Dale you are correct.

More laws do not make for a better society. Legislating against stupidity eventually reaches a level of diminishing returns

Actually THE classic example of trying to legislate morality is our utterly, totally, absolutely pointless "War on Drugs". If ever there was an example of how ineffective government is at stopping people from doing what is obviously stupid, that is it. We should take a more mature approach to both drugs, texting and cell phone useage.

Rather than ban cellphone talking simply prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who cause injuries or damage due to their irresponsibly abusing their right to talk and drive at the same time. Institute training programs and ad campaigns to drive home the point that if you don't get your act together and you end up causing vehicular mayhem you will, not may, but will find your life ruined by criminal prosecution.

All you do by instituting another "prohibition" and supposedly morality enforcing law against this or that is create a market for ways to surrpetitiously obtain the object of peoples' desire and you never stop those who actually do want it.

How will they handle all of the police that I see driving while on their cellphones?

Heck, they even have a computer open in front of them.

I was rear ended by one a few years ago.

This proposed law is ridiculous but, it wouldn't even be on the table if there were not so many idiots trying to text and drive. I think the average person can handle driving and talking on a hands free device but staring directly at your phone while operating a 2000lb+ vehicle is as bad as the morons who try to read the paper or put on makeup while driving. I'm not in favor of more and more laws either but, if people would just use a little common sense and courtesy then hand holding nanny laws like this wouldn't even be on the table. When I see some fool driving down the road looking DOWN at their phone, I just want to pull them out of their car and shove that phone straight up their...

An eaiser to enforce way to achieve the same results would be to raise the min age for a drivers license to 20 and make citizenship a requirement too. You get teenagers and illegal aliens off the road, making them safer and at the same time you open up a WHOLE BUNCH of cab driver jobs for Americans.

People need to realize that operating a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege not a right.

Does anyone else question the studies that equate cell phone use response times and drunk driving response times?

Here's my perspective: What percentage of drivers are using cellphones right now vs. what percentage of drivers are drunk driving? I'm pretty confident here that cellphone use during driving is significantly higher than drunk driving, but the frequency of accidents while drunk is much higher. If so, then the often referenced studies must be flawed.

I think anyone can make a legitimate & logical argument that looking down while typing on your phone significantly increases your risk of crashing (you aren't looking at the road). However, looking at the road while talking - especially hands-free is no where near as likely to contribute to an accident as drunk driving where you literally have difficulty with manual dexterity. The studies are flawed and/or not accurately depicting the real world situations they are intended to measure.

It's going to be like prohibition. People simply are not going to stop doing it. There are going to be millions of people not willing to potentially pass up on that business deal because they are driving and get an "important" phone call. Most parents aren't going to miss what may be a important call from their spouse or child.

It's unworkable right now. Never pass a law you have no hope of enforcing in the first place. All that does is breed contempt for all laws.

Texting while driving is banned in a lot of areas and I really haven't noticed a drop in it myself.

I don't even have a smart phone and don't foresee getting one any time soon and even I can see this law isn't going to put a dent in calls while driving.

@ Battsman - I personally thing that what the studies fail to take into account is the fact that when you are talking, it may slow down your responses but when you stop your response time goes right back where it was before. If traffic starts to get too heavy or someone gets too close to you, you can stop talking and concentrate of driving. Drunk people can't do that. They can't stop drinking and immediately become sober. Being drunk also inhibits your judgment. Talking on the cell phone doesn't. At least not to near the same extent.

Agreed - this is just the "feel good" topic of the moment. I could balance my state's budget if the police ever enforced the laws already on the books:

Throwing cigarette butts out the window (littering).

Not using turn signals (or using the right turn signal instead of the hazards/four ways when pulled onto the shoulder).

5 cars turning left when the light has turned red because they cannot wait for the next green arrow.

Not using headlights when it's raining (or during dawn or dusk)

Tailgating!

But unfortunately, if you are not speeding the police won't get out of their cars (especially if it's raining..then it's a free for all out there...apparently we don't issue wet gear to the police force)

livinginthewoods

Illegals off the roads and out of taxis ???

