[fzeroracer]

I mean sure, but that wasn't your original argument. Your original argument was that if it affects 12% of people, then it's a bad law. We've now demonstrated that reducing things down like that doesn't work.

There's an argument to be made that texting while walking can be dangerous because if you're sharing a small space with cyclists or others then you're potentially leaving yourself open to colliding with them. And ultimately the cost to fix this problem is low and unobtrusive (ie just step aside).

[Talanes]

Their original argument was it's a MAJOR INDICATION of a bad law. Which is to say that if you're law is going to be broken by double-digit percentages of the population, there needs to be a solid argument as to WHY. A real counter-example would need to be a law that is widely broken, has no demonstrable benefit, and is still somehow a good law. Which is tautologically impossible, criminalizing people for no benefit is inherently bad lawmaking.

[perl4ever]

The presumption is that it's a bad law, because laws that affect a large percentage of the population are often unenforceable.