Speaking as someone (along with people in 2 other vehicles) who were almost killed by a distracted driver it should be banned with harsh penalties but it wont. People are too lazy and the telecom industry makes too much money off it.

We should just plan on the body count rising.

Just curious...what about people putting on makeup or reading the paper while driving? These are also highly distracting tasks that people do in cars.

Ron - Come on, man. Nobody reads the paper any more. You can pull up all the news you want on your freaking iPhone while you drive.

It's really tough to drive with the Garmin barking in your face, your laptop open closing a deal over the cell phone, all while trying to read a book on your new reading device. How in the hell am I supposed to eat my breakfast without spilling my coffee AND make my next exit?

Common sense isn't so common these days.

Brain Picker -

Never has been. Likely it never will be.

You should see how many people use the HOV lane on 394 when they have no pass and no carpool partners. Those fines alone could pay for the new Vikings stadium.

Hey Vegas, did the officer get a ticket for reckless driving? lol

On a daily basis I see near miss accidents on our freeways due to people not paying attention. Is any phone call really that important it can't wait until you've stopped somewhere? I don't think so.

Vegas you make a valid point. I see our police talking on cell phones and on the computer as they drive all the time.

But this will get even worst with the new technology. It's not just talking or texting. Heck now you can check e-mail with the touch of a finger as you drive. People have become addicted to their phones.

Actually, people driving well below the speed limit or failing to make timely decisions are probably more dangerous by far than speeding drivers. Some people simply shouldn't be allowed to drive. At all.

Miker is right. I remember a study done some years ago in California regarding auto accidents and fatailities. DUI was number 1, but driving too slowly was number 4...BTW speeding was number 7.

HANG UP AND DRIVE!!!!

One study I read back in the '80's said a major cause of accidents on the freeway was changing lanes. One of the main reasons people said they changed lanes was to go around someone not flowing with the traffic, i.e. driving too slow.

Funny how chronic speeders always blame other people driving too slow for accidents on the road. Of course other people are driving too slow....... because you are SPEEDING!

@Brad: Put it this way - if you aren't in a hurry, WALK! Cars are for driving, not sight-seeing and certainly not for people who have no idea where they're going or how to get there. Saying that people cause accidents by driving too slowly is no grounds to assume that people are "chronic speeders." If you're going under the speed limit and we're just trying to GO the speed limit when there's absolutely no reason not to, the slow driver is at fault for creating an impediment to traffic flow. Keep up, or get out of the way.

@Miker- I can't speak for others, but I only drive when I have to and that is usually for work or buying the week's groceries, certainly not for sight seeing. My state has poor to marginal enforcement of the speed limit, so the roads feel like a free for all 99% of the time. I agree that people that cannot drive the speed limit should stay off the highway and stick to secondary roads. What I am seeing out there now is speeding as a norm, even in the far right lane, along with the distracted driving from cell phone use....a scary combination.

Very scary. Throw in that a frightening number of these non-drivers are operating HUGE SUVs or oversized pick-up trucks (think F350). . . Given that I usually drive a Geo Metro, I'm hyper-sensitive to the issue. But, by that same token, if I'm driving, it's because I'm trying to get somewhere ASAP. Not pretending I'm trying to win Monaco (like when I was a teenager) but getting down the road without delay.

(I'm guessing you're not from Ohio or PA. . .)

Hmmmm.

I like that idea...either outlaw automatic transmissions or put a huge tax on having them in your car.

I like the way you think!!

Neil - Right on! Manual transmissions have an amazing way of keeping a driver's mind on the task at hand! Not to mention keeping his hands on the task at hand. Hard to do much of anything when one hand is on the wheel and the other is shifting gears.

What about non-drivers who need to use their cell phones? I travel a lot, with other family members in other vehicles nearby, and being able to call them and check on their whereabouts, request a stop to use a bathroom, etc. is almost essential. I do not know how I did without that ability for 50 years! Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater trying to solve an educational problem with draconian solutions!

