You have no constitutional right to drive. That's what this law is based on. You do have a constitutional right to free travel, so some people believe that gives you a constitutional right to drive, but that hasn't held up.
I think he was alluding to the constitutional right to privacy, which is something we do have.
The number of people in the car (i.e. whether another passenger could have been using the phone) shouldn't affect whether you have the right to the privacy of your communications and personal data on your phone.
Hmm. Given how walking (or even biking) on the side of highways is discouraged (or ticketed), and public and private land is fenced off around these major roads, how does the right to free travel hold up? Or do they consider paid transportation like buses to be sufficient?
If I want to go east, I have to take the highway. There are no other roads through the mountains for a good 50 miles north of my current location.
Where are you talking about? In the US, you would only get bothered for walking on a limited access freeway (in some areas even those are open to pedestrians).
There's even an effort to sign post a national route system:
Its like DWB, in that its technically not illegal to walk along the side of the road, just like its technically not illegal to shake down anyone walking along the side of the road. After all, the police are just investigating a crime report from somewhere within 50 miles and one week where the description of the violator is no more specific than "a man" or whatever.
To say the problem varies a lot geographically is an understatement.
This is a corruption of terminology. "Driving" in these discussions means traveling via the public road, which you do have a right to do. Using the public roads for private commerce (the original definition to "driving") is different, but nobody here is talking about that.