Give me a break. try once to address articles by staying on topic and not trying to make it political.

NightHawk, How is proposed LEGISLATURE not political?

Anyone remember a time 30 years ago when car phones were all but non-existent unless you were a cop or a taxi driver in a major city? How did we EXIST back then without such technology and convenience? Life must not have been worth living if a 20 something couldn't yammer away with her friends while zipping down the road in a pimped out Honda Civic. How could business function unless the CEO could blather away on his Blackberry while barreling down the road in his Land Rover? How would the contractor get any work done if he couldn't yak on his Nextel flip phone while lumbering down the road in his work van? Oh, and your wife's head would explode if she couldn't chat with her mother on her iPhone while roving around in the minivan. Society as we know it would GRIND TO A HALT. But, like the end of the movie "Surrogates", maybe thats not such a bad thing...

I have no idea why people are getting so nutty about this proposal. The NTSB did it's study and came up with a finding. From that finding they say the solution to the problem would be an all out ban. They send this off to the states and up the governmental chain. Now anyone in their right mind know that this will not be enacted. You could not enforce this if you tried. Officer pulled you over and asked if you were talking on the phone. You can say no officer, I was rocking out to girls just wanna have fun. Short of taking your phone and checking the time stamp of your last call, there is no way to see if you were on the phone or not. Anyway, no politician in his or her right mind would go along with the NTSB finding, so give it a rest. Ideally, this is what would be best, but it is no where near practical.

Even IF it was passed the number of vehicles that are fitted with bluetooth so you don't even need an earpiece is considerable:

Sorry officer I was just singing along with my radio, unless their going to ban listening to music too, although I did hear that messing with the radio is worse than drunk driving.

I suppose we going to get the same as the cigarette thing (its caused by smoking) in this argument, so be prepared to have a ban on farting in cars, its about as enforceable as this proposed legislation.

And Heck its only 3000 people a year, and each death could allow 6 other people to live if the organs are farmed.

An eaiser to enforce way to achieve the same results would be to raise the min age for a drivers license to 20 and make citizenship a requirement too.

That would make it a little difficult for my 48 year old Chinese wife to get to work. Or cash a check.

Of course the police don't want to enforce another law - it might hit too close to home. For example, a colleague of mine was killed because the police chief's daughter was having an argument with her boyfriend over the phone while driving. She ran the red light and killed my friend. She didn't even end the call to the boyfriend when she realized he was badly injured. Witnesses call 9-1-1. Her first call was to daddy - who showed up and whisked her away before the police could get a statement from her.

Sometimes the terms don't fit the meaning. Alex basically states that the proposal to ban the use of all cell phone while driving; that being enforcement of a ban on cellphone use while driving, is so difficult it is causing a split in law enforcement circles. Then we have responders pointing out the pros and cons by comparing it, the proposal, to current legal stature and enforcement.

First of all enforcement is not up to the police and up to a point it's not even up to the courts. Enforcement is up to the people. The police see/detect/apprehend and then in accordance with dictates of a law/laws they are required to uphold take the appropriate action(s). The courts review/decide/prosecute in accordance with the laws they are required to render over. The people as jurors do the enforcing by holding their piers responsible for their actions once guilt or innocence has been determined.

People talking using a hands-free device are paying more attention the road than a person carrying a conversation with a passenger.

BAN PASSENGERS FROM CARS!

Actually I would prefer to simply increase the penalty for "inattentive driving", "failure to devote full time and attention" of what ever the local statute might be. If you cause and accident with fatality, it becomes a felony straight forward. Causing any other accident; lose your lisensce  for 1 year. period end of discussion. Also make the above a primary stop statute. Cop driving along and observes you are dinking around, and not paying attention, let him pull you over and cite you, and in that case, make the fine a BIG ONE. Say $1000.

Just my 2 cents. BTW I would also be in favor of slightly raising the DUI/DWI blood-alcohol level limits, but make the penaltys MUCH MUCH harsher.

elfried: People talking using a hands-free device are paying more attention the road than a person carrying a conversation with a passenger.

