The bottom line is this: Teens don't vote - parents do. Mess with the parents and you mess with your constituents that got you into power. Many legislators get an earful when adults get their 'rights' banned and these adults vote for the other person the next election if the rights stay banned. No matter what any legislator says - leaving the adults and their 'rights' alone keeps the legislators in power.

Partly because these bans, which allow "hands-free" cell phone use, make no contribution to safety, but provide for more oppressive policing, and yet another opportunity for police to create pretexts for stopping people for driving while black/brown, etc.

If you're serious about safety, you have to ban both hands-free and inhand cellphones, because the studies show that using either kind of cell phone while driving essentially impairs you to the same degree as drinking a beer or two.

This result, while counterintuitive, has held consistently. Turns out it's not the fact of holding a cell phone that impairs your driving, it's the fact of having a conversation with someone who can't see what's going on and who therefore doesn't moderate the conversation accordingly.

When you're a passenger, you typically pay attention to what the driver is facing and talk less or more as appropriate, and when the driving is hairy you help the driver keep alert for hazards, help navigate, etc. A person on a cell phone in a distant place has no idea what the driver is seeing or doing and blabs away, distracting the driver in a way that a passenger doesn't.

So what we need is a ban on cell phone use by drivers period.

No matter what any legislator says - leaving the adults and their 'rights' alone keeps the legislators in power.

Oregon has approximately 40,000 people per legislator while California has about 285,000 per legislator. Washington has almost exactly the same amount of legislators per capita as Oregon, just over 40,000. Obviously the entire population isn't of voting age, but it seems that if your logic is to hold then Californian legislators (having a much larger constituent base) would have to be more accountable than Oregon legislators are and less likely to infringe on the personal rights of adults. Yet the Dems somehow managed to pass the ban and stay in power. I don't think the reasoning is quite as simple as your analysis would suggest.

I have started an unscientific evaluation of drivers on I-5 South from Columbia Blvd to the City Center exit who are in cars that nearly re-end me who appear to be texting or finger dialing their phone during the morning rush hour. Nearly 100% (margin of error +/-4%) of drivers who have nearly hit me are looking down, and/or gripping the steering wheel with one or two white nuckles as they cradle their Razor.

For the last two weeks - I have enjoyed watching them realize they weren't pay attention as they nearly crash into my oh-so-practical, but in need of a major accident, kia wagon.

Seriously - is it that important?

Note: I am not intentionally stopping short to attempt to illicit the accident. That would be dangerous. It would also bias my unscientific survery.

Thank God they've come to their senses!

It's about time the wise men and women of the Legislature are here to save us from things that might distract us while driving!

I've had enough of this clap-trap about rating divers on the basis of their traffic accident record, ongoing tests of their vision or their skill as drivers! That'd be for birds!

Let's get started with prohibiting the rest of the dangers today!

1. Applying make-up.

2. Looking at directions.

3. Selecting music.

4. Checking on your kid in the back-seat.

5. Checking out someone you'd like to get to know better.

6. Watching out for cyclists and pedestians.

7. Driving while drowsy.

8. Driving while upset about something (job-loss, break-up, death of pet or family member.)

9. Driving while excited about something (The Blazers winning the NBA Championship, Gore winning Florida, pulling out of Iraq.)

10. Driving while appearing to match the ethnic and gender profile of criminals and undocumented imigrants.

Remember, if we can ban all the potential excuses for causing an accident or otherwise committing a traffic offense, it might almost be like banning bad driving -- only easier!

I agree with the comments above about cell phone use being a problem whether it is hands free or not. Data backing that assertion is noted in the Insurance Institute study I linked to in my post.

Torridjoe -- We made a distinction between front seat and back seat activities but that is for another post. Or maybe not. ;)

We miss you, Jake! (When you get a chance, read the above post from ole manifest destiny and summarize it for me)

What they really need to pass for public safety on the roads is mandatory eye tests coupled with yearly renewals of licenses for ALL drivers 65 years old and over.

I have family in Roseburg and every other week, there is an accident because some 80 year old is behind the wheel.

