I don’t particularly like the distraction of talking on a cell phone while driving, so I avoid it as much as possible. It’s also not enjoyable avoiding other drivers who are not paying full attention while chatting on the cell phone.

However, I also recognize that cell phone usage while driving has facilitated beneficial communication exponentially. Thus, whenever I see creeping paternalism such as this, it gets my attention:

West U. eyes ban on calls while driving
Cell phones in school zone lead to ‘near misses’

Houston-area officials are watching West University Place as elected officials there consider banning cell phones in the school zone near the community’s lone elementary campus.

The move would put the affluent suburb on the map as the first Houston-area municipality to take a stand against drivers talking on their phones as children travel to and from school. The community is following in the footsteps of Dallas and several North Texas suburbs that have recently approved bans. [.  .  .]

West University proposed the ban earlier this month after conducting a study to determine how often drivers were spotted chatting on their cell phones in active school zones. Over three weeks in February, police counted 297 drivers on their phones.

Six of the drivers violated traffic laws by creeping into intersections while children and crossing guards were present, West University police Lt. Thad Olive said.

Although neither Olive nor HISD police officials could recount an incident when a child was seriously injured in a school zone because of a driver on a cell phone, they said this type of ordinance could prevent tragedy.

"There’s been a lot of near misses," Olive said. "It definitely has distracting effects. If I can take one element of risk away from the children in that school zone, then it’s a good thing." [.  .  .]

Kenneth Jones, who oversees HISD’s crossing guard department, said he’d love to see the ban enacted citywide.

"If you’ve got that phone in your hand, I don’t think you have your mind 100 percent on driving," he said.

Kelli Durham, an assistant superintendent in the Cypress-Fairbanks school district, was one of several educators to suggest widening the ban to include all drivers, regardless of whether they’re in school zones.

"If cell phones shouldn’t be used for safety reasons in school zones, should they be used anytime on our streets and highways?" Durham asked.  .  .  .

So, if "one element of risk" can be taken away from children in a school zone, then that’s sufficient justification for regulation of a hugely beneficial communication device? Does this mean that the next initiative will be to ban conversation between a driver of a car and a passenger while in a school zone? That’s also distracting, perhaps even more distracting than talking on a cell phone. Should we also ban distracting billboards, signs, automobiles and lights while we’re at it?

What is most disturbing about all this is the utter ignorance of the bureaucrats proposing these regulations of the cost of the regulation relative to the benefit. Wouldn’t it be prudent at least to perform a meaningful cost-benefit analysis of the probable impact of outlawing a valuable improvement in communications before foisting yet another regulation on the public?