..........................Does this mean everyone...???.....you know how many police i see every day what appears to be texting.....maybe just '' looking '' up a number.......this should include everyone.....but how can you enforce EVERYONE.......

How much "mothering" can we tolerate from the government. As adults, we SHOULD know what is unsafe without trying to legislate common sense. When you are driving, don't play with your phone, radio/cd player, gps, etc. We all know we need to keep our eyes on the road and traffic. If you need to answer the phone or make a call, pull off the road and park!

Distracted driving, whatever the cause, is the issue. If your driving is impaired by a cell phone, eating, reading, putting on make-up then you should get a ticket.

Requiring handsfree usage in the car is fine by me (I won't use a phone any other way). Banning texting, etc. is fine as well. But to ban cell phone usage at all - you might as well ban conversation and radios, and then seal the drivers behind glass. That's just way too Nanny State for reasonable people.

Unfortunately we do need legislation and steep fines to make many people who know better actually do the right thing. In modern society, people don't like to be inconvenienced. I have a feeling that those who have killed somebody while driving distracted would now consider pulling over to make a phone call a lot less inconvenient than going through a vehicular homicide trial. Please, please, PLEASE: put your phones down when you are behind the wheel. You don't want to hurt someone-so don't put yourself in the position where you can so easily do it. And yes, put down the newspaper, the makeup, the razor and everything else that takes your eyes and mind off the road that is in front of you. Do it for you. Do it for all of us.

I used to have a very long commute and would often get sleepy - I would call people to keep myself engaged and alert.
If you are easily distracted while driving, don't do it - but I don't think everyone should be painted with same brush.

While I believe that texting while driving is incredibly foolish, I do not believe that a Federal Law is the best way to deal with it. The Feds have two mechanisms for penalizing it - one is to withhold highway funds from states whose laws don't match a Federal standard, and the other is to make it an actual Federal offense. Neither mechanism is appealing here. Let the states handle it - as they already are.

It's about time! We have seat belt laws that are in place to protect our own safety. Cell phone laws will be to protect us from people who can't drive and talk at the same time never mind texting. I see it all the time people just stop driving in the middle of the road because they are busy with their phone. If I get hit by a person texting, that person should be punished. Driving under the influence of a phone is ignorant.

Hey , we have deviated from common sense here . We managed to get around from point A to point B before cell phones . So why should we be surprised if there is a law to ban it ? I am for a ban on it . Just the other day I seen a kid in a car next to me at a stoplight texting away . Even with that law in place , teens still do it .

"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."- George Orwell

Excessive governmental legislation is ungood.

i can talk on the phone while i drive just fine...it is all the other people on the road that are bad at it!!!! *sarcasm*

Will not be a Federal law, it will be up to the individual states to do this and from what I read about this in today's papers, a total ban will not happen in Massachusetts.

Besides, there are other things that can cause distractions, kids in the car, talking to other passengers can do it as well. What are they going to do next, tell us you can't have kids in the car, or everyone must be totally quiet while in a car?? Give me a break!

Want to end all car accidents? BAN CARS!

If it's a hands-free device and if you're not looking at your phone, it really shouldn't be a problem. I get lost frequently; I pull over, call my mother, put her on speaker, and let her give me directions over the phone while I drive. That seems a lot safer than having to look at a GPS (which would not be banned by the measure, by the way), or make bad driving decisions because I'm panicking and focused on figuring out where to go. I agree that texting behind the wheel, or holding a phone in general while driving should not be allowed, but to not be able to talk at all seems excessive.

How is using a hands -free device any different then talking to someone sitting next to you? If anything it might be safer, I'm sure I turn to look at someone sitting next to me for a second. In my car a incoming call rings through the stereo speakers, all i have to do is push a button on the steering wheel and yak away.

I'm with Missy and BM on this. Everyone got along just fine on the roads before cellphones... should be used for emergencies only and pull off the road. I see nothing necessary about them while you're actively behind the wheel whatsoever. "Heaven forbid" you're out of touch with the world for the time it takes you to drive from point A to point B. Seen too many close calls. Also, most GPS devices these days "talk to you" re. directions. ANYTHING that takes your focus off the task at hand (especially in traffic conditions existing anywhere but the boonies) is not a good thing. For those who think they can multi-task, that may be fine but IMO, not where driving is concerned/someone else's life could be at stake. Think about it.

