> the law should be written to ban both using a phone or playing harmonica while driving without specifically mentioning either, except perhaps as examples. Sl

> the law should be written to ban both using a phone or playing harmonica while driving without specifically mentioning either, except perhaps as examples. Slippery slope arguments shouldn’t apply to specific provisions in the law that target likely scenarios. Let’s say you said that the driver shouldn’t drive distracted. You have now outlawed listening to radio, music, or others talking in a way not conducive to giving full attention to the car, perhaps even while the car is being driven automatically, if there is any chance of the driver needing to drive manually such that they must be ready to drive. That said, I agree that the method of generating the outcome need not always be defined. For example, in some legislation, companies/vendors are named specifically, which may lead to de facto support by the government of some private institutions, which seems anticompetitive.