In my opinion, the arguments are stupid. They are showing a bad car accident and saying that it has happened *because* she was texting. It has not! It happened because she couldn't handle driving while texting. Nothing other than that.
All they need is to add "multitasking" ability to the driving training. It is hypocrisy to dismiss this idea by saying "you shouldn't do anything other than driving, because driving is so risky, important and requires your full attention", because, in fact, virtually EVERYBODY does something other than driving while driving. Every stupid movie shows conversations while driving. Real conversations distract the driver much more than texting. You can't postpone them, you can't easily change your level of engagement depending on situation on the road, and you (sometimes) can't shut the other people. Yet, noone bans conversations while driving, noone bans eating, etc. And we shouldn't ban neither of this, nor texting. We should train. Or, at least, honestly say: "yes, ideally we should train, but, unforturnately, we have to ban, because training is too expensive; we're working on making it more affordable".
One more thing that makes me willing to throw up is the stupid use of the word "texting". "Texting" driving tickets are not given for texting, they are given for any use of the phone which is held in hand, such as checking calendar, reading e-mail, playing games, taking notes, taking voice notes, checking weather, checking stock price, and so on and so forth. It is rude to associate all these activities with texting, because in my opinion texting is mostly waste of time and it is a very inefficient way of communication. But even if I liked it, I wouldn't use one term ("texting") to denote a whole set of activities, which are, for the most part, totally different from texting.