We have to do it. We live in a world where common sense needs to be forced onto us simply because we are too enthralled abour our rights to the point we forget that we also need common sense along with those rights to create a sense of responsibility.

Just because we have a right to do something, it does not entitle us to forgo our common sense to enact that right and become irresponsible in doing it.

I belive it is also known as 'freedom with responsibility'.

Now...if we can also get those people to turn down their car stereos so that they can actually hear the cyclists they run over, we would be even better...

I'm all for this. The only drawback is that more people are going to own those stupid bluetooth headsets. So essentially we're going to have more morons walking around the street wearing those things and looking like crazy people.

FYI if you wear a bluetooth headset anywhere other than your car you are only making yourself look bad.

I know that when I use my cell phone while driving, I am still perfectly safe and never distracted. I also know that when I see people driving near me talking on or dialing their cell phones it scares me spitless. What's wrong with those people? Let's ban cell phone use for all of them. I just want to keep mine.

Though I am not a fan of 'big government,' I think this is an appropriate government action, much as I agree with mandatory seat belts.

I love Eric Parker's comment, especially his line, "freedom with responsibility" which is the theme of my blog</a.

Can we include singing and playing air guitar too.

Opps. Must have been a freudian slip.

Do it: ban cell phones... IN CARS.

I second Garrett's comments about full-time bluetooth wearers.

I wholeheartedly agree.

As a society, we fail to respect driving as an important task requiring focus. I've witnessed drivers drifting fully into another lane only to jerk their car/SUV back into the original one. I've seen stop signs blown through without even a tap of the brakes and countless others. When this happens, I check the driver and invariably they've got a phone pressed to their ear.

I've also been in cars where drivers talk and drive with amazing awareness an precision. So until we come up with a phone driving aptitude test, we NEED to pass this law.

If an urgent call comes in, it's easy enough to find a place to stop and return the call. Driving while talking on the phone transfers one person's desire [to talk] into collective risk burden that the rest of us pay. It's the opposite of community and where the consequences can leave people injured or dead.

Having almost been hit by a cell-phone-to-ear driver that ran a stop sign (missed me by inches), having been behind and worst in front of cell-phone-to-ear drivers that are all over the road not paying attention - I now have a very negative attitude.

If it were only minor annoyances like not seeing the light turn green and sitting at an intersection with traffic backing up behind, then I could be very forgiving, figuring that the driver was basically an idiot in need of my sympathy. But when around me I see these cell-phone-to-ear drivers coming so close to causing me and other drivers injury or worse, I have to draw the line.

Yes, ticket the heck out of cell-phone-to-ear drivers.

One person’s entertainment should not cost another person their life.

Wait a second. You admit that handsfree devices result in "no great gains," but we should do it anyway? What is the point of that? If there are "great gains" (as there are with a beer tax), I'm OK with infringing (in a very small way) on individual liberty. If there aren't, then it doesn't make sense.

I think it would cut down on the amount of hit-and-run accidents as well. I had a neighbour arrested for hit-and-run because he was not aware (because of talking on his cell phone) he had hit a pedestrian. He swore he didn't hear or see anything hit his car when, in fact, he did - and it was seen by witnesses who tried to flag him down, yet he just ignored them.

He also has his stereo blasting in full force mode as well.

Please remember - Driving is a privilage, never a right. Because of that, we have to take diligent steps to obtain and maintain that privilage. That includes being attentive and responsible.

Besides - if driving was a right, the application for your drivers license would sit next to your voter registration forms at the post office. But, they don't.

You willing to outlaw singing in your car?

Depends.

Please submit a sample of the chorus of Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'" for consideration. You will be notified by mail in 2-4 weeks.

@lestatdelc:

Call bullshit all you like but study after study, dating back to the 90s, shows that phone calls are different than talking to someone else in the car (or singing).

We can theorize about why -- mine is that the person on the other end of the conversation, not being in the car with you, doesn't know what kind of traffic you're facing and doesn't modulate the conversation accordingly, the way a passenger does. Passengers tend to stop distracting the driver when things get hairy, and many times warn the driver about things that the driver has missed. People on the other end of a phone call, not so much.

Or read "Brain Rules" about how humans simply can't multitask.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter--drivers on the phone are impaired and perform similar to DUI drivers.

What we ought to do is make hand-held devices a primary offense (one you can be stopped and ticketed for) and make using a hands-free device a presumptive cause of impairment in accident investigations. That is, whenever police are called to the scene of an accident, they should obtain the cell numbers of the drivers involved and run a check to see if any of the cell phones were in use at the time of the accident. If so, drivers are presumptively at fault.

It's not perfect, but the fact that we can't pass a perfect law doesn't mean we shouldn't do what makes sense for most.