Great idea you imbecile. So what if someone wants to text while on a train or a bus? What if someone has a family emergency while on the road? What if someone's friend calls to change plans? Should all of that just be blocked? So much for a "cellular phone." Might as well just leave the damn thing at home next to the land line... that is if you still have one.

Cell phones are not the issue and we don't need any legislation or fine for the government to enforce. If someone chooses to drive distracted then they better be ready to live with killing some poor slob crossing the street or a family of 4 on their way to Six Flags. Hey, maybe they will get lucky and only lose their own life and not hurt anyone else?

I have seen people reading books on the highway, smoking a cigarette while looking at a map, and even eating a damn bowl of cereal with a spoon. The problem is not cell phones. The problem is idiots who think that kind of behavior is appropriate while driving at 80 mph in rush hour traffic.

What if, what if, what if.

All those things have happened for years, Dan and K. What did we do before every Tom Dick and Harry had a cell phone? We pulled our asses over and used a payphone to make the call. Given the almost complete absence of pay phones now, just pull your ass over and make the call on your cell phone instead. As for communicating between convoys, my wife and I have our kids handle the commo duties using 2-way radios.

Did you even read what I wrote? Most of the circumstances that I suggested involve someone calling the phone, not outgoing calls. However, you seem like quite the saint. I'm sure you just pull right over every single time your phone rings.

So basically, you're suggesting I: a.) Purchase two-way radio after knocking someone up and waiting for the child to mature, b.) call everyone who may have possibly been trying to contact me with an emergency whenever I stop at a pay phone (better bring several hundred dollars, I have a big family) and lastly, c.) pull over and make any calls while masturbating truck drivers blaze by me at 70 mph...

Seems reasonable.

Yeah, K, I read what you wrote, and I find it absolutely hilarious that having read it you would have the audacity to call a previous commenter an imbecile.

No, actually, I do NOT pull over every time my phone rings. I simply leave the damn thing in my pocket and check my missed call log when I get to a place where I'm stopped.

If you have that many emergencies, perhaps you shouldn't be out driving around at all. Phone or no phone. Sounds like you need to be at home 24/7. Or, perhaps you need to reconsider what constitutes an "emergency." If it's not something that you can actually take care of via phone call, then it's not something you likely need to be talking about while you're driving. And, unless you're a stock broker, there's virtually no chance that you can handle any sort of true emergency by talking to someone on the phone. Sounds to me like you have an absurdly overinflated self-image. Wake up, call, K. You really aren't so important that anyone needs to talk to you right this second. It can wait.

OK Oldtimer, I think you need to relax before you hurt one of your fingers. Your whole, "back in my day" act is getting quite old. You have no idea what I do nor do you have any right to know.

Why do you believe that you have the right to decide who needs their phone and when they need it? Times have changed. I agree, people yapping on their phones all of the time is extremely irritating. However, for every 10 people doing it, I'm sure there is 1 person who actually does have something important going on.

I rarely use my phone while driving. Have I? yep! Fortunately, I am not also eating chicken McNuggets and puffing on a Marlboro at the same time. I also have Bluetooth so I can listen through my car's stereo... Pretty sure most places already have "handsfree laws" in place.

Do you really think cell phones are the problem or are you just looking for an argument that you will inevitably lose? If cell phones are completely banned from moving vehicles, what's next? Will drivers be pulled over for talking to their passengers? Will Plexiglas dividers separate the front seat from the back seat so absolutely no "distracting" interactions can take place? Ban the phones from vehicles and I'm sure the same idiots getting in wrecks now will find another way to run someone over.

I'll inevitably lose an argument that you don't need a cell phone? Don't think so, sonny. Nobody's going to take your toy, so relax. Those of us who have actually been around a while and learned a few things are merely suggesting that you don't play with it in the middle of the street. Your mommy should have taught you better. Or, maybe she should still be watching over you.

And if I'm on a bus? A train? In a taxi?

@Brad: If you're on a bus or a train, nobody around you wants to hear you yakking on your damn phone. Taxi drivers probably get tired of it, too.

