I was braced for mixed feelings regarding a proposed state ban on cell-phone use while driving. But I needn't have worried: House Bill 1094 treats cell-phone users differently, for no good reason, and deserves to be quashed.

As noted last month in this space, the evidence is growing stronger every year that motorists' cell-phone use boosts the risk of accidents. Research is building the indictment, not just anecdotes.

But on the other hand, it's never been safer to drive, with the U.S. fatality rate (per 100 million vehicles miles) dropping again last year to another historic low. Why curtail a valued freedom when safety continues to improve?

Legislative sponsors of the proposed ban would have Colorado mimic six other states that have outlawed the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. But there's the rub. Banning only hand-held cell phones makes no sense because it discriminates in favor of a technology that is actually no safer.

As an article in The New York Times Science section explained just this week, "In half a dozen states and many cities and counties, it is illegal to use a hand-held cellphone while driving - but perfectly all right to talk on a hands-free device.

"The theory is that it's distracting to hold a phone and drive with just one hand. But a large body of research now shows that a hands-free phone poses no less danger than a hand-held one - that the problem is not your hands but your brain."

People might rebel against this finding, but that doesn't make it any less true. If Colorado lawmakers find the prospect of a total ban on drivers' use of cell phones too radical, fine. Leave the law as it is. But writing a baseless distinction into a bill just because that's what other states have done is an insult to every Coloradan with the curiosity to learn about issues on their own.

A divine right to wealth?

Most readers of this column will never pay the federal estate tax. Yet they should be alarmed by Democrats' emerging plans for it.

As The Wall Street Journal reported this week, congressional leaders hope to move quickly to "prevent the estate tax's scheduled repeal" next year. No surprise there, of course, given the populist rhetoric of the campaign and the conviction on the left that the rich should pay higher taxes.

But how high?

Congressional leaders reportedly intend to lock in an estate exemption of $3.5 million, or $7 million per couple. That doesn't sound too bad, at least compared to the $1 million exemption during the Clinton years, if the figures are indexed for inflation.

What's shocking is the share that government will confiscate above those amounts: 45 percent. And while that too is an improvement over the Clinton-era rate of 55 percent, it should still offend Americans' fundamental sense of fairness.

By what principle or logic does government lay claim to essentially half of every private fortune - on which taxes at some point were presumably paid - upon the owner's death? Do these assets flow to the government by some sort of divine right? Is Washington a silent partner in every enterprise?

One of the greatest prods to hard work, risk-taking and frugality is the prospect of transferring what you've accumulated to your heirs. And contrary to the murmurings of some, wealth is not a bad thing. I'd like to be wealthy. You'd probably like to be wealthy. Not just to indulge our whims for leisure, creature comforts and (on the noble side) philanthropy, but because wealth confers personal independence.

Some people favor high estate taxes in order to prevent, they say, the development of an American aristocracy. Let each generation start the race for economic rewards anew, they insist, and may the most talented and hardest-working win. No head starts for the sons and daughters of the rich.

In a dynamic society such as this one, though, the dead hand of privilege is a much smaller threat to freedom than an avaricious state. Congress should fix the estate-tax rate at something more reasonable - and most certainly no higher than 25 percent.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.