunk Driving Over the Limit. Under Arrest" Campaign. Alcohol related crashes were down from 23,000 in 2005 to 22,000 in 2006 statewide and law enforcement agencies in Gainesville hope to do their part in arresting people suspected of DUI.

Gainesville Police Department Sergeant Joe Raulerson reports that Gainesville recorded 18 traffic fatalities in 2007 and in at least a third of them alcohol was a factor. Gainesville has almost 65,000 college students who may be those at greatest risk of failing to recognize the risks associated with drinking or taking drugs(legal or illegal) and driving.

A DUI Causing Serious Bodily Injury can land someone in prison for many years,even on a first offense, and a DUI Manslaughter often results in a 15 to 20 year prison sentence for a first offense.

A conviction for a first offense DUI can cost as much a $20,000 or more primarily due to increased insurance costs. A new law passed in Florida in 2007 requires anyone convicted of DUI to carry car insurance with a minimum Bodily Injury Liability coverage of $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident as well as $50,000 in Property Damage coverage.

It is important for drivers to plan ahead if they go out for a night that includes any more than a few drinks. Even one Martini(with 2.5-3 oz.of alcohol) can put a 120 lb. person at or near the legal limit of a .08. Planning to have a designated driver or taking a taxi home makes sense and can avoid the years of heartache that can be caused by a tragic DUI accident.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

CSX Railroad Train Kills Grandmother

Jeffrey Meldon — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:19:27 GMT

Cynthia Forman, a 58 year old grandmother, was killed yesterday when a CSX railroad train was unable to stop and hit her as she was crossing the tracks in her car. The railroad tracks crossed a private road that Ms. Forman was driving on. There apparently was no warning device to alert the victim of the oncoming train. The crash marks the 18th fatal crash this year in Alachua County , Florida. Last week I reported on the efforts of CSX railroad to get the Florida legislature to protect it from lawsuits arising from railroad accidents as part of a proposed deal to create the green "dream train." This is yet another example of why CSX wants to manipulate the people of Florida and limit their right to make valid claims for serious injuries or wrongful death. CSX will have no motivation to create safety warning devices at dangerous crossings if the state provides sovereign immunity (limits on the right to sue) to CSX. Trains are dangerous and the people of this state and our visitors need to be protected.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

Comparative Negligence - Do You Know What it Means For Floridians?

Jeffrey Meldon — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:56:00 GMT

In a recent Florida court case, the jury found three drivers and the Alachua Police Department to be negligent (at fault) in a fiery I-75 and Hwy. 441 crash that left one dead and two seriously injured two years ago. The jury decided that one driver and the Police Department were each 35% to blame for the accident and two other motorists, each 15%.

How can this be? This is done utilizing the doctrine of comparative negligence which Florida adopted in 1973 and falls under case law for personal injury or accident lawyers. This doctrine more accurately allows assignment of blame on a percentage basis.

What does this mean? Vehicular accidents usually result from the mistake/s made by one or more drivers or pedestrians. Many times people believe that they cannot recover any damages for loss of their property or their personal injuries if they were partially to blame for an accident. This is not always true. Florida law compares the fault of each party involved in an accident. Under the comparative negligence doctrine, a person may still be able to recover damages, even if they were partly at fault for a crash. However, the damages will be reduced by the percentage that they were found to be at fault.

For example, if you were rear-ended and the crash caused you serious personal injuries, your settlement amount may be reduced if you slowed down to make a turn but failed to signal.

What is the lesson here? Every person using the road, (whether it be a pedestrian, a motorist, or a passenger), is required to pay attention, follow traffic rules and use reasonable care on the road. If an accident victim fails to protect his or her own safety and the safety of others, he or she could be found to be partly at fault for their own injuries. Here are a few tips:

· If you are driving: avoid speeding, buckle up, always signal when making a turn, pay attention to the road, follow all road signs and laws, and do not drive a car that you know has mechanical problems.

· If you are a passenger: do not ride with a driver that you know has been drinking or is too sleepy to drive properly, and wear your seat belt.