I'd really love to know how you come to that conclusion. If anything, I've noticed the opposite, because you don't have to keep asking a passenger to repeat themselves.

Just another reason to pull you over and look for something to arrest or ticket you for.

"People talking using a hands-free device are paying more attention the road than a person carrying a conversation with a passenger." There have actually been studies about this and what you say is NOT true. Passengers are also in the car and have a view of the road. They can determine when to shut up; or, even warn the driver of some impending problem that they see. People on the other end of a phone conversation may not even know the other person on the phone is driving let alone where or what the conditions are.

Just ban everything, all the time. If nobody does anything then nobody will ever get hurt.

PaleBlueDot,

Doing nothing is lethal too. Without oxygen the human body will die within minutes!

@ Pragmatic - But after everyone died no one would every get hurt......

What don't you get? Oh wait, you've never had the green light and almost gotten hit TWICE by people running a red light who are on cell phones.

When the food or drink is gone, you're done, but you can always make another call. I think they should install jamming devices in all vehicles. If you're not in park or neutral, you can't make or receive calls or texts. If it's that important, PULL OVER!

Don't we already have laws on the books for careless or reckless driving and vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide?

Is another law to make all you whiny *ss soccer mom types feel good really going to make a difference?

NyNy-2742735 and you have never seen somebody driving through a red light that was not on a cell phone. Let us not be narrow minded and only see what the blinders let you see. Depending on your age they put blinders on horses to restrict their view so they would not be distracted by things around them. People have been running red lights since reds lights have existed. Cell phones are just something else for people to blame for inattention on the highway. Whatever happened to just plain; you were at fault, you get a ticket, your insurance goes up or gets cancelled, your license is suspended or revoked.

Politicians need to pass laws so they can go home and tell people how great they are. All I see are two dysfunctional, political parties, ran by inept leaders, unable to govern the country, placing additional burdens on our police force that are already overwhelmed by a dysfunctional judicial system.

Nosferatu ~ Watch the soccer mom comments, I happen to be a soccer mom, basketball mom, girl scout mom,... :)

I think banning the use of talking on cell phones is RIDICULOUS! While they are at it ban radios, GPS, passengers, eating, drinking, smoking, EVERYTHING that can be a distraction. Kids fighting and using my GPS is more of a distraction then making a phone call. I don't text while driving. But not using my cell phone would make coordinating pick-ups, drop-offs, changes in schedules, working full-time etc extremely difficult with a 7 person household. Just this week my 12yr daughter called me on the way home from work to let me know her basketball practice was getting over 45 minutes earlier than usual. A few minutes later my 19yr daughter called to say that her car had broken down on I-75 and she was stranded. I called my mom to pick up my 19yr old and I picked up my 12yr old. I think most people use their cell phones in their cars to make calls when needed not just to chit chat about the weather. Ban them BUT I will still answer my phone if it is one of my children..... They are worth more than a ticket!

nyny

This has happened to me many time and many of them were not on their phones. The just don't bother to stop for the lights. So I agree with chris, where does a ban stop?Banning kids in the car? The can be the biggest distraction. Putting drivers ed back in schools would help to teach teens how to drive and drive safely. As with most things, education is the key.

flbikerchick, OK and what about a passenger? Why shouldn't he/she be allowed to make a call? Or someone in a cab? And a jamming device would work real well if you tried to call 911... Only a few weeks ago was there a need here when an out-of-town driver got on the Interstate going the wrong way. Drivers called it in allowing authorities and EMT's to be able to get to the scene of the accident quickly.

And as an additional question, are they going to outlaw CB radios for truckers too? Last time I looked there is definitely no handsfree option for those.

nosferatu - Then why the need for superfluous/redundant drunk driving laws? Wouldn't they also be covered under your cited laws?

A) How the heck could you know they are texting without looking down and into their car for an extended period?

