So pass no laws? Why have a law against red light running? Why have a law against speeding? I don't get your argument, this is not a Bill of Rights/Individual Liberties argument, driving is not protected by that. You people keep going to the extreme, saying if you ban cell phones you have to ban ALL distractions, therefore a law makes no sense. But you're ignoring the opposite. If you can't regulate ONE aspect of driving, why regulate any of it? After all, laws against running red lights don't stop people from running red lights, so why have a law at all? Right?
No, it's not about passing "no laws".. it's about enforcing and making stricter punishments for violations of
laws we already have.
Driving, itself, is not protected by the Constitution... but an act doesn't need to be explicitly protected by the Constitution for it to be something we're free to do. The default position is that we are all free to do anything unless it violates the freedom of someone else.
When someone gets in a motor vehicle accident that's caused by intoxication, drowsiness, or driver distraction that represents a choice by the driver that resulted in the violation of someone else's freedom. It should be punished, harshly, proportional to the severity of impact upon the other person(s).
The government is neither the proper nor the best tool for society to use to mitigate the risks associated with life; especially the risks we choose to take like driving.