· If you are a pedestrian: cross the street in a crosswalk, do not enter a crosswalk on red light, avoid using an MP3 player because it may prevent you from hearing a car horn or a vehicle approaching.

Dealing with the allocation of fault in accident cases can be very complicated, as there is no exact formula to determine percentages of fault. Proper investigation is of the utmost importance to help assign the fault of each party. This is one reason why if you have been involved in a serious accident, it is important to contact an experienced accident attorney ASAP before the evidence “gets cold”, witness become difficult to locate, and the facts of the case are lost. You may not need a lawyer, but with most personal injury attorneys, consultations are free, so take advantage of them and educate yourself.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

Don’t Let Them Longhorns Outshine Us – Here Is What You Can Do Today:

Jeffrey Meldon — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:50:29 GMT

Austin, Texas, is the home of the University of Texas Longhorns and the Texas Legislature. In Texas, known for its rugged individualism, lawmakers have progressively passed a law restricting the rights of drivers to use their cell phones in “active” school zones.

Florida already lags behind many other states in recognizing the dangers of cell phone use. This is yet another example of Florida being beaten to the punch.

As a long time accident attorney and Gator fan, I am sure if the University of Florida Gators were playing the University of Texas Longhorns at the BCS football championship game next January, as predicted by many sports writers, Florida would spare no expense, nor would take any risk, to make sure that the Gators arrived safely for the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, the site of this year’s National Championship Game. I am also sure that drivers for the Team would not be allowed to be texting or chatting on their cells while driving the Team.

In this instance, it is incumbent upon the Florida Legislature to ensure that our future Gators arrive at their destinations safely.

I urge you to write your legislature now. Don’t wait! Many bills will be pre-filed in anticipation of next Spring’s annual get-together of our lawmakers in Tallahassee. Write or call your representative today. Urge them to make our roads safer for our school children and the general public by, banning cell phone use while behind the wheel - especially in school zones!

Contact your Florida Representative and Senator. Press on this link to find the names of your Senator and Representative.

Show you care!

For more information:

Texting and Driving.... It Should Be Illegal in Florida

A Multitaskers Admission of Guilt... Rehab? Sign me up!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

UM Coverage, …. “Stack” it up and save!

Jeffrey Meldon — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:26:33 GMT

Florida has some of the worst laws in the country when it comes to protecting the innocent person injured in a crash. As an accident attorney, it is heartbreaking for me to see legitimately injured people, who thought they had “full coverage” insurance, find out that what they had purchased does not come close to meeting the needs of their injuries.

Florida’s required insurance is minimal and offers only very little protection if you are injured in an accident, even if the accident was not your fault! Florida Law requires drivers to carry these two insurances:

1. $10,000 of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) which covers 80% of your medical expenses and 60% of lost wages, up to $10,000 total, if you are injured in a car accident, no matter who was “at-fault” for the accident (Florida is a “no-fault” state).

2. $10,000 of Property Damage to cover the other person’s vehicle if you cause the accident.

Here is an example of why this amount of insurance will not protect you, and if you only have this amount of insurance why you are “Under-Insured”:

Let’s say you are sitting at a stop light and a distracted texting driver rear-ends you and both you and the at-fault driver only have the required minimum Florida insurance. You are seriously injured in the wreck and are taken to the ER, chances are that just your hospital bill alone will use up most or all of your PIP limit of $10,000 (and could easily exceed it) and the money for further medical treatments, prescriptions or any needed rehab will come out of your pocket, in addition, you will be out of luck for your lost wages. If your car’s damages are more than $10,000, that money as well will come out of your pocket unless you have collision and comprehensive insurance.

