Oh, I don't really care if it stays or not. I'll just keep typing what I'm saying and let whatever gets killed die.

But, personally, I find fvcking and sh!t and pr0n et al. to be awfully silly.

Personally, I am a better driver when conversing on a cell phone than I am when I am conversing with someone in the car. With a person in the car, I tend to glance at them more (especially people in the back seat) and I talk with my hands. On my bluetooth, I can answer and hang up from the steering wheel and see who is calling by glancing at the radio screen. (Or, I could until Chris stole the Mini). But, with a manual car, I also only kept one hand on the wheel most of the time.

My phone is probably the LEAST distracting thing in my vehicle. Dogs, radio/satelite/cd/ipod controls, maps, passengers - all are MUCH more of a distraction.

I admit, I am on my cell phone a LOT throughout the day. It is the nature of my job to be doing other things while talking on the phone. The MOST difficult thing to do is walk dogs while holding the phone up to my ear. That is something I simply cannot do.

It used to be against the law to drive barefoot. It might still be for all I know, but if cops can't hang out on street corners with stop signs that are regularly run and issue tickets, when are they going to police me and my cell phone?

Oh, and we're also supposed to only have 4 pets and license our cats. We have 3 AC officers and one truck to police Long Beach, Seal Beach, Signal Hill, Cypress and Los Alamitos. I wonder why I haven't gotten in trouble yet?

I sound almost libertarian!

I doubt you're right in your assessment of the cognitive impacts of those distractions. But even if you are you're the exception. After all, 90% of people think they're above average drivers.

But again, just because you have other things that you feel distract you more, does not mean that it is a good idea to be distracted by this. Especially since I'm guessing most of the time you are adding the phone to those other distractions rather than replacing them.

Obviously I haven't seen you drive, but if you really are that distracted I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of the two-or-three cars a week I kick for being crap drivers who almost run into me on my various walks.

I have no expectation that any laws on this would be rigidly or consistently enforced. But I still have no problem with the idea of such rules.

I don't disagree that there are all sorts of distracting things in a car that don't involve the safest possible driving, but are we going to outlaw CD players? It's just dumb to choose one thing over another just because it is the newest thing (and especially since it has gotten MUCH safe as of late).

I don't know if I would be considered a "good" driver. I've had 2 tickets in 34 years of driving (both speeding). I certainly am a "bold" driver, but I also can assess situations VERY quickly which has worked in my favor. And, despite being "surprised" by pedestrians and bike riders who seem to think they can walk or ride anywhere on (and off) the road in my lovely city, I haven't hit anyone yet. Yet.

I addressed that above. Studies show that the nature of being distracted talking on the phone is different (at the cognitive level as well as at the interaction level) than the nature of other distractions in the car.

This doesn't mean that those distractions are ok, but all evidence currently available is that, in aggregate, talking on the phone is much worse than those other things.

So, even if I grant that you are an outlier, superbly designed for driving in the face of extreme distraction, setting the rules based on outliers generally isn't good practice.

(And if it is possible to prove that someone got into an accident or committed an infraction while digging through CDs to change the one in the player then I'd be fine with a regulation that allowed doubling the penalties, just as I'm fine with it if you're on the phone.)

My concern then is what will constitute proof that you were using a device at the time of an accident.

Apparently activity records "close to" the time or location of the incident is considered sufficient. So you could safely use your phone, put it away (let's say for the sake of argument whatever text you entered was still sending), then have some jackass come out of nowhere and hit you, but you could still be nailed. At least, that's how I'm reading that report.

Don't see why it would be necessary to prove you were using it at the time of an accident. Just that you were using it while driving. Now, they aren't likely to get that proof unless you have been involved in some negative incident (regardless of whether that incident was directly related).

Out of curiosity, if talking on phones or texting while driving is no big deal. Is there a level of distraction that does cross a line. Are TVs installed in dashboards bad?

I commute about six miles each way every day. In the morning, I like to drape my newspaper over the steering wheel and work on the crossword puzzle. Since the puzzle becomes gradually more difficult as the week progresses, my ability to drive defensively dissipates on Thursday. By Friday, I can hardly pay attention to the selfish drivers distractedly talking on their cell phones, much less school children who believe that crossing the street is a right and not a privilege.

As a centrist, I believe this law is a good thing. But only after Wednesday.