Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Sorry pal, a logical failure in your argument. I noted that 600,000 people at any moment may feel it is rational to use their phone when and where they are using it.
More logical fallacy. No, that they do something doesn't mean there's any rational driving-related reason behind it. That they "may feel" it's rational/practical doesn't mean it is in fact. And, of course, you don't know what they "feel".
People drive just fine with out using cell-phones (there's a lot of evidence that cell-phones
cause problems: see all those links posted earlier you keep
ignoring).
What driving related practical/rational purpose do all these 600,000 have for that cell-phone use?
No one has managed to suggest what it could be!
(To be clear, there might be rare "emergency" related cell-phone use but we aren't really talking about that.)
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
That doesn't mean you can assume ANYTHING about what I mean, or think is OK, about drunk drivers or speeders or cell phone users for that matter.
You are using the "argument from popularity" fallacy. You don't provide any other reason. Thus, I can know exactly that you approve of drunk driving and speeding (which are "popular" things too done by who "may feel" it's rational to do those things).
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
You don't really know that the number of accident caused by cell phone use is "likely" to increase at any any specific rate, if at all.
If x% of accidents are cause by cell-phone use (and there is ample support that they are responsible for
some accidents), then a y-fold increase in cell-phone usage would reasonably be
expected (predicted) to cause y*x% accidents.
And, if you decrease the cell-phone usage rate to zero, then accidents caused by cell-phone use would also go to zero (that's going to be obvious for most people).
It's a
prediction and a
reasonable one (especially given what we currently know).
Keep digging!