The solution: In addition to my other insurance recommendations, Florida drivers should always purchase Un-insured or Under-insured Motorist Coverage (UM or UIM) to protect themselves and their passengers from drivers who have no coverage or just the minimal required insurance or are under-insured in other ways. With the purchase of UM or UIM coverage, claims that exceed the insurance coverage of the at-fault person will be covered by your UM insurance policy. Here is an example:

Let’s say your accident claim, in the example given above, adds up to $100,000: Your PIP will cover $10,000, which leaves you with a balance of $90,000 to pay. If you had purchased UM coverage in the amount of $100,000, you will be able to collect the balance due from your own insurance company.

In addition: An important option available with UM/UIM coverage is the ability to "stack" coverage. If you insure more than one car, “stacking” will give you a lot more insurance coverage at a low cost. Here is how “stacking” works:

Assume that you have UM/UIM coverage in the amount of 50/100, meaning that it covers up to $50,000 per person and $100,000 total per accident. If you insure three cars, with stacked coverage your limits would increase three times to $150,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence, and the cost is less than it would be if you had $100,000/$300,000 on each car separately.

So… “stack” it up and save!

UM/UIM coverage has become even more important to have in light of recent studies that show that nearly one in four drivers on the road today is driving illegally, without any insurance at all, and also many drivers are dropping coverage that is not required and just going with the basic required Fl insurance and are underinsured. In fact, we estimate that at least 70% of drivers on the road today are either un-insured or under-insured.

With this in mind, it is important to revaluate your auto insurance policy today. I suggest a minimum UM coverage in the amount of $100,000/$300,000 and to “stack” it up to save money if you have more than one car.

(Finally, remember that Bodily Injury Insurance protects the other person if you were at fault for an accident and does not offer you or your passengers any protection at all!)

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

A multitasker’s admission of guilt… Rehab?...sign me up!

Jeffrey Meldon — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:41:27 GMT

What is all the buzz about multitasking while driving? I do it and it is even legal, at least in Florida!

I am a multitasking king; it is a gift of mine. I can do a quick 3 miles on the treadmill while reading the NY Times on my Kindle, talking on my cell phone, responding to emails on my Blackberry, watching the news on TV, talking to the person next to me, and drinking water all at the same time, and I haven’t injured myself or anyone else.

I am an experienced driver and can drive while looking up a phone number on my Blackberry and then chat away as I maneuver through traffic, (it is a hands-free set up, so hey!), I can even send a quick message, and I have never caused an accident... so, what is the problem with multitasking while driving? I can do it.

The answer is, plenty is wrong with driving and multitasking! In fact, more and more research is proving it to be a dangerous activity that is plaguing our society today.

We know the risks, yet we continue to do it, even me. Even being an accident attorney for over 30 years and:

knowing the risks and dangers of distracted driving, of which cell phone use is the #1 culprit,
having blogged about the risks of chatting and texting for many months now,
being aware of the news of accidents a caused by this dangerous activity,
even having represented clients that have been injured by distracted drivers,

Yet, I still do it… I admit it, I am guilty!

Obviously, we all want to believe that we can do it all; multitask away and also be a safe driver on the road, but, it is just not the case! Here are the facts:

Driving while celling (hand-held or hands-free) is as dangerous as driving drunk,
Cell chatting drivers are 4 to 5 times more likely to cause an accident,
Texting raises a driver’s crash risk by 23 times!

It really does not take a Zen Master to know how important it is to be in the moment when you drive, to not be distracted, but to just drive. We all know driving is a potentially dangerous activity that requires our full attention and doing so might save a life that could be our own or one of a loved one, yet most of us still don’t do it, and we drive distracted, ignoring the basic rules of driving:

Both hands on the wheel,
Both eyes on the road and
Our full attention and mind on the road.

Facts are Facts; we all have to admit it, including me, multitasking while driving is a dangerous risky undertaking, no matter our age, experience or how good we are at it in other areas of our life.

The reality is that we need to turn off the cell while driving and give the road our full attention that it requires and save multitasking for the treadmill, before we get on the road, at a rest stop, or when we reach our destination.

Maybe there needs to be a Rehab course for driving multitaskers? If so, sign me up!

