There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots.
This isn't about protecting people from being idiots; it's about protecting people from idiots.
DUI bans aren't about the drunk drivers, they're about the innocent third parties they kill and maim. Ditto the requirement to hold third-party insurance when driving a vehicle.
I suspect that what's needed is not merely a ban, but a public education campaign to ram this point home. ("Do you want to be maimed by an idiot who can't pull over to answer a text? If not, don't do it to other people!")
No, the point is that even if you ban it in order to protect "everyone else", people who insist on being unsafe will find new ways to do so regardless of the law. Banning behaviors is only effective if the ban is actually observed by the people who are most likely to cause the behavior you're trying to ban in the first place.
Edit: And yes, I agree with your last point about a PR campaign. Personally, I'm not convinced we should go about banning every little behavior (especially in cases like this which are effectively unenforceable) but instead spend the resources on education about why a behavior is undesirable, uncool, dangerous, etc.
This isn't about protecting people from being idiots; it's about protecting people from idiots.
DUI bans aren't about the drunk drivers, they're about the innocent third parties they kill and maim. Ditto the requirement to hold third-party insurance when driving a vehicle.
I suspect that what's needed is not merely a ban, but a public education campaign to ram this point home. ("Do you want to be maimed by an idiot who can't pull over to answer a text? If not, don't do it to other people!")