HARRISBURG -- The commander of the Pennsylvania State Police wants the Legislature to approve a tougher seat belt law aimed at getting more drivers to wear the safety devices.

Col. Jeffrey Miller contends it's a way to save the lives of more motorists who are involved in crashes -- as many as 75 more lives a year, studies have shown.

At a hearing last week, Col. Miller told legislators that Pennsylvania has one of the weakest seat belt laws of any state.

As a result, he said, only 83 percent of Pennsylvania drivers now use seat belts, compared with at least 95 percent in Washington state, which has the kind of "primary" seat belt law that Col. Miller favors.

Under current law, a state or local police officer cannot stop a vehicle if he notices that the driver or passengers aren't wearing seat belts.

The officer has to have another "primary'' reason for stopping the car, such as speeding, ignoring a red light, driving erratically or other offense.

And even if the officer does stop the car, he can't give the driver or passengers a ticket for being unbuckled unless the officer first cites the driver for some other offense.

Col. Miller called the state's current law "a secondary" seat belt law and said Pennsylvania needs a "primary'' law -- one that would let a police officer stop a car if he sees the driver or passenger not wearing a belt, and then cite the motorists for that offense alone.

Besides the need to increase drivers' safety, Col. Miller said, a tougher seat belt law could help change attitudes of younger people. When children riding in a car see their parents not wearing seat belts, it makes the children think seat belt use isn't important, and perpetuates bad habits, he said.

Ongoing publicity about the importance of seat belt use has gradually caused belt usage to rise in Pennsylvania, even with a law that state police consider inadequate. Usage stood at 68 percent of all drivers in 1998 and rose to 83 percent in 2005, according to the state police Bureau of Patrol.

But Col. Miller wants to get it closer to Washington's rate of use.

"We could save more lives every year with a primary seat belt law," he said.

State Rep. Rick Geist, R-Altoona, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said he couldn't comment until he sees the specifics of a bill.

But other legislators, speaking privately, say such a tougher seat belt law could be a tough sell in Pennsylvania, where many conservatives think government shouldn't dictate every aspect of a person's life.

They noted the huge, sustained opposition by motorcycle riders to the state's mandatory helmet law, which resulted in repeal of the law two years ago.

Many drivers could become angry, legislators fear, if they get stopped by a police officer and receive a ticket for not wearing a seat belt. Use of a belt should be considered a matter of personal choice, some lawmakers said.

A tougher seat belt law isn't the only driving-related change being considered at the Capitol.

One possible measure -- which also could irritate a lot of drivers -- would prohibit the use of cell phones while driving a car, as New York state has done.

Outlawing the use of cell phones by drivers "is something we have to talk about,'' Col. Miller said, but getting a primary seat belt law enacted is more important.

A cell phone ban might even apply to hands-free cell phones. Maj. Jack Duignan, who heads the patrol bureau, said studies have shown that the distraction caused when a driver is talking on a hands-free phone is just about as dangerous as when a driver holds a cell phone to his ear.

Some legislators are concerned, however, that there could be lawsuits by the cell phone industry if the devices are banned in cars.

These days there are many "distractions" inside cars, they note -- such as when a driver loads a music disc, uses computerized mapping devices, watches in-car televisions or even tunes the radio or eats a sandwich.

Some lawmakers are wondering if all such driver "distractions" would have to be outlawed if cell phone use was banned.

And junior drivers -- teens 16 to 18 -- should take note also of a possible change. A bill may be offered to limit the number of passengers that a junior driver can have in his car.

This would likely mean that a driver 16 to 18 could carry only one passenger. The idea, again, is to avoid distractions that can lead to accidents.

"The rate of serious accidents rises greatly when the number of young passengers in the car with a junior driver increases," said Maj. Duignan.

"It's all about distractions -- we need to eliminate distractions."