The Oregonian comes through again, putting a smile on my tired face with their editorial asserting there is no need for a ban on use of cell phones while driving. No mention of studies showing drivers using cell phones are four times more likely to be in an accident. Not a whisper about findings that whether that cell phone is hand-held or hands-free makes no difference to the increased risk.

No, instead we're offered this tortured logic:

"The ability to talk on the phone while driving is a relatively new convenience, not a necessity. Still, considering the length of people's commutes, the complexity of their lives and the miles between loved ones, those drive-time conversations have fast become essential for staying in touch."

In contiguous sentences, how can anything be both "not a necessity" and "essential"? The fact that many people manage to "stay in touch" without using cell phones while driving is proof the habit is not "essential".

"Some drivers are careless, like the quintessential fool with the phone in one hand and coffee in the other, but the vast majority of people manage their calls and other distractions without pinwheeling into a ditch."

The vast majority of people who drive over the speed limit don't end up in a ditch, either - does that mean we should have no laws except those aimed at changing the behavior of more than 50% of those affected? Other debunking of common objections is well documented.

The editorial helpfully points out that alcohol-related accidents are still too high, and that there is inadequate funding for enforcement of any kind on Oregon's roads. But it completely misses the point of the proposed ban on cell phones while driving. Laws serve at least two purposes. One is to set a standard so that punishment can be meted out to those transgressing it. Another, more relevant to most people, is to define desired best practices, so that law-abiding citizens understand society's expectations and assessment of safe behavior. Many of us drive a little over the speed limit at times. But we know that it's not considered safe or responsible, and if pulled over we must acknowledge at least on some level, "it's a fair cop". Likewise, the purpose of teen curfew hours is to set the expectation that minors shouldn't be out roaming the streets at 2 a.m. on a school night. We want drivers to wear seat belts, bikers to wear helmets. And we pass laws on issues like these so our community's rules are clear, and people know what they are.

I agree that existing laws for "careless driving" make Senator Ginny Burdick's proposal for listing all possible distractions not helpful. A laundry list of unsafe actions obscures the main point: Hang up and drive. The body of research on increased risk of accidents while talking on cell-phones is clear. The Oregonian's editorial asserting it doesn't really matter, denying the problem like a child whining "everyone's doing it", provides further evidence of the need for legislation. I believe Oregon should ban the use of both hand-held and speaker cell-phones while driving.