For more information on this important topic:

Bad news for Floridians on the road, texting and celling behind the wheel remains legal

Driving Distractions 101

Today Show Video; Texting While Driving Caught on Tape

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

Safety Advocates Get a Victory for Stronger Roofs

Jeffrey Meldon — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:44:57 GMT

Good news for automobile safety advocates – the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently passed a new rule requirin light vehicles to have stronger roofs. According to the NHTSA, the new regulation could save about 135 lives per year in rollover crashes, which is the most fatal type of all highway car crashes.

According to the Agency, of the 10,000 rollover deaths nationally per year, about 667 die as a result of the roof being crushed. In addition to the 135 lives they estimate the new rule could save, it may also prevent over 1,000 serious injuries. Unfortunately, the rule does not go into effect until 2012, and does not have to be enforced in all vehicles until 2017.

The ruling requires that passenger cars and light vehicles less than 6,000 pounds must have roofs that support three times the curb weight of the vehicle, which is double the previous standard of 1.5. While, heavier vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds still only have to support 1.5 times their weight, until this rule, they were previously unregulated.

I applaud the NHTSA as I believe that it is time that the agencies designated to protect the public, deal with this serious problem in a meaningful way. Compulsory seat belt use along with crush resistant roofs will give everyone a fighting chance to survive an unexpected roll over crash. As an accident attorney in Gainesville, Ocala and the surrounding areas, I have represented many safe drivers who were forced into taking evasive action to avoid a careless driver only to wind up being seriously injured in a roll over accident and sustaining multiple injuries as a result.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

The Never-ending Debate: The Legal Drinking Age in the U.S.

Jeffrey Meldon — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:40:09 GMT

As an accidet attorney in Gainesville, a resident of a university and college town, and as a parent, the debate over the legal drinking age in the U.S. is of importance and interest to me.

The History:

The debate over the legal drinking age in the U.S. has continued for decades. Prior to 1970s, for almost forty years, the majority of States voluntarily set the minimum drinking age at 21. However, in the early 1970s, in the middle of the Vietnam War, twenty nine (29) States lowered the drinking age to reflect the age laws required to enlist with the military or the right to vote. Therefore making the drinking age limit varied among the States from 18 to 21 years of age. Also, in some States, the age limit was different depending on the type of alcohol a person consumed; one had to be 18 years old to drink beer, and 20 years old to drink liquor. Because the alcohol traffic fatalities increased simultaneously with the decrease in drinking age limit, some States raised their age limit back to 21. The rest of the States kept it at 18, which caused some teens to go across their States’ borders to a neighboring State, which had a lower drinking age limit, drink there and drive back home intoxicated. Concerned with the alcohol traffic fatalities and injuries, Congress passed the National Minimum Purchase Age Act in 1984, which provided reduced federal highway funds to those states which did not have a drinking age limit of 21. Therefore, by 1988, all 50 states set the minimum drinking age at 21.

The Debate:

The proponents of a lower drinking age limit argue that the drinking age should be lowered, since at age 18 one is an adult in the eyes of the law. They assert that persons at 18 can marry, pay taxes, vote, enlist in the military, adopt, enter into legally binding contracts, be executed, sue etc. Also, relying on the fact that those under 21 were crossing borders to get alcohol in neighboring States which had lower drinking age limit during the 1970s, the proponents argue that prohibition to drink destroys moderation and promotes excessive consumption of alcohol among young people. The presidents of more than 100 colleges and universities in the U.S. state that the drinking age limit of 21 actually encourages dangerous binge drinking on campuses. Because those under 21 abuse alcohol on those occasions when they can actually get it, introducing a lower drinking age will prompt them to drink less, since they will not view alcohol as something prohibited. The proponents also say that the main goal of setting a minimum drinking age was to reduce drunk driving, and that most of those who are under 21 drink in their dorms or parties to which they walk and do not drive. They also assert that federal government should not regulate the area that has been reserves to the states by the U.S. Constitution. Another argument is that the U.S. should follow the example of the European countries, most of which have a drinking age limit of 18, where alcohol is seen as a neutral substance and people learn about drinking alcohol in moderation from the early age, thus not abusing it in the proportions it is abused in the U.S.