Making it a punishable offense for hands-free is absurd, revealing the same lack of common sense government presumes to be correcting.

Instead, lets just apply the many logical deductions to hands-on cell phone usage? An excellent driving record shouldn't matter. I should no longer be able to consume tacos, chicken wrap, a cup of coffee etc. and converse with a passenger. I'm confident many accidents have been caused by any such activity. I don't know if there's a law against dogs unrestrained but that's a no-brainer, and maybe double the fine for sticking their heads out the window. Or even a stop light lipstick moment for women (and maybe some men). In fact there must be a lot of behavior many of us foolishly take for granted resulting in bang-ups injury and death state, county and local police would love to be able to extract fines all day long all for our safety.

Or maybe, a different kind of punishment? Tack on an extra fine if, it is found an accident has been caused or influenced by what can be determined an irresponsible distraction? This could possibly make sense to me.

None of the articles I have read or listened to this week on this topic cite scientific studies, they all seem to be based on reactions to accidents instead.

We should not make laws about facts without having actual facts. Here are studies that show hands-free cell phone conversations are no riskier than in-person cell phone conversations: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/12/14/wayne.state.study.shows.early.research.cellphone.conversations.likely.overestimated.crash.risk

I'm not someone who likes to see our government get involved in legislating common sense issues like this, but I've seen too many times how cell phones are a common distraction while driving. A majority of questionable driving and near accidents that I've experienced over the past few years have one thing in common - a cell phone at the drivers ear.

Over the last decade the number of traffic fatalities per driven mile has gone down while cell phone use/ownership has skyrocketed. Does that mean talking on the phone makes driving safer? No, of course not, but continually taking away freedoms from people is not the answer. Accountability is the issue. Tougher punishments for offenders, higher insurance rates for offenders, etc. is the way to go. If you have more to lose by being careless behind the wheel, only then will you pay more attention. Losing your license for a year or having to pay large insurance premiums forever as punishment for being found at fault in an accident because you were texting would be a better approach.

Its way more dangerous to drive with kids in your car!!!

Hand held phones are dangerous, but hands free devices, especially the installed ones with voice activation, are no different than talking to a passenger sitting in the car. I use my installed, hand free phone, but would not try to talk on my phone any other way while driving.

I have a novel idea. Why not ask the courts and police to enforce the laws on the books now instead of adding more. There are laws on the books today to cover reckless driving, lane violations etc. but they are not enforced.
One of my favorite quotes by Ben Franklin...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I don't like this proposal much at all, but to be honest folks this is needed because of the way people are driving and using them. Simple rule folks slow down and obey the speed limit and if you need to talk pull over and stop. It is not the Govt, but those who abuse the priviledge of driving that caused this. I drive the speed limit all the time and for those who are 1 foot off my bumper, I won't drive any faster or slower that what is required. Or, has society become that selfish? Yes, it has.

On Tuesday afternoon I was behind an obviously "distracted driver" (using a cell phone) on High Street. She drifted to the other side of the road and almost hit a car head-on. I still remember the expression on the face of the woman (kids in back seat) as she swerved off the road to save her family.

A law like this could have saved my mom's life for sure.

Another example of government interference in our lives. Why not ban all the distracting sign pollution along the roads - no parking, no stopping, tow zone, etc, etc, etc.

There is apparently no data that shows that banning cell phone use reduces accidents. It would be refreshing to see a government agency use actual facts when making their case.

How about a ban on alcohol? How about making cars that don't go 90 mph? Aren't those still the 2 main factors that cause most accidents? Why make cars that go 90 mph and faster when it obviously almost never safe to drive that fast, and almost nobody is trained to safely handle a vehicle at the speed. As for alcohol, with the problems it causes in society we continue to promote and encourage it at social events. I know we enjoy the tax money. While we condemn smoking. I have never been assaulted by a smoker, but I have almost been killed and I have been assaulted by many intoxicated folks.

I view it as less of a "Nanny State" issue and more that distracted drivers are DANGEROUS. Not just to themselves, but to everyone else on the road. Whether that distraction is alcohol or a phone.

The reality is, if you are talking on your phone, you are a danger to everyone else on the road. Period.

Hands-free devices are only slightly less distracting than handheld phones. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.