You know there actually was a day when phone calls were limited to your house or your office or a pay phone. Believe it or not, there was a day when you stood still within a few feet of the phone jack to make calls because we didn't even have cordless phones that allowed you to roam from room to room. And life went along just fine.

You are so damn dense it's scary. So you have a problem with someone texting while in a taxi or on a train? Sure, there are times when it's rude but that goes back to someone's upbringing. Rude people will be rude, end of story.

Just because new technology brings about new problems doesn't automatically necessitate reverting back to the stone age. Computers these days have some pretty scary capabilities when in the wrong hands. Should the government require individuals obtain a license to operate them while ensuring manufacturers limit users' freedom to manipulate?

Dense? Can you even read, K? "Yakking" spells yakking. Not texting. As I said, don't cry - nobody is trying to take your toy away from you. Just suggesting that you don't need to play with it 24/7. You're right about one thing - rude people will be rude.

So you're suggesting cell phones have limited communications while in motion? For instance, while the phone is in motion, it can send and receive texts but its call abilities would be blocked? That way we can stop the rude people... oh wait, did I just catch you backtracking? I thought the whole issue at hand was distracted driving?

Let me guess, now texting is included...So what would the workaround be for individuals who want to text while on a train, bus, or in a cab?

Let me guess, "(You) People don't need to text or call when in trains or cabs... back in my day we didn't have cell phones or email. Nobody is that important that they need that ability."

Next time you want to play this little cutesy game of semantics, arguing over what "yakking" means, find someone with an IQ lower than yours. However, that may be a little tough.

Not tough at all. You win the prize. (Although at 152, you could still conceivably be fairly intelligent and have a lower IQ than I do. Could be. But, apparently you aren't. I'd estimate yours is closer to just 52.)

Well crafted response there, Mike. I'll take that as you conceding defeat.

Also, we are talking IQ scores here, not your blood pressure.

LOL. Funnily enough, I remember your retort from high school. We used that one all the time when we were freshmen - except we substituted shoe size for blood pressure. Probably news to you, but your generation hasn't really invented anything. Not even the cell phone.

I'm surprised you remember high school, Oldtimer. With your dementia already setting in, it's great to hear you can remember the litttle things.

Give up the, "Your generation... my generation..." sh1t. It's getting old. You have no idea how old I am and I'd bet you're thinking I am way younger than I really am. You see, I am not one of you old a$$holes that automatically assumes everything "new" is bad. I enjoy embracing technology and taking advantage of it. I don't sit there and say everything is "unnecessary." I agreed that distracted driving is an issue. Heck, I don't think anyone here disagrees. But, creating more ridiculous regulations will not solve the problem.

Also, sorry you drive a Geo Metro, I really am. That 152 IQ really seems to have worked out for you, huh? Oh let me guess... Expensive cars should be banned as well, right? No more exotics or sports cars, just Geo's and Prii?

That's their job. law enforcers are trained to handle multiple things will driving. The problem comes when the driver(citizen) is not trained to do those things - that's where the problem lies.

Read a comment above how a state trooper on his laptop here in MN ran a stop sign and hit two elderly persons' car.

Those cops are just miracle workers aren't they. Amazing how they can do what no one else can. Most cops don't have the brains to drive and use the radio much less the phone.

"Numbers don't lie" show me a statistic that shows Law Enforcement accidents that were caused by distracted officers vs. accidents caused by distracted citizens.........

Considering police are out numbered on the road by hundreds of thousands of citzens its no surprise. You don'thave to be a rocket scientist to figure that one genus.

Considering police are out numbered on the road by hundreds of thousands of citzens its no surprise. You don'thave to be a rocket scientist to figure that one genus.

You're right, you don't have to be a rocket scientist. Let me make it fare for the people the can't put a grasp on it. What I'm getting at is this - the US needs to adopt a better system to conduct the issuing of driver licenses. It takes three years of driving school and close to a thousand dollars to get a license in Germany; and how much and how long does it take to get a license in the US? A weekend at best and less than $100.