Teenagers driving and getting in accidents is expected. An 84 year old running over 10 people is not. Just consider the case from California where that 80+ year old ran over 10 people.

What do you suggest we do about the police who drive and talk on the phone? Seems everyone of them I have seen recently is talking while driving. MHW

Who would enforce this ban? There aren't enough traffic cops to ticket all the boneheads in PDX now.

My one simple rule of driving, walking or biking; never cause anyone to brake for you unexpectedly.

It is frustrating that after finally gaining majority control of the Oregon legislature, the Dems are dithering around with bills like this. Did anybody vote Dem in order to control teenage cell phone use while driving? Did anybody vote Dem in order to eliminate smoking by 75 year old women at bingo parlors (or by 25 year old men in strip clubs)? Meanwhile, how is the legislature doing on universal (or children's) health care? Tax fairness reform? Permanent stable funding for high quality K-12 and higher ed?

lestatdelc: Egads... typos deluxe, my previous comment should have read:......

Bob T: Almost --- "its" should be "it's".

Bob Tiernan

JMG: If you're serious about safety, you have to ban both hands-free and inhand cellphones, because the studies show that using either kind of cell phone while driving essentially impairs you to the same degree as drinking a beer or two.

Bob T: Exactly. I am totally opposed to any driver-cellphone legislation that treats the phone as if it's no different from a hamburger, soda, lipstick, or burrito in the hand. I've noted for years that people on phones (even long before they appeared in cars) tend to "float" off somewhere, partially, as if they are mentally halfway to the location of the person they are talking to.

You could wave your hand in front of their eyes to get their attention, but they don't have the same awareness as they would if they were talking with someone actually sitting next to them. Their eyes are looking towards you but they don't really see what they need to see. Now imagine those same eyes looking through a windshield. All if takes is a half second of delayed awareness and there's your accident. A city council member in Tigard a few years ago (when Tigard address this issue) was one of the few lawmakers I know of who actually addressed this aspect of the issue (which is the only real aspect of the issue that needs addressing).

If lawmakers continue to treat cell-phoning while driving as if it's all about the lack of a second hand on the wheel, like Gregoire up in Washington for example (just last week), then it's only a matter of time before they'll have to show consistency rather than admit their error, and start banning the holding of numerous items such as those I listed earlier.

Bob Tiernan

As for the original posting, about the ban being applied only to young drivers, perhaps the legislators were thinking about the fact that accident rates are already way higher for young drivers than other drivers, and were actually trying to come up with one fewer distraction for young drivers. Or maybe they weren't thinking along these lines at all. I don't actually know, but it seems worth at least considering before assuming this bill was about "one more excuse to stop being for driving while non-white".

That way, everyone can see which dumbass is on the phone (yeah, probably me) and avoid them.

kari hits the nail on the head here. You have politician's who never want to stop talking and the cell phone lets them fulfill their life's ambition. Its the same reason we make drinking by teenagers illegal and not for adults. Politicians like to have a few now and then. The light on the car could turn on when someone is drunk too and you wouldn't need drunk driving laws. A single light could warn everyone this driver is either drunk or on a cell phone, either way watch out! because they are just as dangerous.

... and just as irresponsible whether its legal or not.

That is perhaps the most responsible action to take. WHY NOT just begin teaching folks to let the dang call go to voice mail while driving? I certainly do this when on my bike. Kind of impossible to work the phone and keep the bike moving forward upright.

I have a non-scientific survey result that indicates 90 per cent of the drivers who almost hit me while on my bike were using their cell phone, not teens and had xx chromosome pairings.

Kind of impossible to work the phone and keep the bike moving forward upright.

I don't know. I remember riding on Burnside one Sunday morning out toward 82nd and there was a guy on the opposite side of the street, riding in the bike lane against traffic and talking on his cell phone. He went a good couple miles that way.

I have a non-scientific survey result that indicates 90 per cent of the drivers who almost hit me while on my bike were using their cell phone

I have a non-scientific survey result that indicates the same thing about the drivers who almost hit me while I was walking. Further my survey says 90% of those drivers had no idea they almost hit me. They were too busy talking to notice. I am sure they would insist it is perfectly safe for them to talk and drive at the same time.