Following up on Jared R: cellphones are associated with a higher likelihood of an accident. More accidents lead to higher insurance premiums for everyone. Your freedom to use a cell phone while driving costs me, perhaps personal injury, certainly higher automibile insurance premiums.

Anyone not using hands free while driving is nuts. A simple bluetooth can be purchased at Walmart, Radio Shack, CVS or any other retailer for $20.00 I see people holding the phone to thier heads while driving, I do every thing in my power to get AWAY from them.
Fact I was cut off at Mill Rd and Turnpike by a woman in a van who was having a hard time turning on Mill Rd because she had her hand against her ear while trying to turn!!!

Whenever I am tempted to use my phone while driving, I think of the possible consequences of being even slightly distracted by my phone. It only takes an instant for someone's child or pet to run out in front of your car. If you are momentarily distracted, you may not be able to react in time. Could you live with yourself knowing that you may otherwise have been able to avoid them if you weren't using your phone?
Of course there are distractions we can't really get away from, kids in the car etc, but this is one that is really unnecessary. And unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to be able to be responsible about their phone use, so maybe a law is the way to go.

Some states have enacted laws banning cell phone use. Has it made a difference? Any measurable decrease in accidents?

Thought on driving-SMOKING is even more dangerous than cell phones - every day you see those people driving, trying to light up, throwing their butts out windows, pretending to put their ashes in the ash tray.

It doesn't take a cell phone to distract a driver who wouldn't be paying attention anyway. Music (radios, MP3's, CD's), Kids, Smoking, people fixing their hair, we all see it every day.

How is smoking more dangerous than talking on a cell phone???? Maybe the 5 seconds while lighting a cigarette but most can easily do that while driving. As for putting ashes in an ash tray, what cars have ash trays anymore? I would not throw my butt out a window if my car had an ashtray. You may not like smokers but I would not compare the danger to talking on a cell phone.

We can continue to aim our legislation at the most incompetent, distractible and uncoordinated amongst us I suppose. Personally, I can talk on the phone and drive as easily as I can talk with a passenger and drive, but clearly some people can't do that, so let's make everything appropriate for the lowest common denominator.

Some people can't drive fast, in the rain or in traffic - we should probably ban cars altogether as those people are going to have accidents due to their poor skills. Some people can't drink responsibly, so let's ban a grown up having a glass of wine on the beach at sunset - oh yea, we did that already. We're the only country in the world where you can't do something as simple as that! Isn't all this "freedom" wonderful.

We are a nanny state, we are treated like a large pre-school and are expected to feel grateful for the few freedoms we have left - as if they are privileges bestowed upon us by a benevolent dictator. The only people who believe that America is still "the land of the free" are the provincial types who never travel abroad and, if pushed, try to compare us to China or Cuba - not a useful comparison! We are the least free developed, democratic country and on this page I actually see people lobbying for more restrictions.

Sad really.

One thing to keep in mind is that the NTSB doesn't make laws. Regulations yes, but not laws.

Currently drunk driving is illegal in ALL states, but this does not make it a federal crime. Ditto for speeding. No one here would propose to eliminate those laws.

We each have the right to be stupid on our own time, but it stops where has even the potential to injure others.

I love the fact that the government tells me what to from the time I wake up to the time I go to sleep, things are just so much easier when I don't need to think. I'm not sure if this is really me writing this or if I'm programmed to, oh well.....

This ban is aimed at helping people in more ways than one. My first point is the potential for a driver to receive devestating news while driving. I think if the average person who had such news but knew the person to contact was actually driving they would consider waiting. Secondly the more the insurance companies can point to phone use as the cause of accidents the higher the rates go for all. We have all been taught in driving school and elsewhere that distractions cause accidents and talking on a phone requires one to use their brain taking away the focus needed to drive. You can still have your phone in your car for whatever reason you want simply pull over and stop to use it. If a person is allowed to talk while driving the next thing they try will be texting. I see people having trouble walking while texting.

The poll question provides disassociated responses to each of the responses, which makes the entire poll pointless and ridiculous.
"I'm against it" & "My driving is not affected by talking on the phone" are 2 independent statements and are exclusive. If you are stating "I'm against it because my/your driving is affected by talking on the phone", then say it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/barney-frank-goes-after-george-will-over-marijuana-legalization-on-this-week/

My responses are not pointless. I have never and will never own a cell phone but I am affected by others who do.