B) How would the device differentiate between drivers sending messages and passengers? If a cop picks up a passenger's private, legal transmission, wait until the judge gets ahold of them.

C) I think you need to go get a pat down from the TSA in order to be safe, quick!

So, when my phone, sitting in my glove box, automatically syncs e-mails, apps, and such, I am going to be pulled over and ticketed? Great idea...

University of Chicago Student: It's called being observant, paying attention. You know, exactly what the texters AREN'T doing.

In 2009 there were 10,000+ deaths related to alcohol or over 30% of all traffic related fatalities, the number 1 cause of death that year for many many years in a row. In some years this is as high as 50% of all traffic fatalities. A different study found that over 60% of the victims in fatal traffic accidents were either drunk or high. In 2009 drug overdoses exceeded all traffic fatalities for the first time, over 37,000 that year.

Why exactly are we focusing on distracted driving?

If cancer is the number one cause of disease-related death, and heart disease is number three, we don't just abandon cardiac research because you feel you have some sort of inalienable right to eat a half-pound of bacon every morning.

Just as with drunk driving, distracted driving too often takes the life of someone other than the offender. That's why we would care, and that's why we would take steps to eliminate it.

And let's ban all billboards - after all their purpose is to distract. And no talking in the car. And certainly get rid of car radios, DVDs, etc.

Once I was in a car accident by being distracted, BY MY THOUGHTS.

If that's true then politicians must have the lowest insurance premium rates in the country. ;)

Then they also need to ban radio contests. I was listening to someone playing a game on the radio the other day & I was concentrating so hard on trying to come up with the answers that I almost missed my exit. Stupid on my part - but I didn't even realize had much I was concentrating on that & not on driving.... but it was my regular morning commute which most people do on auto-pilot.

@Bob

More than likely due to the fact that they drive more miles per year than the average citizen just while on duty; also for having to drive at a higher rate of speed for code calls and while traveling faster with lights and sirens having to deal with idiots that have music up too loud to hear sirens or are to busy updating their facebook on their phone about how they just bought a new pair of pants on sale.

On a side note, banning total use of cell phones is going over the line. Bluetooth I would have no problem with because you don't take your eyes off the road unlike with texting and hand dialing.

A few years ago, a cheerleader was texting while driving. She wasn't looking and got into an accident that killed her and four others. For some reason, people don't get just how dangerous it is. I have seen so many near misses. Speaking on the phone or texting is not a right...it's a privilege. Something has to be done to protect the innocent from the mindless.

A guy at work lost a leg to a woman who ran a red light while on her cell phone. Earlier this year, the driver of a pickup truck clipped a fuel carrier while texting and caused a massive explosion, killing both drivers, closing a major roadway and causing millions in damages.

Cell phone use while driving has been shown to be the equivalent of driving while impaired, but I notice no one's complaining about the drunk driving laws. But then, a law against cell phones would inconvenience far more than the DUI laws.

Motz in KC... I agree who heartily. Oh, wait, who is going to enforce that on the police. They now use cell phones instead of radios for much of their conversations. Keeps their conversations off the radio waves and scanners do not pick it up.

A few years ago, a cheerleader was texting while driving. She wasn't looking and got into an accident that killed her and four others. For some reason, people don't get just how dangerous it is. I have seen so many near misses. Speaking on the phone or texting is not a right...it's a privilege. Something has to be done to protect the innocent from the mindless.

That's a tragic story. Not to diminish its importance, but car accidents have been around since we've had cars. This is an accepted risk of driving. Safety features in vehicles have come a long way, however driving a car is just not something we are designed to do. In this one instance, the driver texting may have been the cause of the accident, but what of the hundreds of other distractions and activities people engage in behind the wheel unrelated to driving? Her phone specifically did not cause the accident, her demonstration of poor judgment did.

You cannot "protect the innocent from the mindless" by legistlation. I sincerely hope that was sarcasm.

I have read some of the studies comparing drunk driving to cell phone use. They are certainly flawed. The studies do not take into account the driver training or record of the participants, and use a baseline for alcohol consumption of .08. "Legal" impairment is a very different thing than intoxication. Driving while impaired in any manner demonstrates poor judgment, but what proportion of accidents causing fatalities are contributed to drivers in the .05-.10 range? That's just not drunk. Studies reveal that the average BAC for drivers causing fatal accidents is .16%. Impairment due to alcohol consumption is the most common form of DUI, and the effects of alcohol include reduced reaction time and impairment of motor abilities.

Where cell phone use and legal impairment are most commonly compared is following distance and stopping time. You'd be surprised to find out that when participants were on their phones, their following distance was greater than the baseline. When participants were impaired, they followed a lead vehicle too closely. In both scenarios, braking time and reaction was slightly reduced, and in both cases the participants performed differently than their baseline, but I do not agree with the conclusion that they are comparable scenarios.

Speaking into an integrated, hands-free Bluetooth connected device is in no meaningful way different than speaking to a passenger in the car. Texting, on the other hand, removes your attention, eyes, and control from the vehicle. These are two very different activities. Of all of the things you could be doing in the car other than driving, talking is one of the least distracting.

Bob-1540553: Cops have a far higher rate of traffic accidents than civilians.

I tried very hard not to comment on the stupidity of that statement, I really did. You just made it impossible to avoid.

THEY JUST DON"T CARE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE

Judging by your desire to gleefully chop off people's fingers or have them visit a "face rebuild surgeon" for using a cell phone, I would think that statement applies to you, more than anyone else.

Perhaps you should double up on the meds and lie down for awhile.

No kidding. Frank, have you considered that maybe, just maybe, there are good reasons for people to be on phones while out and about? Like, say, the babysitter calling to say that the kid is throwing up, who is the pediatrician? Or "this is the police, your house just burned down"? To assume that no one has any right to be on the phone in public is stupid and childish.

That being said, the only way they could pass a law like this that is even moderately workable is to require hands-free devices. They're not that expensive, and it would cut down on SOME of the problem. Would people still break the law? Of course, but they do that by speeding, running stop signs, double parking, etc. Cell phones are hardly the greatest danger on the road. The only way to stop all that completely is to ban cars.

@Triptolemus - My car was wrecked Thanksgiving Day (after I had just finished paying for it) by somebody texting while driving; he was all "I'm sorry", he had no insurance - and my life is F * * KED.

I make minimum wage and I can't possibly buy another one, so I get to walk 3 miles to work everyday in -5 winter weather.

I would like to K I L L him, and his Family (including his pregnant wife) - but I supposed that might be considered wrong.

Frank Braun was E X A C T L Y RIGHT - THEY DON'T GIVE A F * * K ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE - I'm living proof.

So, can you tell us exactly HOW this law would've given you a different outcome? Insurance is required to drive and the guy didn't have that. Are you really naive enough to think a cell phone law would've been adhered to?

Mike ~ I understand your frustration, but it isn't just texting on cell phones. Last year I was in an accident with my children in the car that caused over $4000 dollar worth of damage to my car. The driver fell asleep at the wheel and slammed into us. Thank goodness my children were not injured BUT he didn't have insurance. Not only that but he was driving from Florida to Michigan in a truck with Florida tags that didn't belong to him, hits me in Ohio and he's from Michigan.... 3 different states, 3 different insurance laws. It SUCKS! Should State Highway Patrol pull over all out of state cars to find out how many hours they have been driving and make them take a nap?

@MikeP621 Well, I am openly admitting that I am assuming several things. First, you have not mentioned medical bills and you can obviously still walk, so I assume you are un-injured. Second, if the other driver is at fault, then YOUR insurance should cover it, UNLESS you also did not have insurance?

You mention that your life is "F * * KED" and that

I would like to K I L L him, and his Family (including his pregnant wife)

Simply because you yourself are slightly inconvenienced?

Let me repeat that: You would like to end the life of the driver and completely innocent people because you have to get exercise? (or take a bus, or a cab, or get a ride with a friend) I stand by my earlier assessment of Frank, and also apply it to you. You seem to be only thinking of me, me, memememe.

Sometimes in life, accidents happen.

@ Trip - A couple of things. First of all Mike's insurance may not cover the cost of another car similar to what he had. In fact it probably doesn't. Especially when they cut the check minus his deductible. I've found myself in the same position before. Having to settle for a car a couple of years older than the one that was wrecked because I wasn't able to put any money toward the car. Frankly, it's all the fault of the guy who was both texting and driving without insurance. I hope his license was yanked.

Second I have to say that chances are very nearly 100% that Mike is exaggerating about wanting to kill people. I have no doubt he's very angry. Can you tell me you wouldn't be in his place. Granted he shouldn't have mentioned the man's pregnant wife but it's a bit flippant on your part to dismiss the loss of his car as exercise or a slight inconvenience don't you think? Maybe before you go after someone you feel has a lack of empathy, you should take care of your own.

"Can you tell me you wouldn't be in his place."

Probably not actually, as the saying goes, Sh!t happens. I've been in car accidents before (both being at fault and not) and my first reaction is to try and make sure that everybody is ok. A persons health matters much more than some stupid shiny trinket IMHO.

No, I do not think it is flippant to dismiss his loss of property in an accident as trivial in comparison to the desire of killing innocent people as payback. How long have you gone without a car? I have found it really to not be a big deal to have to bike to work, or get groceries. (yes, even in snow) I still wonder if he even had insurance in the first place.

At the core of the issue here is that this person seems to think that the proper reaction to a minor accident should be the same as if he or his family had been maliciously attacked. I say minor here because he can still walk. He is still alive and healthy, and temporarily inconvenienced. There ARE people out there who think that Mike would be right to kill innocents for a slight inconvenience, just look at Frank and his desire to send someone to a 'face rebuild surgeon' for using a cell phone in a grocery store.

You mentioned,

Having to settle for a car a couple of years older than the one that was wrecked because I wasn't able to put any money toward the car

Oh no.
The horror.
How terrible life must have been for you.
Possibly you could have paid more for a better policy?

One of my relatives is dead because a 16yr old thought it would be a good idea to pass on a double yellow line around a blind turn for kicks. That doesn't mean I wish death on him. What good does that do? He now has an entire life to deal with that tragedy all because of a split second lack of judgement. I actually feel sorry for him. The whole thing is just sad, and was completely unintentional, IE an accident.

You are right of course, I don't have much empathy for self righteous narcissists or psychopaths. So I could probably do better.

@ Trip - Yes you are flippant. I'm going to go ahead and call Bull @!$%# on your comment about not minding riding your bike in the snow. No one is fine with that except for someone into S&M.

You also seem to be the only one that doesn't see you protest too much over his anger. No one with any sense takes him seriously when he says he wants to see people dead. I'll bet you lots of money that he never does kill this guy or his pregnant wife.

As for getting a better policy. No policy I've ever seen will get you into an identical car for no money out of your pocket. You would know that if you ever had to file a claim for a totaled car. They are going to pay you the low end of blue book value for the condition they feel your car is in plus you have to deal with your deductible. No insurance I've ever seen has a zero deductible for accidents.

Sure @!$%# happens. Being pissed that it happened to you is a basic part of humanity. All you have to do read this site to see how angry people are at things that would affect them much less than having this happen to you would.

Come on now. When you want to start making reasonable arguments then come talk to me. I won't be holding my breath though.

No one with any sense takes him seriously when he says he wants to see people dead.

and yet:

All you have to do read this site to see how angry people are at things that would affect them much less

I would bet at this point you and I are the only ones paying any attention to this thread at all. Anyways, my point here is that there are those who post things on the internet who are obviously insane. Do I think Mike was exaggerating? Probably, but I don't know, he hasn't said anything to the contrary. Why not hold people responsible for the irrational threats they make? Such comments actually do influence the crazies. Do I think Frank was exaggerating? Probably not. Dude sounds crazy.

You would know that if you ever had to file a claim for a totaled car.

My point here is that that's life, and it's just stuff. It isn't like you lost your ability to walk. Getting angry about it does nothing other than shorten your life span. It solves nothing. In fact, it usually creates problems as people tend to have less sympathy for those throwing a tantrum.

Certainly I can and do get angry over things from time to time, but one should always assess if the anger is within the spectrum of justifiably appropriate responses. You know, be rational about it. IMHO It is justifiable to get angry at someone for stealing your car. But if someone totals your car due to an accident and nobody gets hurt? No big deal. Glad everybody was ok.

Further, is it really a big deal to drive a car a few years older? Really? Like, did you even read your policy when you bought it? Did you not know how insurance works? If your car gets stolen, do you think you will be able to get the exact same one back just from your policy?

Possibly if you would have bought a cheaper car in the first place, you would have enough money in your bank account left over to cover the deductible. Or is it that you have been taught all your life to be a good little consumer and live paycheck to paycheck, never save for a rainy day, buy everything on credit and try and outdo your neighbors?

This is sort of like the TSA. Technically, you can find someone who would theoretically benefit, but it's too low a number to curtail what everyone is doing. Life is dangerous. Living in a free country can be especially dangerous. But not to the point where you have a significant fraction of people in harm's way.

Nelson -

What a horrible thing to say. I've seen people and been a part of auto accidents where someone has died. Guess what, none of them have been because of cell phones use. If your going to use the 'It's dangerous argument' Then you may as well include changing the radio, eating, or anything that forces your eyes of the road and a hand off the wheel. Because as a previous article said 'An accident can happen in the blink of an eye' well better ban blinking while driving seeing as how it can cause an accident.

steven, I suppose you are one of those idiots that talk or text while driving so your going to come up with any argument that you can to justify your dangerous driving habits. Hopefully you will not kill someone while your driving and talking or texting with your phone. Its sad that you can't put down your toy while your driving from point A to point B.

In my area a car full of texting teens got into a fatal collision with another car. The intersection made it impossible to see around the corner and the other car had right of way, teens died and so did people in the other car.

So......are you saying that if there had been fewer teens in the car, or perhaps half the number of teens texting, it would have been ok? My point is it's clear you don't like them and are blaming the passengers as well as the driver, without any real information about the passengers' (irrelevant) activities.

Also, 35 in a pickup shouldn't be bad in slush. Are you talking about in a town, highway, or what?

I don't see where she is implying that fewer teens in the car would have been okay. It was a simple statement, meant to suggest that the teens within were texting, and even if the driver wasn't the other teen could have shoved their phone in their face, etc distracting the driver. Why not just accept that texting and driving cost several families loved ones.

Please, don't tell me you text and drive. If so, please stop and think of others when so few do!

I remember the accident in question, and I believe the teens in the car were texting each other. So, while it wouldn't have stopped the texting, at least fewer girls would have been killed.

Obviously you don't know the S in NTSB means Safety. Of course they are required to make idiotic and non-practical recommendation, otherwise they might be accused of not doing their job.

I've often thought it should be legal to use paintball guns to shoot at the bad drivers. Then at least the morons are clearly marked as a warning to the other drivers on the road (at least the ones that are paying attention).

Sure, society "got by just fine" but did you ever consider that the advent of mobile technologies has completely changed society? Hmm..

How much more education do people need? "Don't use cell phones while driving" seems like a pretty simple concept, yet people still don't get it. Does anyone believe more education will help?

This concept is brought up occasionally by people who don't think things through. @Eugene, if it was impossible to use a cell phone in a car with a running engine, that would mean passengers couldn't either. What if someone is trying to run you off the road and your passenger is trying to call the police? Stopping to make the call would be rather stupid, no? What if your daughter is kidnapped and in the trunk of a vehicle but the kidnapper, even though he takes her phone away, doesn't realize she's wearing a headset? Too bad, she can't call for help until he turns the car off. What if someone is in an accident, the driver is knocked out, but an injured but conscious passenger can't call for help because the ignition switch is still on (such a system would be tied to the electronic system in the car, it isn't going to know if the 'engine is running' or not)? I just hope no one has to die for you to realize a 'safety' system that disables all cell phones is a bad idea.