On the other side, those who support the drinking age limit of 21 say that there is enough evidence to show that the minimum drinking age limit of 21 saves lives every year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that the drinking age limit of 21 has saved 18,220 lives since 1975. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, underage drinking is a leading contributor to deaths from injuries - the main cause of death for people under age 21, and drinking age limit of 21 has had positive effect on smaller number of traffic fatalities, suicide, assaults, and alcohol poisoning. Gallup Poll shows that most Americans oppose lowering the drinking age limit to 18 and support harsher penalties for underage drinkers. The supporters of the 21minimum drinking age law state that making alcohol available to those under 21 would actually increase binge-drinking and allow high school seniors to consume alcohol. They assert that while many of those under 21 still consume alcohol, they drink less and suffer less alcohol-related injuries when the drinking age limit is 21. Deferred alcohol drinking reduces the risk of abusing alcohol later in life. The supporters of the drinking age limit of 21 also argue that there is a “trickle-down” effect when young people get access to alcohol: many times, they give it to those even younger than them, thus if the drinking age is 18, 16 and 17-year-olds would also have access to alcohol.

Summary: The debate over determining the optimum drinking age to reduce alcohol traffic fatalities, injuries, alcohol dependency, and alcohol abuse is likely to continue. Regardless of whether you support the legal drinking age limit of 21 or not, you need to make sure that your children not only obey the current law, but also that they understand the dangers of drinking and the dangers of drinking and driving. Remember too, a young person’s frontal lobes are not yet fully developed; this combined with alcohol can lead to risky, dangerous and deadly behavior.

For more information, please see:

http://www.theantidrug.com

http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/teensalcohol/l/blalcohol2.htm

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

If these are "good neighbors" I'm changing neighborhoods!

Tom Copeland — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:25:45 GMT

Every day we emphasize to clients and others we come into contact with the importance of having the proper automobile insurance. Florida's "no fault" system does not require a car owner to carry bodily injury liability coverage to pay for personal injury damages to a person injured by the negligence of the car owner or anyone they may allow to drive their car. As a consequence, it is important for everyone who has financial and family obligations to carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to protect yourself in the event you are injured by the negligence of another driver. This type coverage protects you if the driver/owner who caused the accident either does not have insurance or has inadequate insurance (i.e. limits that are too low to fully compensate you for your injuries/damages). You have to pay for your own uninsured motorist coverage. While this does not seem fair, it is nonetheless necessary if you have financial obligations to creditors (as we all do) who do not care why you are unable to pay your bills. So far this sounds simple. Just get the uninsured motorist coverage and you have nothing to worry about, right?. Wrong. Most people who purchase car insurance rely on their insurance agent and never read their policy when it is received. This can be a big mistake as one of our clients recently found out. Our client was a resident of Georgia who decided to move back to Florida to be closer to her aging mother. The plan was for her to move in with her mom for a period of time until she found a job and got a place of her own. Her Georgia car insurer did not sell insurance in Florida. Upon moving in with mom, she started to look for a car nsurance company. Client's mom suggested that she call the local "good neighbor" insurance company that insured mom's car. When the client called, she told the "good neighbor" insurance company agent that she wanted "full coverage" just like she had in Georgia. In the discussion, the subject of uninsured motorist coverage came up. The agent advised the client that because she lived at home with her mom, who had uninsured motorist coverage on her (mom's) vehicles, client did not need to purchase separate uninsured motorist coverage as it would duplicate coverage she already had through her mom's policy. It was represented that when client moved out of mom's house, she would need to purchase her own uninsured motorist coverage. (note: the insurance agent has not denied the client's version of the transaction) Client purchased "good neighbors" insurance policy and paid her premiums by automatic bank withdrawal. If there had never been a car accident, client would have continued to pay, insurance company would have continued to collect, and that would be the end of the story. Natrually, things didn't work out that way. One afternoon a few months after the policy was purchased, the client was driving down the road minding her own business when a vehicle made an illegal left turn in front of her. She had no time to stop and struck the vehicle broadside. The impact caused client's car to roll several times and despite the use of a seatbelt, client was ejected from the car suffering siginificant injuries requiring emergency surgery to repair a severely fractured pelvis/hip and a lacerated arm. The client is still undergoing intensive physical therapy to regain the strength to walk without the assistance of a walker and has had several surgeries on her arm due to on-going problems with infection. Following the accident, client applied for Personal Injury Protection benefits through her own policy and Uninsured Motorist benefits through her mother's policy (the at fault driver of the other car had no insurance and the owner only had minimal bodily injury liability coverage). Uon receipt of the uninsured motorist claim from client, "good neighbor" insurance company quickly denied coverage because while daughter was a "resident relative" in mom's household for uninsured motorist coverage purposes, mom's policy specifically excluded coverage for a household resident who was driving a vehicle not listed on the policy. Since client was driving her own car, this provision of mom's policy excluded the client for uninsured motorist coverage! While the "good neighbor" agent may have overlooked this issue when advising our client about the coverage she needed, they didn't miss the issue for a second when a claim was filed. Now our client is forced to pursue an "errors and omissions" lawsuit against the "good neighbor" insurance agent rather than simply filing a claim and receiving payment of the benefits she was told she would have if she was injured by an uninsured/underinsured motorist. The moral to the story is never rely completely on the "insurance professional" regarding what your policy covers. When you receive the written policy, read through it, at least the coverage and exclusion sections. Then, if there is anything you don't understand, ask the insurance company for clarification in writing. If that doesn't clear up the issue for you or if they refuse to give you a written explanation, it's worth your time and a few dollars to consult an attorney before you find yourself in the same boat as our client and many others who depend on the expertise and the integrity of their "good neighbor" insurance agent/company. As I said, if this is a "good neighbor", I'm changing neighborhoods!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Tom Copeland