"if it even saves one life, it's worth it in my book. "

Saving lives is easy. 4,500 motorcyclists are killed on the roads every year - ban motorcycles and you save 4,500 of them. People drown in rip tides every year - ban swimming off beaches and all those lives are saved... easy isn't it?

If your number one priority is "saving lives" and making life as regulated, controlled, risk free and safe as possible then that's fine - it's not mine though.

It all comes down to "indoor cat / outdoor cat". You can keep a cat indoors and it will never be run over, killed by a coyote, attacked by another cat, lost or stolen. It will however live a half life in a domestic prison - the ultimate regulation.

My vote is for less government, more personal responsibility and if that means life is a little more dangerous, so be it.

The Detroit News reported yesterday that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will not back a national ban on the use of hands free cell phone use in vehicles: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20111221/AUTO01/112210401/1361/LaHood-won-t-back-NTSB-push-to-bar-hands-free-calls

"The difference between the 4500 cyclists and the riptides is that many of those are a single victim incident. Many car accidents claim multiple victims."

I though if it saved ONE life, it would be worth it? I think a death is just as much a tragedy whether it happens as a single victim or in multiples - 4,500 motorcyclists is a big multiple it would seem to me... should motorcycles be banned, or are those deaths acceptable as they happen spread out over a year (it's still 13 every day)? The answer is, of course not. The job of government is not to wrap us in cotton wool to protect us from ourselves. We are living real, lives here, we're not in a huge kindergarten.

"Give people more of a reason to think about picking up that phone to text while they're doing 85 on the highway."

This I agree with - but not by banning phones, by teaching people personal responsibility and good sense. I assume you want to ban eating and drinking in cars, changing CDs, checking a GPS for directions and having small fussy children in the back seat? Sure prosecute idiots for distracted driving, but let's not legislate the entire population just because some people are incapable of good decisions.

There is no hand held cell phone use ban in Massachusetts - nor should there be. Driving distracted (for any reason) of course is illegal - and should be. If you are referring to a GPS as a "video playing in view of the driver" then no, it's not illegal. If you mean a video player - well obviously! As to hands free cell phones being illegal - that is the very definition of idiotic laws and over regulation and currently exists no where.

Source: http://www.iihs.org/laws/cellphonelaws.aspx

There is one reason we need a law of some kind to regulate cell phones while driving and that is if I get run over and killed by some person ditracted by his phone someone needs to be held accountable and the courts need leverage to make sure they are prosecuted.

John - they would be. Negligent driving and driving while distracted or impaired, is of course illegal regardless of the reason. Just because talking on the phone is legal, it doesn't mean that driving negligently because of a phone, and subsequently killing someone is also legal!

What part of this do people not understand? Legislating against every possible thing that may cause idiots to drive negligently is an absurd and pointless exercise - do you really advocate making all our laws aimed at the lowest common denominator?

As previously stated, you presumably want to legislate against drinking, eating, following GPS directions, having children in the back, changing a CD or a myriad of reasons poor drivers may be distracted - or do you mind being killed particularly by an idiot cell phone user rather than anything else?

If driving while impaired is illegal but driving while talking is not then how can anyone prove negligence? The law needs to be changed so a person cannot get off on a manslaughter charge. I don't think that drinking water or eating a candy bar requires the amount of distraction to the human brain that talking on a phone does. Where do you stand on the seat belt law. Again I think under your opinion you cannot prosecute a cell phone driver in an accident because you fell it is legal. You can't file charges for something that is not illegal.

John - you 100% misunderstand my point. Negligent driving, distracted driving and impaired driving is illegal - that's not my opinion, it's the law. If you are changing a CD, talking on the phone, disciplining a kid in the back seat, spilling your coffee or doing anything else legal at the time and it makes you drive negligently, that's illegal.

The law for that is in place. You just want to add layers of legislation and regulation to attempt to prevent it in people who are incompetent. I do not feel we need the government to treat us like small children, just because some people are idiots.

The seat belt law is a totally different issue and irrelevant to this discussion.

I din't think I misunderstand this issue.I do think that some people are so attached to their phone any legal limits would be like loosing an arm.The MBTA has banned(and fired) drivers from using phones. The police already check cell phone records at certain accidents to see if the driver was talking. You may be an expert at driving while talking but the general public should not be exposed to those who are not.

