Many countries have outlawed using cell phones to talk or text while driving. Research shows that use of such devices while driving increases by a multiple of 23 the likelihood of an accident. People are so addicted to their phones, however, that the new laws are having little or no effect. Also, it is difficult to prove, in the aftermath of an accident, that someone was using a phone at the time the accident occurred; users routinely lie.

So news that the financial onus for this grossly irresponsible behaviour may be shifted to employers is a good thing. As Zurich Risk Engineering reported this week, "'distracted driving' may have been Webster's Dictionary's Word of the Year for 2009, but in 2010, businesses that provide their employees with mobile devices should keep a related phrase in mind: 'vicarious liability'".

Businesses whose employees text or place business-related calls while driving could be found vicariously liable, says Zurich, which believes - and this column wholly endorses the notion - that now is the time for businesses to take the initiative to help protect their employees, and themselves, from the potential dangers of distracted driving.

According to risk prevention specialists at Zurich Services Corporation, employers could be held vicariously liable if they permit employees to use particular technologies while driving, possibly including operating a company-owned cellular phone or mobile device. Since 2001, a growing number of jury awards have illustrated that businesses could be forced to pay the price for employees' distracted driving.

"Not only have businesses put people at risk over their laissez-faire attitude towards technology usage in their workplaces, (but) in most cases, they encourage it, if it means increased productivity," said Zurich's Jim Noble, line of business director, Motor Fleet. "Companies themselves, large and small, are now threatened if suddenly they're faced with a hefty lawsuit caused by an employee's negligence with an electronic device."

Guidelines for creating an electronic usage policy include: restricting in the company's distracted driving policy the use of all types of technologies (eg cell phone, Blackberry, laptop, MP3 player); prohibiting use of non-work related technology gadgets in non-office work areas to help minimise distractions and other safety-related hazards; and, of course, enforcing rules consistently and fairly with all employees.

While electronics usage policies by themselves do not guarantee success in preventing risks associated with distracted driving, Zurich says they may help cut down exposure and, more importantly, send a clear safety message to employees.

I call upon the Bermuda Government to outlaw forthwith the use of any electronic device by the driver of a vehicle with its engine turned on. It is the innocent who suffer most in accidents: your children, our seniors and those just going about their day. I also ask that the penalties for breaking this law be severe. This may not make much difference, but in safeguarding human life, any difference is good.

In related news, I can report having been sent through the new all-body scanner at JFK some months ago when I had to buy a ticket on the day of the flight. Apparently, terrorists can plan outrages, but always forget to buy an air ticket, so they are shoved through the total body X-ray machine, as I was. Nothing bad happened, except, presumably, to the person who had to survey my naked form. I imagine therapy is provided for such people.

Speaking of technology, if you want to book a flight on American Airlines (AA), you must give your name, address, credit card details and cell phone number. For 74 percent of US citizens (and probably a higher percentage of Bermudians), that's no problem. They have names, addresses, credit cards and cell phones. But the quarter of the population who do not have cell phones thus face joining terrorists on the no-fly list.

Luckily, AA's demands can be ignored with suitable technological trickery. Writing "none" in answer to the mandatory demand for a cell phone number seemed to do it when I recently booked a flight. But God knows what will happen to me when I get to the airport. I'll probably be flown to Guantanamo Bay, rather than to my chosen destination.

In Britain, starting in April, value added tax (VAT) returns may only be filed online. Those unable to file because they lack a computer or the ability, or desire, to use one will be punished, as is traditional in Stalinist states, by jail.

Thus is the hegemony of technology made complete. We don't ban it when it kills us, and we demand its use even when such behaviour is absurd. The Cylon machines fighting the humans aboard Battlestar Galactica on my TV screen this week would have been proud.

While it is logical to assume that most people running a business these days have computers, the jump to mandatory online filing is a leap too far, too fast. AA's policy is much worse, though. Some people, although fully a part of the modern economy, do not own cell phones and never will. For one thing, such people don't want radio waves beamed to within half an inch of their brains. For another, the nature of their lives might not call for the use of such a device: they might not be on-call emergency staff, the only people who truly need a cell phone. They might not be able to afford what cell phones cost. They might not want to be found, by friend or foe. They might believe that owning a cell phone is a luxury, not a necessity (for all the above reasons, and more, I don't have a cell phone).

Those without a car may take public transportation. Those without a raincoat may stand under an awning or remain indoors.

Those without technology, however, are being marginalised and denied access to the world's activity. That cannot be right, since the majority of those without technology are not the few capable of thinking for themselves, but the many incapable of fending for themselves economically.

We like to view ourselves as caring people. Yet in this brave new world, for many of those in positions of authority, it is, and always will be, 1984. Banning the use of cell phones while driving does not represent a loss of freedom; it is a call to take responsibility.

Government and Members of Parliament: do the right thing.