On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:05:56 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

You really haven't provided anything, nor have you made it clear what
your beef is. You claimed that cell phone distracted accidents don't
exist in the data. Your own data shows numbers for distracted driving.
The cell phone accidents are in there, yet you keep asking "Where are
they?

Look at the three assumptions, for example.

1. Let's say that you and I agree, for arguments sake, that cellphone use
*does* cause accidents.

2. Furthermore, let's say we both can point to study after study after
study that concludes the same thing (effects of drunk driving and all the
comparisons apply here).

3. Even further, let's say we actually *believe* the highly flawed
distracted-driving statistics ====== you'll see this just makes the
paradox worse!

Ok. So both you and I and everyone else agrees that distracted driving
due to cellphone uses *causes* accidents.

So what's the problem?

The paradox is that the TOTAL NUMBER of accidents isn't going up in the
slightest. They're going down in the USA. Year after year after year
after year after year, they're all going down!

How can that be if all (or even any) of our 3 assumptions were true?

Don't you see the paradox?
The accidents that are *caused* by distracted driving are missing in the
total statistics. They only show up in the (probably flawed) studies.

That's the paradox.
The accidents don't seem to exist in the total.