A lot of older folks hate, rather, loathe the cell phone. Their only solution is to make everyone go back to the heyday of rotary telephone, back to the safety and comfort of never having to think about their actions or manage a device.

They fail to realize the solution is education, and not an outright ban on technology. I installed OTTER specifically so my phone will respond to incoming texts with "I'm driving right now" when I'm in motion. Phone calls, I use bluetooth and find no difference between talking hands free and talking to a passenger or listening to the radio. Too many people though are incapable of doing two things at once. The solution is simple to me, make it an automatic felony if you are found to be at fault in an accident while a phone is engaged. I say limit it to at fault because someone can be off the phone, no radio, no passengers, and still get struck head on by a DUI crossing the center line. Or rear-ended at a stop light.

Not practical? Why not? You don't NEED to be on the damn phone at all, Ken. Are you the President? An on-call heart surgeon? No? Then nobody needs to talk to you so urgently that they can't wait until you're sitting still somewhere. Or, are you under the impression that what you have to say is sooooo important that it can't wait that long? Here's your wake up call - you aren't that important. None of us is.

You are seriously deranged in your logic.

How do you know whether he is a heart surgeon or not? From the looks of it, he definitely has a better grasp on the real world than you ever will.

So in your system, would the government approve certain people, allowing them to use cell phones while driving? Doctors? Nurses? Police? Government workers?

You really do have some stellar ideas Mike...

@K: I don't know, idiot. That's why there was one of these funny-looking little punctuation marks at the end of my line of text. "?" It's called a question mark. Indicates in interogatory statement. A request for an answer. However, given that very few people actually ARE heart surgeons (just one of a number of possible highly important professions who might possibly have a justifiable need to take calls immediately - but adults can usually extrapolate from a single example so other adults don't generally find it necessary to list every possible example), it's safe to assume that he isn't one.

Grow up, sonny. Nobody is trying to take your toys. Now, get back to class - it's got to be like 5th period by now. Although I'll miss your comments; it's actually very funny how defensive you are about playing with your phone! Sort of like listening to my own children try to justify why I should get them phones.

Mike,

Don't even try and act like your response to Ken was not intended to be condescending. The "no?" was implying that he is not "important enough."

Try reading the whole comment, K. I know it'll be tough given that your attention span is probably limited to 2 sentences at a time. But, if you can muster the powers of concentration needed to get all the way through the rather short paragraph I posted you'll note that I said NONE of us is "important enough."

I'll give you credit for at least recognizing that my reply was directed at Ken. However, you lose for failing to realize that a comment directed at Ken doesn't call for a response from you. Well, except that I know that I can easily push your buttons by merely suggesting that cell phone usage should be limited.

Let me clear something up for you, junior. I have a cell phone. It's sort of handy. I probably use it about 8 times a month for a total of maybe 20 minutes. I just have the maturity and the sense not to use it at times or in places where it would be rude, inappropriate, or dangerous. I'm old enough to make those determinations and old enough to realize that I can make it through a whole day without talking on the damn telephone at all. Perhaps what we (i.e you) really need is an age limit on who is allowed to carry a cell phone. But, I'm guessing you wouldn't make that cut and we'd have to listen to you pout for another 5 years while you grow up.

Actually, studies have shown that talking on a phone IS more distracting than conversing with a passenger, although some states also do restrict new drivers to no-passenger status for a period of time. Multi-tasking while driving? I don't think so. Most people are doing all they can handle to keep it between curbs. Hell, they can't figure out to turn on their headlights in the fog or at dusk and they can't figure out how or when to use turn signals. Most of them shouldn't have drivers licenses at all.

Looking at your icon-photo while reading your comments about having sex while driving is sort of distracting. . .

Do you sell plans to make those? I want one! If they're not portable, I want 4 - one for each vehicle I drive regularly. That's even better than a loud muffler or exterior-facing speakers. Also, do those devices work against loud stereos?

Right on!