I would disagree with your ditto simile. One law outlaws you from travelling at the speed that a normal cyclist on a road bike would achieve anyway. The other outlaws you from driving a one tonne vehicle at speeds of up to 70mph with only one arm and substantially compromised awareness.I suppose my main point was, if you (one) argue(s) that it is ok to ignore the speed law on e-bikes because you think it is silly, why is it not ok to ignore the mobile law if you think that is silly?
I doubt that the people who pull out of turnings or drive up the motorway one handed while talking on their mobiles think it is dangerous at all. They see it as a law designed for fools - and they do not consider themselves fools.
Ditto the speed law on e-bikes.
One causes no more harm than is possible cycling without a motor, the other is a wanton disregard for the life of other road users and pedestrians.
To stretch your simile further and illustrate my point, surely riding a motorised bike 1mph faster than the legal limit is no worse than breaking in to a house and slaughtering a whole family while they sleep if you consider both to be silly?
The point is that the perceived silliness is not at all the point (there are nutters out there who render the concept of percieved silliness an impossible target). The point is the measurable danger to society. Riding an ebike at 20mph is no more dangerous than riding a high end road bike at 20mph. Talking on a mobile while driving is reckless.
If you want to debate the merits of abiding by laws versus the benefit to society of doing so then that is another thing entirely. But judging laws based on subjective perception of worth is pointless since every person will have a different perception.