What I don't understand about cell phone laws

California is about to join a number of other states in requiring drivers to use hands-free devices (aka a headset) when talking on a cell phone while driving.

As the resident of a state that requires such behavior -- and will fine you $100 for not doing so -- I've never understood the logic of this.

First off, yesterday's Wall Street Journal (story is accessible to subscribers only) casts doubt on whether this law it really makes drivers safer.

An excerpt from the article:

The study, from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, predicts that the state's hands-free requirement, which goes into effect July 1, will reduce traffic deaths in the state by 300 a year. But the institute -- which reached its conclusion by studying state-by-state traffic-fatality data, including data from a handful of states that already restrict cellphones on the road -- found a decrease in deaths only when people drove in adverse conditions, such as in rain, or on wet or icy roads.

But here's the real flaw in this law: The real distraction of a cell phone isn't the act of holding it to your ear. Instead, it's the dialing of the number and simply talking. The latter requires a fair degree of concentration and takes away from what you're supposed to be doing while driving which is paying attention. I can't tell you how many times I've been on calls and been in near accidents or driven past my exit simply because I wasn't paying attention.

So pass all the laws you want. It still won't make the roads safer until people focus on the task at hand.