Help Tony Save Lives and Keep America’s Roads Safer.

Jeffrey Meldon — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:47:53 GMT

More of us do it every day than we’d like to admit. We know we shouldn’t; we’ve heard it’s dangerous but, we still do it. Meanwhile, one man is out to spread the word, town by town, and encourage us all to put the cell phone down while we drive. As an accident attorney and father, I applaud his efforts and want to help spread Tony's message. Here is his story:

Tony Anshutz, a former Los Angeles police officer (who now teaches SCUBA diving in Cozumel, Mexico,) is riding his motorcycle 16,000 miles in an attempt to raise awareness about the dangers associated with cell phone use while behind the wheel.

Tony became involved in the cause after meeting Dave Teater whose 12-year-old son was killed in a collision involving a driver using a cell phone. Tony is calling his adventure “Ride the Americas”, he set off on August 17 and will be stopping in small and big cities throughout North America. His goal is to promote the National Safety Council’s initiative to ban all cell phone use nationwide while driving.

Using a cell phone or smart phone while driving, in any capacity, is dangerous, and the task falls to people to self-police. Studies have shown that a driver’s level of distraction while talking on a cell phone can rival that of a person who is intoxicated. Furthermore, when we text and drive, the problem is even worse because now our eyes are not even on the road. Cell phone use while driving is the cause of 636,000 crashes and 2600 deaths annually.

Tony will be sharing stories and statistics about cell phone use including the fact that drivers using cell phones are 4 times more likely than other drives to be in a crash. Tony does not think that technology itself or cell phones in general are bad or dangerous but he says “as we become dependent on it, we must also adapt our behavior to its dangers.”

While Tony is traveling the roads of North America, he will be uploading images and logging his progress. To follow Tony’s progress as he rides across the Americas, visit http://www.ridetheamericas.com/ or join his Facebook group.

The websites include action items you can take to promote safety and the cell phone ban initiative through your own behavior, urging others to change or even by making a donation. Help Tony save lives and keep America’s roads safer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon