National Safety Council Calls For Complete Ban on Cell Phones (even hands free)

[The Straight Story]

National Safety Council Calls For Complete Ban on Cell Phones
By Jose Fermoso EmailJanuary 22, 2009 | 3:50:36 AMCategories: Phones

In a report released last week, the National Safety Council is recommending that top U.S. legislators pass a nationwide law to ban the use of any and all cell phones and accessories while driving.

According to the New York Times, the council mostly based its report on a 2003 study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, in addition to an eye-opening study from the University of Utah. The latter suggests that hands-free gadgets cause as much of a distraction for drivers as using a cell phone with your hands for calls or texting.

The NSC is emphasizing findings that suggest hands-free laws and Bluetooth devices do more harm than good, serving as a psychological placebo for drivers. They say Bluetooth devices lull drivers into a false sense of security and actually make people call more than if they were just calling one-handed.

When confronted over the possibility that talking with a passenger might offer the same challenge as talking over a Bluetooth device, an NSC rep mentioned that a passenger's awareness was more likely to help out a driver by censuring himself during a dangerous course than a remote speaker.

The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is backing up the report and will likely use it to pressure local governments into creating tougher laws over the next year. Currently, laws that govern transportation in this country are determined by individual states.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/01/national-safety.html

[blogslut]

1. The report states: while driving

I can dig it if that's the circumstances. Driving requires all eyes and ears.

[Tesha]

2. Hear, hear!

(Typed on my iPhone)

[gcomeau]

3. Idiocy.

Never pass a law you can't enforce. How are you going to charge anyone for violating it? The cop was driving by and saw your lips moving while driving so therefore you were speaking on the hands free in your ear rather than... oh, singing along with the radio, talking to yourself, telling your passenger something...

[bobd0]

5. Here's how to enforce it

Cop pulls you over for erratic, unsafe, inattentive, idiotic driving and checks your phone for recent calls. Finds current call you were on while driving. Writes ticket.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. Just what we need. Cops searching more of our shit.

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. Shhhhhh! Don't upset the Nanny Staters....

:hide:

[LanternWaste]

35. Or God forbid, the Trendy Anti-Authoritarian Set

"Shhhhhh! Don't upset the Nanny Staters...."

Or God forbid, the Trendy Anti-Authoritarian Set (T-shirts now available at Wal-Mart) either-- they're just as bad.

:evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

Wow. Now I'm trendy?

Who fucking knew.

Does this mean we can finally stop pissing away $40 Billion a year on the drug war?

Since it's "trendy" to say that government should stay the fuck out of Citizens' personal business?

[LanternWaste]

88. I don't know if popular trends and fashions have any effect on the drug war

I don't know if popular trends and fashions have any effect on the drug war-- but feel free to give it a try... maybe it depends on which log your t-shirt sports...

[Warren DeMontague]

92. I'm just curious about this "trendy anti-authoritarian set"

Really, that's an odd choice of phrasing.

[Old Codger]

7. Something

About that idea seems to run into illegal search and seizure laws... He would need a search warrant to do that I would think. Actually I would hope.

[reggie the dog]

49. I would hope they would need a warrant

to look at phone records too.

[bobd0]

71. Dude, they haven't needed a warrant for some time now.

Not for phone records, phone calls, or any other form of communication.

[reggie the dog]

83. I am still waiting for the patriot act to be declared unconstitutional

I worry that the patriot act would be used to see if I was talking on the phone and driving.

[bobd0]

91. So am I but there are limits on restricting use of technology through legislation

Even without the recent Bush administration attack on our rights, technological capability to usurp them exists, and it's outstripped legislative ability to limit it. Example:

http://www.news-press.com/article/20090123/NEWS01/90123009/1075&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

George Anthony was found in Daytona Beach at the Hawaii Motel. Deputies used GPS and signals from George's cell phone to track his car.

As long as the technology is in place to monitor us, we will be monitored. I've read of monitoring movement via cell phones through triangulation of cell phone tower signals whether the cell phone is on or off and even the ability to secretly listen in on conversations by activating the cell phone microphone whether the phone is on or off, and for up to twenty minutes on residual power even after the battery is removed.

If the powers that be decide to use available technology to stop you from using your cell phone while driving, they'll do it. Anyone who believes differently is just fooling themselves.

[Soylent Brice]

8. just what we need

giving cops another reason to fuck with us.

pass.

[bobd0]

22. Cops generally don't hassle me but if I was driving like an idiot with a cell phone stuck to my ear

I would expect them to.

[gcomeau]

10. Think through what you just said.

We're trying to UNDO all the things that were turning us into a police state the last few years. You're going the wrong way. Erratic or dangerous driving is already cause for a ticket all by itself. There is no need for the ticketing officer to dig around in your personal communication records to deal with it.

[bobd0]

28. They're already digging around in your personal information

This is about driving while talking on your cell phone. I've seen drivers trying to accomplish this feat and none of them do very well. Even when hands-free study after study has shown drivers aren't attentive to what they're supposed to be doing -- DRIVING -- and far more likely to cause or be involved in an accident. Stop talking on the phone when you're supposed to be driving. Most American drivers can't handle driving. The call can wait. You people are on those phones all the time everywhere. I can understand in an emergency but there can't be that many emergencies.

DRIVE THE CAR AND HANG UP THE PHONE. PROBLEM SOLVED.

[gcomeau]

33. No...

"This is about driving while talking on your cell phone"

No it is't. This is about OUTLAWING driving while talking on a hands free cell phone and what the hell that would entail. Your solution was if a cop sees you driving dangerously or erraticly they should check your phone to see if you need to be ticketed for talking on it.

If they see you driving dangerously or erraticly they ticket you for driving dangerously or erraticly. There is no NEED for them to go digging through your personal communication records to deal with the problem, and you proposing that having them do it is a reasonable thing to instruct law enforcement to do is compromising civil liberties.

And yes, our personal communications have been subject to unnecessary and frankly illegal searches lately. We've been rather pissed about it, we're not looking to spread the behaviour around some more. Where have you been exactly?

[bobd0]

45. Checking the time of your last call isn't the same as accessing your information

But either way, if you're that hooked on your cell phone you should seek help.

[gcomeau]

48. The time of your last call IS your information.

Accessing your information is accessing your information.

And FYI, I don't have a hands free, and don't use my cell in the car. SO not the point.

[reggie the dog]

50. I drove a stick shift

pickup for years and talked on my cell phone without ever having a wreck or a near miss.

[bobd0]

57. I drove tractor trailers with split rear shift while eating a big meal breakfast

from McDonalds and drinking a cup of coffee. That isn't the point. So many people ARE having accidents while gabbing on their cell phones that something has to be done about it. I went to the post office today and some idiot almost broadsided me while he was making a turn with -- you guessed it -- his cell phone plastered to his ear.

I don't care if it's hand-held, one of those hideous contraptions plugged into your ear, or hands-free -- enough is enough. People don't have to be connected twenty-four/seven. And they especially don't need to be connected while driving, a task they have enough trouble with when attempting to do it exclusive of any additional interruptions.

[reggie the dog]

85. why should the freedom of someone like you, who knows how to drive

be limited because of the idiocy of others????

[ipfilter]

15. No cop is looking at my call log without a warrant.

[bobd0]

24. They already are. nt

[NeedleCast]

20. Yes, giving the police access to our cell phone records without a warrent

that seems like a good idea.

Oh wait...

[bobd0]

25. Don't drive like an idiot while making cell phone call after cell phone call

because you can't be disconnected for even a second due to your importance.

Drive the fucking car and hang up the phone because from what I've seen you people definitely can't do both.

[NeedleCast]

59. I don't

that has dick all to do with giving the police access to my cell phone records...

I thought we were talking about inforcement in this particular sub thread. If you've got no problem with the police accessing your cell phone records then I assume you have no issues with police searching your car for no reason or Bush administration wire tapping? After all, if you're not doing anything illegal, why should you care if they search you...

[DaDeacon]

79. You are correct it's scary ! (n/T)

[PVnRT]

23. Yay for police states!

[bobd0]

26. You're already in one.

Hopefully for not much longer.

[scheming daemons]

30. Despite the Bush years, the 4th Amendment STILL EXISTS

No cop is getting his hands on my phone records without a warrant.

[bobd0]

51. The 4th Amendment may still exist but not in its original form

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16fri2.html?scp=1&sq=fourth%20amendment&st=cse

Editorial
The Fourth Amendment Diluted

Published: January 15, 2009

With a lamentable 5-to-4 ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court carved a new exception to the nearly century-old exclusionary rule, which forbids prosecutors from using evidence obtained by the police as the result of an improper search. The result was a meaningful dilution of Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections and one more instance of the court’s conservative majority upsetting precedent without admitting that it is doing so.

The case centered on the 2004 arrest of Bennie Dean Herring by police officers in Coffee County, Ala., based on a mistaken belief that he was the subject of an outstanding warrant. It turned out that the warrant, although still in the computerized database of a neighboring town, had been withdrawn five months earlier. By the time the error was discovered, officers had stopped Mr. Herring, handcuffed him, searched him and his truck and found methamphetamine and an unloaded pistol.

No one disputed that Mr. Herring’s arrest lacked probable cause and that both the arrest and the search were therefore unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court declined to exclude the seized evidence, and upheld Mr. Herring’s conviction on drug and gun charges. The arrest was based on careless police record-keeping rather intentional misconduct, the court reasoned.

“To trigger the exclusionary rule,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, “police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.” The decision instructs judges to use a sliding scale to decide whether police misconduct warrants suppressing evidence.

If they want your phone they'll take it and you won't do anything about it. As a matter of fact, they don't even have to take it. They can access your records anytime they like. Hell, they're already listening in on every means of communication available.

Stop kidding yourself. Put down the damn phone and drive the car.

[NeedleCast]

60. So your argument is that because they can do it

we should just accept it, nay, encourage it?

That seems like a good idea, and by good, I mean terrible.

[bobd0]

72. Someone asked how this could be enforced and I told them how

The fact that all forms of communication have been monitored for several years now should make it fairly clear that if they want to ban cell phone use while driving it would be easy for them to take whatever measures they deem necessary to do so.

I mentioned nothing about accepting or encouraging it. No need. Like I said. It's been going on for years.

[shintao]

4. Just a cell phone accident

I was stopped in traffic in 30 mile zone and was rearend by a women doing at least 45 while talking on her cell phone, Her car went all the way under me until my rear axel housing stopped her. So I am no fan of cell phones and driving.

And I must ask, why should Americans be conducting busness over cell phones when driving? Doesn't there corporations make enough money without hounding employees during their commutes and business trips? Enough Americans!! You are overworked and everybody knows it.

[Demoiselle]

12. I agree with you, shintao..

We all managed to live our lives and conduct our business very effectively before cell phones. I have noticed that many of my friends call me from their cars while driving....and they chat on and on because, well, hey, they've got nothing better to do because they're in their cars. I walk through a very busy intersection at the edge of the city every morning. (Picking up the paper.) Almost EVERY DAY, a driver goes through the red light, against the pedestrian cross light, while talking on the phone and never even looking over to the sidewalk to see if anybody...man, woman or dog...might be stepping into the street. I very often step into the street, and, even after I yell both "RED LIGHT! and GET OFF THE PHONE!! I often can't even catch their eye. When I do catch their eye, they fairly frequently give me the finger.
I carry a cell phone, sure. But I PULL OVER before I make a call!!!
Frankly, I feel that if the outside of your car is doing something dangerous, then what's going on inside your car is the public's business, too.

[EFerrari]

17. When we lived in Santa Monica, my then husband and I used to play

"find the smallest, thinnest blond driving the biggest baddest SUV while talking on her cell phone". It was sexist I suppose but, damn, it was also true. We had some very near misses. :scared:

[kentauros]

31. That game would be best played with the following vehicle

(for you to drive, that is) ;)

[EFerrari]

39. No one should be driving in Los Angeles in anything else!

lol

:)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. In other news, the NHTSA considers issuing order making it

illegal to speak to passengers in your vehicle while driving.

[bobd0]

29. Studies have shown there is a difference between talking with someone in the car with you and

talking with someone on the phone, whether the phone is in your hand, plugged into your ear with one of those brain-frying microwave devices, or hands-free. It just isn't the same as talking with someone who is in your vehicle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. GOOD, about bloody time

as a former medic I saw way too many death and destruction due to cell phone use

[backscatter712]

14. Good. DWP should be illegal - it's very dangerous.

Driving While Phoning, that is.

Granted, I've done it a few times myself, but it is very distracting, and it's hard to pay enough attention to the road to drive safely when you're talking on the phone.

[EFerrari]

16. I know some of you will hate this but I think it's a good idea.

:yoiks:

[kentauros]

18. Although not truly enforceable as pointed out,

it's still a good idea. I would rather see it lead not to the banning of use, but to the implementation of "automated road vehicles" or the "automatic highway".

I don't anticipate that happening on much more than a small scale even in the next decade, but I feel we really should push for it. I really hate driving anymore because it has gotten so crazy out there in recent decades. States push for more drivers (that means more tax money in fees per year) so they lower their standards and we all see (or are directly "impacted" by) the results.

http://www.autoroadvehicles.com/
http://www.citymobil-project.eu/site/en/newsDetail.php?nid=29
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr253.html

Do that, and you can txt to your heart's content and never once look at the roadway to/from work

:D

[4 t 4]

21. I have no problem

with that It's kinda like bottled water to me What does everyone have to say that can't wait and why is everyone so fucking thirsty

[kentauros]

27. I do wonder what many of these yappers did

before they even had a phone they could carry with them everywhere ;)

[NeedleCast]

19. If they're going to ban hands-free, then why not ban any possible distraction

Radios, CD, GPS...

[KittyWampus]

34. perhaps because there's been an exponential increase in accidents due to cell phone usage?

Society determines what is worth taking a risk for.

[NeedleCast]

44. Are we talking about using a cell phone, or using hands free?

Again, if you're going to start banning things that are a distraction while driving, why not form more committees to do more studies on what distracts us? How many accidents are caused by women (and sometimes men) applying make up while driving? Should we ban that?

How many accidents are caused by people trying to operate a GPS unit while driving? Should we ban that?

How many accidents are caused by people who are arguing with their spouse whild driving? Should we ban passengers?

Radio
CD
Children
Pets
eating
drinking (non-alcoholic beverages)
Convertibles (I can tell you from experience that having a giant ass cicada hit you in the head while driving @ 70 MPH with the top down and exploding into green and white goo is pretty damn distracting).


In the name of safe society, how far are you willing to take it?

[FiveGoodMen]

75. Is that documented anywhere?

[bigwillq]

37. Make-up, smoking, eating, drinking, blinking.....

:mad:

[nc4bo]

40. You forgot one and two

No peeing or pooping either. Turns stuff yellow and pollutes the environment.

[bigwillq]

52. How could I forget?!?!

:P ;) :)

[LanternWaste]

41. Specific and relevant differences between active and passive

Specific and relevant differences in required brain activity between active (third party conversations) and passive concentration and thought processes (listening to conversations, music, etc)

(Memory in the Cerebral Cortex: An Empirical Approach to Neural Networks in the Human and Nonhuman Primate by Joaquin M. Fuster)

[blondeatlast]

42. As a passenger, I often am reacting to traffic along with the driver

but the other party on a cell phone won't stop the conversation because a dog walked into the street.

[LanternWaste]

43. Precisely...

A passenger is also actively aware of driving conditions and can either reduce the conversations complexity, or stop it altogether to better accommodate the driver.

[NeedleCast]

46. Do you feel like there is any difference

between talking on a hands-free cell phone and talking with a passenger while operating a motor vehicle?

What about being in a mini-van with a bunch of children bouncing around?

Maybe in regard to music we're talkign about active vs passive, but there are plenty of active distractions that people commit while driving that we're NOT talking about banning.

[LanternWaste]

89. Absolutely.

"between talking on a hands-free cell phone and talking with a passenger while operating a motor vehicle?"

Absolutely.

"What about being in a mini-van with a bunch of children bouncing around? "

Yup.

"...plenty of active distractions that people commit while driving that we're NOT talking about banning."

I imagine most people try to keep those to a minimum. But then again, I imagine there's plenty of people who think they're wonderful drivers and can do anything they want without it being a detriment to their driving....

[Warren DeMontague]

54. And, as I said downthread; people have conversations with other people who are IN THE CAR

too.

[Better Believe It]

32. It's About Time ! Their Use by drivers is just as bad as people driving under the influence

of drugs or alcohol.

[reggie the dog]

55. I drove for years

smoking weed, talking on my phone and changing gears in city traffic in Chicago and I never had a wreck or a close call. Some of us just know how to drive.

[Better Believe It]

62. You were high on weed .... your car wasn't moving at all! You were stoned bro!

You just thought it was moving .... bet you had the car parked on the shoulder on Lake Shore Drive while you shifted gears and turned the steering wheel with the car engine off!

You had a nice trip!

:)

[reggie the dog]

84. oh far out man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zodiak]

77. While I commend your driving experience

Please understand that an anecdote does not constitute statistical evidence of anything at all but your own personal story.

Statistically, cell-phone use is a threat on the road on par with drinking and driving. It is an unfortunate fact borne out by numerous peer-reviewed studies. The real question at hand is not "is reggie the dog a good driver?", but instead "should we outlaw cell phone use while driving, considering its level of risk?".

[reggie the dog]

86. risk management

I still do not like my freedom being limited because of others stupidity but I think you make a valid argument with the "level of risk", that is why we have speed limits too. One point to you.

[bigwillq]

36. I do not support this.

:mad:

[blondeatlast]

38. As a major big cell phone fan I say GOOD. It only takes a moment to pull over

and call the BFF back then go on your way.

[MrCoffee]

47. :thumbsup:

[Warren DeMontague]

53. I think there's a big difference between talking hands-free and holding the phone.

Do they think conversations with other people in the car should be banned, too?

What's the difference?

[reggie the dog]

56. once again my freedom is being limited

because of morans who can't manage to pay attention while they drive even though they are on a phone.

[nichomachus]

58. Just hang the fuck up and drive n/t

[Better Believe It]

61. Why do people look at their cell phone when they drive?

Do these idiots think they will see the person they are talking at?

[The Straight Story]

64. I got porno pics on mine, much better than looking at the dweeb with a W sticker ahead of me

:rofl: (side note, I don't own a cell phone)

[AllyCat]

63. As a talking on the phone while driving addict, I agree...

Seriously. I'm normally a good driver, but I've caught myself doing some dumb things while talking on the phone with the handsfree thinking I'm driving just fine.

With kids, that is sometimes the only time I can talk to family uninterrupted, but dang, I'm not sure I or most people should do it.

That could be a resolution for me.

[City of Mills]

65. There's a huge job market right there

The government could hire people to ride in our cars with us, and report back on any driving infractions we commit. With the number of cars on the road, there's literally millions of newly created jobs right there! The tickets and fines would ensure the program is completely self-funded.

[Gregorian]

66. Most people can't negotiate a straight line without a cell phone.

Sheesh. I had to vent.

I live in the land of one lane roads. And it's a living hell whenever I drive. I'll never figure it out. People are oblivious. But then that goes for more than just driving.

[Stellabella]

67. One of my dh's students was killed last weekend. Texting while driving.

He's been trying to get it into their heads that using a cell phone when you're driving is just asking for trouble. Now they see why. Sadly, it often takes something like that to get people to wake up.

[unblock]

68. let's talk about a REAL solution: more pull-over areas

how about an expanded shoulder a couple hundred feet long every so many miles along highways so people can safely pull over and call from a non-moving vehicle?

some smart capitalist might even pop a soda machine in and call it a "rest area". except they should be a lot more frequent than one every hundred miles.

[MadHound]

87. How about people simply wait to call people until they're not driving

Gee, for years and decades humanity managed to go for hundreds of miles without calling somebody, now people panic if they can't have a phone glued to their every other minute of the day. Talk about addicted:eyes:

[cascadiance]

69. lobbyists will stop them with GPS though...

Too much of a lucrative market crushed for them if that happens...

[Robb]

70. My favorite memory of the Netherlands

...was watching this extremely attractive young couple on a pair of bicycles, weaving at high speed through midday traffic (in Leiden, maybe?),

...holding hands,

...talking on cell phones,

...and smoking cigarettes. :D

That said, I miss stuff on/in the road too often when talking on the phone and driving. I've stopped doing it. It's probably my feeble non-Dutch brain that chokes on bubble gum when I start walking. :shrug:

[The Straight Story]

73. But were they breast feeding and eating bread sticks from olive garden?

Cause that's how we do it here. Go USA! :)

[Kingofalldems]

74. I see people using them as they cut me off or fail to

stay in their own lane. No reason cops can't see them either. Good for Nat'l Safety Council.

[Mugu]

76. A couple of years ago there is no way that I would have supported this.

But, that was before the smoking ban.

I used to look forward to going to a local restaurant in the evening to chat with folks over a cup of coffee. Now, with the smoking ban nobody shows up and the restaurant closes early most nights. So guess what, I've decided that I'm alright with the government banning anything that annoys me, and that's an ever increasingly long list.

Studies have shown that talking on a phone while driving makes a person as dangerous as being intoxicated, so it's only reasonable that the penalties be commensurate. If an officer stops you for erratic driving and you won't voluntarily surrender your phone for call-log inspection, then lose your licence for one year first offence. Ultimately, make transporting a phone that is accessible to the driver a crime because the driver might be tempted just like an open container of alcohol. Or maybe like with transportation of firearms, require all phones (passenger's phones included because the driver could use their phone and how would law enforcement prove it) to be in a locked container outside the passinger compartment with the batteries transported separately. I realize that this won't happen overnight, but one little step at a time (like the smoking ban.)

I also realize that effective legislation will be more difficult because it isn't a minority issue like with smokers. But, just do what politicians always do, lie. Simply promise whatever it takes to make it more palatable. Like the toll booths will go away once the road is paid for, or we would never tell police to pull people over for simply not wearing a seat-belt, or we'll put the revenue generated by enforcement towards the public schools.

I feel safer already and if it annoys somebody, well that's just icing.

[Zodiak]

78. I do agree that something needs to be done about cell-phones

But I also think that the recommendations of the Safety Council needs to be attenuated a bit.

This is would I would suggest, bearing in mind that we are Americans and should not err on the side of draconian, reactionary policies:

1. Hand-held cell phones are the worst. They should be the main focus of the ban. They not only distract the driver, but they completely cut off some of the field of view (or the driver's tendency to turn that way). In many studies, they rate at a higher risk than drinking and driving.

Tests conducted by scientists at the UK-based Transport Research Laboratory for insurance firm Direct Line involved 20 subjects using a driving simulator to test reaction times and driving performance.

Researchers tested how driving impairment was affected when drivers were talking on a handheld mobile phone or a hands-free phone, and when drivers had consumed enough alcohol to register above the legal blood-alcohol limit. The UK legal alcohol limit is 80mg/100ml, or .80.

Direct Line reported that the results showed drivers' reaction times were, on average, 30 percent slower when talking on a handheld mobile phone than when legally drunk - and nearly 50 percent slower than under normal driving conditions.

Also, the tests showed, drivers talking on phones were less able than drunk drivers to maintain a constant speed, and they had greater difficulty keeping a safe distance from the car in front.

2. I would like to know what level of risk there is statistically between hand-held phones and hands-free devices. Even though this particular report doesn't provide numbers, I believe numbers are needed to measure risk. If hands-free devices generate a risk level that is on-par with an already illegal activity (e.g. drinking and driving at a 0.08 blood-alcohol level), then they should be included in the ban. So far, I have not seen any numbers for this, but I do know that many states and nations that have cell-phone bans apply only to hand-held devices. I would assume the statistics for these two conditions are different based on that...in other words, both represent elevated risk, but only one rises to the level of drinking and driving.

3. I do NOT believe that the police have the right to demand your phone and check the time of the last call. I think that the standard "if a cop sees it, you're busted" approach should be taken. The same standard is applied to smoking a joint, drinking, or wearing earphones while you drive. Why would this ban be any different? No new search powers.

For the record, I do not use a cell phone.

[DaDeacon]

80. This issue is not even about driving....

To be honest NO study can prove what is being proposed reason being,the number of successful divers with cell phones could never be adequately juxtaposed against drivers who have accidents with cell phones because there is no proof the "cell phone alone" is the cause. Bad drivers tend to have accidents regardless of cell phones, the this means that the cell phones could be nothing more and a variant in a long line of things that we blame rather than blame BAD DRIVERS. This report does not give driving history of any reasonable sample to conclude and positive correlation let alone "cause and effective." With that said might I remind us all that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Now your cell phone is NOT "Essential Liberty" but the ability to sit in your car and move your lips without worry of a white and black flashing it's lights at you should worry you. Where does this stop? Slippery slope you say? well fancy this on this very topic many of you are OK with a police office searching your phone, but you tell me what happens when you say " I don't have a phone"? Can he search your car or person for proof. Passengers ? Children? Hmmmm seem a little far fetch? Tell that to the guy shot while restrained in the subway station,or the youngster strip searched for Advil. Tell that to the young black kids who will get pulled over for talking to each other, have a cell phone in the car and find them selfs unjustly fined.

THINK, Not just react!

[GeorgeGist]

81. You're right ...

cell phones require bad drivers ... too cause accidents.

Solution: take away the driver's license of bad drivers.

[MaraJade]

82. I was hit from the rear TWICE (two different occasions)

by idiots who were using cell phones. The ban is way past due, as far as I am concerned.

[MindPilot]

90. Will the law apply to cops?

They not only talk on the radio, they have a computer keyboard on the console. Tow operators, cabbies and EMTs all have two-way radios and they all seem to do ok.

Will pilots be next? Kinda tough to find a place to pull over and call the tower.

How about stetting some standard for having a driver's license beyond being able to steer the car around some cones in the parking lot? Naw, that would interfere with the nanny-staters keeping me "safe".

[3dogday]

93. I was almost hit last night

I live in the city and was walking my dogs. A guy came barreling down the sidewalk on his bicycle and talking on his cell phone, which was not hands-free. I had three dogs on leashes and had to move quickly.

It's not so much an issue of driving a car and using a cell phone as it is using the cell phone at times when good judgment permits it. You can't legislate good judgment, unfortunately.