Question: How were people able to drive, conduct business, and/or communicate with others in the pre-cell era?

Answer: Very well, thank you.

Every country that has taken this issue up seriously is wrong and we are right and we are not dominated by corporate interests.

That is the only logical antithesis to Jeff's thesis. Either that is your position, you agree with Jeff, or you're throwing a tantrum.

And just for the sake of learning, so you maybe get a clue how that sounds... [insert all those condescending, "duh, it don't bother me, grow up, if you weren't stoned you would see it's good for society" comments from the beer tax post]. Not real persuasive is it?

If you give a ggd about individual liberty, take up the cause in one of the multitudinous ways that it matters, that you roll over and play good consumer with every day, and then you'll have credibility where there are obviously reasonable concerns. Most throwing a pout about this will gladly drop their pants and pee into a bottle on command.

Oh, and for those on the beer tax post that like the logic, "if a little is good, jack it through the ceiling", here's one for you. Go further with the ban. Ever heard of the felony murder rule? A murder is committed in the first degree, regardless of that statutory definition, if it is committed during the act of another felony. If you get startled burgling someone's house and accidentally shoot them, you are charged with murder in the first degree, not manslaughter or second degree, because it was in the act of burgling a residence, which is a felony.

Anyway, how 'bout the "cell phone murder rule"? Kill someone talking on the cell phone, while driving, and it's murder 1, not manslaughter. I like it. It's totally in the spirit of the felony murder rule. You made a conscious decision to engage in behavior with callous disregard for life, which was the occasion of the "extenuating circumstances" around the crime, and, as such, should not be considered. You did, in both cases, make the conscious, a priori assessment, "Nothing like that will probably happen. If it does, so be it. This is more important". If you then kill someone, you should not be treated any different from the person that sets out to kill you, without the intervening steps. You're just as dead, and the driver on the phone has no less respect for your life than the convenience store robber that thought you responded to his commands too slowly.

BTW, as someone whose graduate degree was in experimental psychology, I can tell you that the brain studies about multi-tasking, have been known for 25 years. This should have been shut down day 1. The science hasn't been great, either. The situation is much more extreme and a hazard than presented here or in most those studies. Those studies are a good summary of how the average person processes information. A lot of the people that say, "but I'm different", are right. There's a lot of variability among people where the brain is concerned (another point the beer tax people completely miss).

Please think about this seriously. There are people- most alcoholics- that lack PGO spikes in their brain EEG. They aren't generated in the Pons at all. You can think of a PGO spike very much like a computer hardware interrupt. They are used to transfer your consciousness' "stack pointer" to a new location. Sociologists call it an "orienting response". You've known someone that you could stand 2 feet from and yell, and if they were absorbed with something on the tele, they would hear not one word. (And how prone were they to addictions?) These people don't have the software to do the kind of processing that talking on a cell phone and driving requires, period. Full stop.

Add to that the monumental absurdity that we let 16 year olds pilot all those tons of steel, many of which really believe that that phone call may be more important than anything that could possibly happen in their life or yours.

Part of this is also the fault of the callee. You can tell, at least during the conversation, when someone is calling from the car. How often do you say something about it? I have a friend that, when she blinks, the registers clear, so to speak, and I will hang up on her in a heartbeat if she tries to call me from a car, or I reach her there. Ultimately a lot of this is genX culture. Not the people, the culture; it's bigger. By that logic, any questioning of behavior = hostility. Any forcing compliance is violence. In their minds, we are violent, hostile people that have nothing better to do than be phone Nazis.

@ lestatdelc:

I'm not aware of any such side-by-side comparison studies to other distracters because whether cell phones are more or less distracting than kids or other distracters is kind of an irrelevant issue unless you are trying to defeat a cellphone ban by arguing that we can't act against cell phones unless we act against all distracters.

Lots of studies on cell phones and driving though. Try the google -- "studies of cell phones and driving" gets you 292,000 hits.

Even if it could be somewhat unenforceable by the police, the insurance comapnies would pick up the slack by hitting hard with fees and rates for those who lie about their cell phone use and get caught either from the police or from the insurance companies doing investigative audits.

My insurance company give me a slight discount for not using any kind of cell phone, but duly warns me that if it is found to be a false statement, or is a proven cause of any accident I am involved in, my rates will go up substantially.

It may or may not be good public policy, but this big brother law is politically stupid. Is cellphone driving really the top issue for the state?

Plus, why make cellphones a stoppable, primary offense? Don't patrol officers have more important duties than peering into cars?

Why not just refer this controversial law to voters?

Jeff Allworth:

It is not a beloved proposal, but it's good public policy. Studies show that drivers using cell phones are as bad as drunken drivers.

