Okay. I'll concede that I understand how you feel; I see the same things you see; people drifting out of their lanes, essentially traveling along in their own little world with just them and their phone. But, rather than castigate EVERYONE who uses a cellphone behind the wheel, let's be a bit more in-depth with our analysis fo the real problem.
As I see it; it's all about skill and personal capabilities.
Look. That State chants the mantra "Driving is not a right; it's a privilege". It is the State that erects itself as THE licensing authority. So, then, it seems to me that; if the level of skill exhibited among the driving masses leaves something to be desired -- people are licensed that can't drive and talk on the phone at the same time -- the the licensing authority has the obligation to raise the bar.
You are exactly right that people are literally getting killed out there, but it's not the phones that are the real problem; it's the level at which the State has deemed that a person may be licensed to drive. I frankly doubt that someone who has trouble driving while talking on the phone would have any less trouble driving while talking to a passenger, changing a CD, or drinking a soda.
I do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all answer in the form of anti-_______ (fill in the blank with the 'distraction' of your choice) legislation. Rather, I firmly believe that answer lies in a one-size-fits-all raising of the bar for a license; perhaps even with the introduction of a tiered licensing structure such that those demonstrating greater skill are granted greater privilege.
Perhaps the existing license should be defined as a 'Basic' license that allows mobility within defined restrictions. For example, a Basic licensee may have unlimited surface street access but may not travel upon any highway, except in the rightmost lane, and may not pass slower traffic.
Add to the existing minimal testing requirements successful completion of a one-day closed-circuit driving course and you qualify for an 'Extended' license that grants full access privileges to all lanes. Courses could be required to be repeated at ten-year intervals to maintain proficiency. Anyone not passing the road course would still be able to get a 'Basic' license as long as they could pass the minimum requirements for it. 'Extended' licensees would receive a tag that they would be required to display in a corner of the windshield. This tag could be made of that vinyl that adheres to glass without any adhesive (if you've ever been to a 'Jiffy Lube', you've seen it) so it would be easily transferable from vehicle to vehicle. Countrfeit of such a tag would be a $50,000 fine and ten years in the slammer. Unauthorized usage of an 'Extended' tag would be a 2-point violation resulting in a $996 fine and 40 hours of public service (usually picking up garbage along the shoulder of the highway).
In this kind of a situation, 'Extended' licensees could be required to meet a higher bar on an ongoing basis or lose their 'Extended' license. For example, get a DUI as an 'Extended' licensee and you're busted down to 'Basic' license level FOR LIFE. Insurance companies could get in on the act and give premium breaks for 'Extended' license holders. Whatever the case, the upshot would be that the 'Extended' license would be recognized as a high-value license, and those in posession of one would drive far more carefully knowing that they had something valuable to lose if they were careless or inattentive.
All of the foregoing is just an example of what could be done, if there really was the will to fix the problem and not just get political points by having one's name on a piece of legislation addressing, but not really fixing, a social peeve.