John - I didn't say you misunderstood the "issue" - it's a matter of opinion and you have your opinion. I said you misunderstood my "point" - big difference - which was that negligent driving is a crime whether or not the reason for being negligent is a legal activity or not. You seem to deliberately avoid understanding that.

MBTA drivers are at work, there is no reason for them to be on their personal phones while they are driving the public and in the workplace- it's a different issue and a red herring.

Of course police check cell phone records at crash sites - they want to know why the accident occurred. They want to know why EVERY accident occurred. If they discovered it was because the driver spilt hot coffee in their lap would you want to ban drinking coffee in the car?

None of us want to "be exposed" to negligent drivers (whatever the reason). There are laws on the books against negligent driving, let's use them to prosecute distracted and negligent drivers. This rush to increased regulation and more government intrusion as a default solution to cure societie's ills doesn't sit well with me at all - I worry for those who want to live in a Big Brother world where all risk is removed at the expense of liberty and personal freedom.

Banning cell phone has had NO impact on accidents, according to this report: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr012910.html. Don't you love actual facts! While the research can't figure out why, it certainly shows that such laws are a waste of time, money and energy. This article mentions that some are speculating that hands free (which is not banned anywhere) may be a culprit in not reducing accidents, but other speculation may be that people who are prone to careless use of cell phones while driving will also be prone to other careless behavior when behind the wheel. Everyone knows people who are "accident prone". These folks are not victims of some cosmic force of bad luck, but usually are careless, easily distracted ("oh look, puffy clouds!") types. So why would a government agency ignore actual facts? Any guesses??

I recall a REPORT from the CIA that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I tend to rely on what I see rather than what I read. I saw a lady screaming into her phone as she passed a stopped school bus that was letting kids off.

John - I see all sorts of things that are potentially (or actually) dangerous, should we legislate for the whole population based on your experience of seeing a woman distracted by her phone? Clearly, you want legislation based purely on things that you have SEEN (as opposed to any actual data, which you mistrust) this seems like an unsound basis for making Federal or State laws and regulations.

I once saw an actual crash based on the fact that a dog in the car went crazy after seeing another dog on the sidewalk - I guess we should ban people having dogs in their cars now based on that experience?

This is obviously getting silly and it got that way the second someone suggested an outright cell phone ban in case someone got bad news while driving! Clearly we all have different concepts of freedom, liberty, personal responsibility and the role of government in micromanaging every detail of our lives - hopefully calm heads will prevail.

The someone you refer to was me and I think the majority of people will take my side.Your example of the dog causing an accident simply proves my point that some people can't drive and handle any other situation at the same time. Your dog goes crazy, your kid gets sick or your phone rings, pull over.It is rude to not pay attention to other drivers while you yak on the phone. I simply want laws to prosecute people who talk on the phone and threaten public safety.As I said I don't own a cell phone so my opinion will not change but I do think the laws will eventualy ban talking on a cell phone while driving. Maybe you should have to register as a cell phone driver with your insurence company so you can be charged extra for your dangerous habit.

John - this gets sillier and sillier, so I'll make one last comment and respectfully leave it there.

We all know that some drivers can't drive and handle any other situation at the some time - this is obvious. Be it drinking coffee, dealing with feisty dogs, dealing with cranky kids, following a GPS, changing a CD, talking to passengers... this is hardly a novel discovery.

You have focused in on one of hundreds of potential distractions - by comparison a pretty minor one - and have decided it should be banned for all drivers, because SOME drivers can't deal with ANY distraction.

It's an unsupportable argument, and the minute you start talking about "receiving bad news" it loses all credibility. Maybe passengers should be banned from breaking bad news to the driver also - a girlfriend breaking up with her driving boyfriend could easily cause an accident, we need to get the government involved there somehow too.

This is more fun than anyone could imagine! From the "Facts are the enemies of truth (I saw someone once get distrated by a phone so it MUST be a universal problem)" to the "I'll wait until another study shows I'm right in my pre-concevied notion (so I'll ignore anything that shows I might be wrong)" arguments, we start to see why we have such a disfunctional, overreaching state and federal government! Don't bother me with facts, I know what feels "right"!