Bob T:

I agree that they are, but they will remain so even if both hands are free. This is not about lack of free hands, but about a driver's mind being partially out of the vehicle, meeting his phone-friend's mind at midpoint between the two phones.

This is what I don't like about such proposals that blame it on the hands being unavailable without addressing the mind going to la-la land. This would mean additional laws banning holding a hamburger, or a cup of coffee, etc. Such laws would be stupid and would be avoiding the issue.

I've noticed for years how people on phones in cars were partially elsewhere. Their eyes look out the windshield but they really don't see the same things seen by someone not on the phone (and by the way, talking to someone in the vehicle does not have this effect). I've seen people pull out into center lanes from parking lots and do it so clumsily and absent-mindedly that they've almost collided with me. For some reason, and studies do show this, when you're on the phone (even at home) you're less aware of your surroundings. I recall often trying to get a sibling's attention while s/he was on the phone. I would wave my hand in front of the eyes, but although the eyes were looking right at it the hand was not seen, or was not registering. Put that distracted mind behind a wheel and there's trouble. All it takes is a half second delay in realizing that you need to slam on the brakes, or turn, and there's your accident.

Again, it's NOT ABOUT THE HANDS, but about the MIND. The law is stupid as is and ignores reality. A driver with a cheeseburger in his right hand is far better than a driver using a hands-free phone. The only difference between an accident involving someone using a hands-free device and one using a phonme in his hand is that the former has both hands on the wheel. But their partial-awareness level is the same. The accident still occurs. And the third driver, the one with the cheeseburger in his hand, sees and registers everything in time to avoid the collision.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co.

"Ideally, we should ban cell-phone use outright"

While we are at it, let's ban loud radios. How about taking the offending drivers and sending them to re-education camps? Once we get to this point then we can work on thought regulation for all of those who don't agree with the glorious open-minded progressive agenda.

Save me from the future here. Funny how freedom never works for those whose don't follow your line of thought.

It is pretty dangerous. More than once on Interstate 5 heading south towards Salem, I have been forced into another lane ( hard shoulder once) to avoid a person in a huge SUV talking on the cell phone, drifting into my lane. Had a small car at the time. But in reality taking the eyes off the road to reach for your Latte is just as dangerous. We need better driver education more than bans.

"So, for all the folks who think a ban on talking on the phone is ridiculous, how would you feel about repealing drunk driving laws?"

No different. 95%+ people on cell phones are safe drivers, while driving drunk is 110% guratnte of imparied judgment. I'd be more in favor of enforcing laws on bike rider who blow stop signs or don't stay in the bike lanes.

BTW - Bad drivers using cell phones do drive other things than gas-hog SUVs. A lot of people use cells to save time, money and gas.

Steve: I know bad drivers using cell phones drive more than SUVs. But the ones that ran me off the road/over a lane were driving large SUVs..Expedition and a Tahoe. With all the distraction it is easy to miss a small car coming up on their left ( I drove an Escort).

Heres the unintended consequence of this law, Firefighters that respond in Command Vehicles (pickups, expeditions ect...) would not be exempt. I have to talk on the radio regularly on my way to incidents. The law is broad enough that it includes this type of communication. This will include tow truck drivers, cabbies, anyone who uses a two way radio as well as cell phones.

I know that concepts are being floated to modify and clarify this law to fix these shortcomings but its still a bad law.

We already have plenty of laws to enforce when distracted drivers are identified that we dont need another one that will be ignored or enforced differently accross various jurisdictions.

When I read this , I thought that it pretty much meant that Obama hadn't been open with the American public and revealed what was going on, or he hasn't stopped it. Given that he is supposed to be hope and change, I wondered why only the Brit press was covering the story, so came here to check the pulse. This explains everything. There are only so many hours in the day and you have weighty matters of personal liberty to be considering!

Don't do like us. We banned it and, yes, accidents have gone way down, but we have given up yet another personal liberty. One has to choose his battles wisely. Our American friends teach us that in prioritizing, all that matters is how close it is to the end of your nose.

Before we ban cell phones while driving, we should ban smoking while driving.

Or putting on make-up while driving. Or reading the paper or a book while driving (I see it all the time...)

And kids, heck yeah. They cause all sorts of distractions, and problems. Lets ban them too.

OR

we could just make save driving standards and enforce THEM.

Drive over a white line? ticket. No turn signal? ticket. Turn left across double yellow? ticket. Turn right from left hand lane? ticket. Block intersection? ticket. Tail-Gating? ticket. Weaving? ticket.

If police just started getting REALLY strict about QUALITY of driving - and enforced laws we already have - we would not need to "ban" anything.

A NY Times article with links to studies regarding cell phone use and driving.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13well.html