Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with insurance companies being able to exact punishment from people who caused accidents due to cell phone related distractions, so long as it can be proven that the cell phone played a material role. But to give the cops another reason to harass the citizenry is ridiculous.
Funny that the propaganda case the NTSB is using here blames the cell phone, when the guy was severely sleep deprived and they also conveniently forget that the accident would have occurred anyway, cell phone or no.
I've lived in a state that bans texting and even phones in the hand. I appreciate being able to hold my phone. I like being able to check my phone at a red light without some jackoff cop trying to exact a penalty from me.
These nanny state apologists make me sick. Thank God our governor here in SC is an outspoken opponent of this kind of childish idiocy.
Fifty years ago if someone tried to search persons before boarding a plane, train, or bus, the officer would be ran out of town on a rail. Politicians political careers would end. Even at the height of the 60's and 70's hi-jacking persons were not treated as subjects of the government void of rights too unlawful search. The last searching of my person and belongings I submitted too was when I was in the Navy 30 years ago but that was a different set of laws as the UCMJ applied.
Today people don't question agencies like TSA violating their person. It's all about conditioning the next generations for submission. Some now will speak out. Many others thrive on the false security of government knows best laws. Sad too say some of the ones thriving on and demanding more and more Nanny State laws are Freepers as well.