See what I'm saying?

http://news.aol.com/health/story/ar/_a/study-deals-blow-to-hands-free-phones/20080310123009990001

The above article echoes what I had said in a previous post: That using a hands-free unit is no safer than holding the phone to your ear, and that the recent ban in New Jersey is more about legislators wanting to look like they're trying to solve the problem instead of actually solving it. According to the article, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that banning handsheld phones has prevented accidents.

As I mentioned earlier, it irks me that I can be driving safely and following the speed limit, but can still be pulled over for no reason other than me using my cell phone, yet I can have four beers and get behind the wheel and not really worry about getting pulled over unless I actively do something reckless. It also annoys me that people think it's more dangerous holding a piece of plastic against your ear than a lit, smoking cigarette.

So what is the solution, you ask? Well, if the powers that be are actually serious about preventing accidents, you should just ban cell phone use altogether. Except that's wildly unpopular (and unrealistic), so there's no chance of that happening. Honestly, I think treating cell phone usage as a secondary offense was perfect. If you're on the phone but driving attentively and safely, no harm, no foul. If you're on the phone and you do something reckless or get in an accident, tack it on as an additional penalty.

Basically, treat it like you do alcohol (which is a much more dangerous variable in the driving equation).