In news
Oh god, not this chestnut! I showed you clear data when you were called
"Paul", but you just weasel excuses.

The data does exist and it does show that distracted drivers are more
dangerous and that there has been an increase in hospitalizations/deaths
since the introduction of mobile phones. It is hard to see because there
has been a drastic drop in the overall rate caused by other safety
improvements with cars.

However, there's no point discussing this with you because your "facts"
(aka opinions) don't gel with reality.

End of story.

OFF TOPIC.

WARNING: Adult logical factual thought is below.

Almost everyone thinks like you do.
Hence I'm not surprised at anything you intuit.

Even I would intuit what you do, if I wasn't a logical adult thinker.
Just like almost everyone doesn't realize that quantum entanglement exists.

It's not intuitive this quantum mechanics stuff.
It's just not.

But the reason scientists believe in quantum mechanics isn't intuition.
It's science.

Experimental science.
Empirical results.

Facts.

Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate.
The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None.

That's a fact.

You can dance all around that fact, just like physicists had to dance
around quantum entanglement or the uncertainty principle or the duality of
light, none of which is intuitive - but all your dancing has to account for
the facts.

And the facts are plain, and uncontrovertible.

There has been zero (and everyone knows this) absolutely zero effect on the
accident rate in the USA in all fifty states due to the utterly
fantastically high explosion of cellphone ownership percentages in a
certain time period.

There's no effect before.
There's no effect during.
There's no effect after (now that the ownership rate has plateaued).

Everyone. Yes. Everyone is intuitive.

Just like everyone has trouble with empirical results of quantum physics,
everyone has trouble with that fact.

But that fact is a fact.
And, it's the *best* dataset there is on the planet for that fact.

So what you're trying to do is offset a fact with bad data.
You can dance all you want with your bad data.

But any conclusion you come up with that flies in the face of fact is just
your intuition speaking - since the fact that you can't avoid is the
elephant in the room - which is that the accident rate in the USA hasn't
been affected one blip by cellphone ownership rates skyrocketing (and
presumed use).

BTW, there *is* a reason for this - but until you recognize the fact is a
fact, the reason will never be able to be comprehended by you.

Only an adult who is a logical thinker - a scientist - a person who will
accept a fact for a fact - can get to the second stage - of why - of why
cellphone ownership rates have no bearing whatsoever on accident rates.

In fact, *all* safety laws - every single one - individually or combined -
have no first order effect on *anything* (except revenue generation) which
is another proven fact (they only have one second-order effect - which is
on length of hospital stay for "injuries" - but that includes seatbelt laws
in addition to cellphone laws).

Bear in mind that I only speak facts and that I comprehend detail, which
most people don't do.

So read my words carefully since they are fact.

What you're trying to do is offset