I'm not saying the law is even wrong or that he wasn't wrong... I'm saying your expectations sound somewhat naive to me.
You've been in the car and talked to someone and you don't think his attention ever wavered from the road... Ok there's a number of flaws with this.
1) you don't actually know for a fact that their attention never wavered because you aren't a mind reader. Additionally if you've never driven then your perspective on the matter is even more limited by that lack of experience.
2) it's an anecdote. I'm quite sure there are people who have been distracted by other passengers in the car even if your friend wasn't. If you've ever driven with a parent and an unruly kid in the back seat you would know what I mean.
3) having a handsfree device doesn't make you less invested in your conversation it just frees your hand up, which is a good thing obviously but doesn't change the dynamic you described above about the person on the other end not being in the car with you.
The reality is people get distracted all the time and you can very easily be distracted by your own thoughts or an argument you just had or a meeting you're about to go to etc etc. The ideal is for people to pay as much attention as they can when they drive but that's just that... An ideal. Nobody pays 100% of their attention to the road at all times and it can be very easy to get lost in moral grandstanding based on hard-line rules or "the law is the law" mentality.. in reality I'm perfectly capable of holding a phone and driving 15 mph without it really being dangerous.
These laws exist because not because they are perfect but because they are broad brush attempts to prevent accidents. There are many accidents caused by driving while on the phone but that doesn't mean you're prone to one in every instance.
There's a big difference between being on the interstate in a big city going 60 mph with a bunch of cars merging and **** vs driving in gridlocked traffic where you're going 15 mph.
tldr lrn2nuance + lrn2drive
|