Originally Posted by
njkayaker
More logical fallacy. No, that they do something doesn't mean there's any rational driving-related reason behind it. And, of course, you don't know what they "feel".
People drive just fine with out using cell-phones (there's overwhelming evidence that cell-phones don't help with driving). What driving related-purpose do all these 600,000 have for that cell-phone use?
[SKIPPED ridiculous BS about what you exactly know about my approval of drunk driving and speeding]
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 not-unreasonably be expected (predicted) to cause y*x% accidents.
It's a prediction and a reasonable one (especially given what we currently know).
Who claimed that anyone uses their cell phone to accomplish some driving purpose? If someone calls on a cell phone they have a reason that is suitable enough for them to take that action, whether you approve of it or not.
The number of accidents
caused by cell phones "X" is unknown, you are predicting this unknown number will increase; maybe.
Maybe this unknown "X" will go down as people get more used to using them; maybe.
Maybe people will get over the presumption that if a cell phone was in use prior to a collision, the collision cause
must be the cell phone and that will drive down the number "X."