Yes, because we all have the money to buy a new car or have Bluetooth installed into our inferior old vehicles. Pulling off the road to avoid an accident just is not enough.

Its not the actually holding the phone that causes most of the problems it's the being distracted by talking to someone. Bluetooth doesn't help the problem, just means the cops won't notice and pull you over for being on the phone while driving.

Oh, I forgot to mention that I selected both YDI and FYL. The YDI should be obvious based on my above scenario. And the FYL is because it's possible that the OP didn't slam his brakes and create a dangerous situation. Not likely, in my opinion, but possible.

It sucks that OP got into an accident, but being predictable while driving is important too. My phone doesn't ring for very long before it goes to voice mail, and I have trouble imagining that the average driver can find a place to stop, properly signal their intention to other drivers, check to make sure someone isn't following too closely, brake (without doing it too dramatically), and pull into a parking lot in the seconds it takes the average cell phone to go to voice mail. I guess I have heard too many accounts of car accidents where the person who was rear-ended was really at fault, and a distracted driver trying to rush to pull to the side to answer their phone makes me skeptical. Anyhow, I hope no one was hurt.

Fail for having the longest comment on FML.

yeah, I'm pretty sure that you should always be far enough back to stop without hitting the person in from of you, even if they slam on their brakes... what if they stop because a person jumps in front, they manage to stop in time and you end up slamming into the back of them and they hit the person because of you?

#30, your scenario gets a thumbs down, not because it's at all unlikely, but because you demonstrate very little understanding of how laws work in the United States. ***For clarification, each state has its own traffic laws*** Further, in most states it is on the law books that in a rear-end collision, the driver in the rear is *always* at fault, because they were following the vehicle in front too closely to allow themselves time to react to whatever maneuver the leading vehicle made, justified or not. Rule of thumb, for every ten mph of your speed, leave at least two car lengths between you and the vehicle in front of you. That allows plenty of time to react. In Oklahoma, where I'm originally from, I can be pulled over and ticketed simply for "following (another vehicle) too closely" and I'm always at fault if I rear-end someone, it's not officer discretion.

The logic presented to me by some of the posters on FML amazes me.

50- Isn't it it fascinating? The human mind is capable of so many things, but if this is the best we can do? Well, it's obvious that our world is doomed more than we know.