I agree completely, I notice this a lot, too. See my comment below... You could have added "smoking." Once I saw a young woman enter Starbucks and buy coffee all the while talking on her cell phone. When she got back to her car, she lit a cigarette. Now, how many hands does it take to hold a cigarette, a coffee, and a phone--and drive!!

I think so, too, Russ. Texting is unbelievably dangerous and am glad its banned - I just wish more folks followed that law.

that would be unfortunate, in my opinion

Hope not, on the music player front. I'd be out of luck!

Technophile,
I haven't found anything regarding GPS and music player use. The information I've seen says the recommendation is to "outlaw non-emergency phone calls and texting by operators of every vehicle on the road" (CNN) and would not affect what passengers are allowed to do. Of course, if adopted, each state would write and enforce the law on their own, so there's no telling what the specific law would be in Illinois. My recommendation either way is to get the address entered in your GPS before driving, and put your device on talking mode.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-13/us/us_ntsb-cell-phone-ban_1_smart-phones-texting-pickup-truck-driver?_s=PM:US

Lauren,
That does not apply to ipod ,mp3 players.
Denise,
The Officer I talked to was more or less talking about the Use of Officer Discretion. His example was if he Pulled someone over for speeding and later noticed a cell phone in a holder on the dash he could "Question the use" . He went on to say if you could prove you were not texting or or calling he would let it go but other officers might not. and I Agree with you comment about GPS Input.

I've been pondering this issue and I agree that making something law doesn't prevent people from doing it, but fear of losing one's license, having really high insurance rates, or having to go to traffic school might. I'm remembering a friend of mine who got two speeding tickets within a half a year; he began using his cruise control constantly because he couldn't afford another one.

In addition, there are benefits to having it illegal, especially for the other party (or parties) involved in a car accident. If one driver is shown to be distracted and therefore at fault for an accident, the driver not distracted wouldn't have to worry about his/her insurance rates. I like that.

Really? Because the last few times I've almost been hit or otherwise fearful on the road, it's been a man on his phone. ;)

In fairness, Homewood Jim, immigration has nothing to do with this discussion; let's keep it on road safety, please. Now, at this point, this is a recommendation by the NTSB, whose job is to determine "probable cause of transportation accidents, promoting transportation safety, and assisting victims of transportation accidents and their families." So, instead of thinking about this issue as yet another unenforceable law or the government trying to "protect us from ourselves," why not think of it as an analysis of accidents and their causes, and a practical suggestion on how to improve road safety?

When a business experiences accidents and injuries, it's in everyone's best interest to look into the causes and add safety equipment, change policy, or make rules to prevent future accidents. That's why every factory job I had forbade drinking alcohol at lunch and why I was required to wear slip-proof shoes working in a restaurant. In a way, we're all working on the road and it should be as safe as possible. Not trying to improve safety would be irresponsible.

The NTSB says the annual cost of distraction-related crashes runs well into the tens of billions. Hmm, maybe our car insurance rates will go down if this becomes law!

Talking on a cellphone *should be* no more distracting than talking to a passenger; unfortunately, that is not the case.

I do disagree that paying taxes grants someone permission to drive. Driving is a privilege; tax money used on roads is to maintain infrastructure in order to move people and goods around. Everyone benefits by the infrastructure, which is why people who cannot or choose not to drive don't get to claim a "no car" deduction on their taxes. Privileges (and rights) are taken away from people who abuse them frequently, whether it's voting (a right) for committing a felony, attending school (a right or a privilege, depending on your perspective) for breaking rules egregious enough to be expelled, or losing the freedom to work in one's desired field (a right) because of breaking applicable laws (lawyers are disbarred, etc). Driving impaired is no different: people who show they are not capable of driving responsibly should not be allowed to drive, no matter how much they pay in taxes.

Actually, you have a right to use the road. What you don't have, is a right to drive on the road. Courts have upheld the right to travel, but not to drive. That is a privilege. That's why you don't need a license to walk, bike, skateboard, whatever down the road.

Cezar,
A-ha! Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was just thinking in terms of freeways, but of course, you are right.
-denise

That intersection is always so busy and dangerous enough without a cell phone wielding semi driver.

First off, Patricia, I don't know anyone who would advocate driving while reading a newspaper. I personally would support a "distracted driving" moving violation that would include such things as reading the paper, using a cell phone, applying makeup, and even accidents caused by distracted activities like changing CDs. (Am I the only person who waits for a stoplight to change CDs or put on lip gloss?) If I saw a semi driver reading the paper while driving, I'd get the license and call the cops. (I'd pull over first, of course). That's blatant disrespect of human life and a big eff you to everyone else on the road.

However, as I researched and reported in this article, the science does not back up the theory that talking on the phone is the same as talking to a passenger. Your anecdote about your husband DOES illustrate, however, that talking requires four times as much concentration as listening: He put so much effort into talking that he forgot he was driving a car. So, as for people like your husband who don't realize that they shouldn't make eye contact with others while they're driving a car . . . maybe they should let someone else drive.