They could conduct a "distraction" test but that might "unfairly" target segments of the population the PC crowd doesn't want to cut out from driving.
But in comparison to what other distractions? Would crying babies cause more accidents? What about drinking a hot cup of coffee? Would driving with 1 hand be considered as a "distraction"? Would me driving with 1 hand, drinking hot coffee with the other and having a crying toddler at the back be safer than me talking on a cell?
With stats, it can always be used and abuse in any way you want. Maybe all the people who got into accidents are the same type of people who we will all label as "bad drivers" anyways.
I believe that there are good drivers and bad drivers and whether or not cellphones are permitted won't change anything. So unless there's some in-depth experiment where they're comparing all different variables of driving and figured out that cellphone is #1 deniable cause for accidents (compared to other possible distractions of the road), then the law is just targeting certain segments of the population (non-morons) unfairly.
All in all, it's easier to just say cell phone drivers/texters are dangerous and just ignore the rest of the myriads of distractions, or the people prone to distractions/accidents, or plain stupid ass people on the roads who shouldn't have a car/license who do.
Otherwise, there'd be little justification for such high insurance expenses, or the populace letting government turn into mommy and daddy.
Edited by Aleksandr Pistoletov, 09 March 2013 - 08:54 AM.