Don’t dismiss this lawsuit quite so quickly. The difference between this and earlier ones is that time has passed and there’s more information. On the one hand, all the wireless companies clearly sold these devices as useful in cars. Their buildouts focused on highways, their ads kept showing the advantages of carrying out business while driving. Meanwhile, studies *that they themselves funded in many cases* showed the hazards. In response, for years they put CYA warnings in the booklets – where they knew no one would read them.

The argument will be that it’s as if, hmm, a ski resort ran repeated ads showing people with previous skiing experience using some kind of new-fangled skis on a special course with no instruction, then put a warning at the end of those books of local attractions they put in rooms saying “Don’t go out on the slopes until you’ve learned how to ski” – and then claimed to someone injured “Oh, you should have known better.”

Well, maybe – but this isn’t even such a great analogy, since the actual hazards from cell phone use are much less obvious than those of skiing. Everyone jumped on “hands-free” operation as the issue, because *that* seemed like the obvious hazard. Except that it wasn’t, and isn’t. While it doesn’t *feel* like “just talking on the phone” has much of an effect – how many of the previous posters here *don’t* use their cellphones while driving? – the fact is objective measurement shows it does.

Laws are supposed to be unambiguous. It’s fine to say that general laws about distracted driving are enough – but how do you know when such a law has been violated? Is it a law you trot only when there’s already been an accident and you want *something* to charge an idiot driver with? Or do you want something that might actually be effective in preventing accidents? Frankly, I don’t all that much care if people do stupid, dangerous things that only harm themselves – but I damn well *do* care what they do when they share the road with me.
— Jerry