Enough-2735007: You left out a car being swallowed whole by the earth and alien abduction. Like it matters.

Someone running you off the road? DRIVE TO OTHER PEOPLE. You're already moving.

Is the trunk of a vehicle inside the car? NO?

What if? What if? What if people remembered they managed perfectly well for decades with no phones in cars? What if people got over themselves and realized maybe common sense says you suffer slightly so everyone may benefit?

"I just hope no one has to die for you to realize a 'safety' system that disables all cell phones is a bad idea."--Too bad so many have ALREADY DIED and you still can't get it through your head that cars and phones don't mix.

They do for people who aren't so stupid that they think driving from point A to point B is a good time to catch up on the phone calls they need to return. I don't see why every one else should be INCONVENIENCED because some people are that stupid.

Enough-2735007:

Because the DMV tests driving knowledge, "skill" (road test), and vision. They don't test intelligence or common sense.

Because the person who only occasionally uses their phone is just as potentially deadly as someone who uses it constantly. Granted, not as often, but the ones who rarely do it also get less practice doing it. Meaning they could conceivably be even worse.

Because an inconvenience is exactly that: an inconvenience. Big deal you're incommunicado for 10 minutes, you're just not that important. Neither is she, neither am I. I can live with that Earth-shattering truth, so can you.

You mean like how people woke up after implementing tougher drunk-driving laws/penalties? Like how people quit dealing drugs when states went to automatic jailtime for small amounts? Like how people quit drinking/providing booze during Prohibition?

People are stupid.

Maybe you'll care when Jane (not paying attention because she's on the phone with Granny) - rear ends YOUR car at a stoplight, your gas tank explodes - and you BURN TO DEATH.

What will "the economy" mean to you then NB??

you`re just being silly, there are any number of things that could distract a driver and cause an accident but none of them deserve even a second of congresses time to outlaw them while our economy is nose diving. individual states can decide for themselves what to do about cell phone use while driving but only congress can do something to try to fix the economy and thats what they should be spending their time doing.

Mike, you are assuming NB drives a Pinto. Haven't seen one of those on the road in years.

I agree - if it can't be enforced, it's not worth it. We already have plenty of laws on the books that give law enforcement officers the the right to stop people for reckless driving, regardless of what's causing it.

Damn, for a while I thought I was the only one with common sense and courtesy towards others.

It's been a while, but my DE class was on top of things; I dare say he taught driving as well as any other teacher taught their subjects. He drilled it into us to avoid distractions and pay attention.

Blaming DE may be accurate in some cases, not all. That's just blaming "the system" for individual ignorance.

cell users that are passegers may suffer

No one has ever suffered by not being able to make a cellphone call for 10 minutes. And if it's that urgent, the driver can pull over to accommodate the passenger who needs to make the call.

The notion of pulling over so that the passenger can make a call is pretty asinine. Who is responsible to determine their calls are important enough for the driver to halt everyone's trip? Does this apply to public transportation? Disabling cellphone radios at a certain speed is a ridiculous idea.

How about people just use good judgment? Or how about we educate teens in drivers education? There are so many ways to approach this without removing the privilege of being able to make a phone call while moving faster than 5 mph.

People make poor decisions all the time, regardless of law.

On the contrary. There are stories all the time about people who are targeted by persons pretending to be law enforcement, who call 911 to ask if there really is an officer trying to pull them over only to find out that there isn't (and waiting to pull over until you reach a well lit area may not be an option). So yes, there can be valid reasons to need to make a call while a vehicle is in motion.

Ed-1117913: How about people just use good judgment?..."removing the privilege"

1-How are we to enforce making people use good judgment? If people used good judgment, we wouldn't be discussing this, would we?

2-Exactly, it's a privilege. Not a right, not a necessity. It's a bloody phone call. No phone call I'll ever make/receive is as important as your life; it's a shame you can't see it that way for others.