On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:53:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

As usual, you have it ass backwards. CEG isn't trying to "prove"
anything, he saying that there is simply no proof for the wild claims
such as "cell phones caused 25% of all accident last year" and other
similar absurd claims without a shred of data to substantiate them.

The people obligated to provide proof are those who claim that cell
phone use has impacted accident rates. There isn't a shred of
evidence for the claim. Because there is NO evidence the
chickenlittles have performed a bunch of "studies" almost all of which
are less the worthless in proving their claim. And as noted, if their
studies and claims were actually correct, the roads ought to be a
bloodbath given the THOUSAND FOLD increase in cell phone use on the
highways. But they aren't a bloodbath, to the contrary the accident
rates change hardly at all and mostly they go down.

I have to agree.

If the studies are even slightly valid, then the accident rate
*has* to go up the more people *use* cellphones.

That the rate isn't going up is the paradox.

The only solutions to the paradox that have been proposed are either
that the rate isn't going up, or that something else is masking the
rate.

The "things" suggested to mask the rate must exactly cancel out
the rate (both in rate and timing) for them to make any logical
sense.

Such "things" suggested, to date, are, as I recall:
1. Drunk driving enforcement exactly canceling out the rates
2. Errors in the rate figures exactly canceling out the rates
3. Safety improvements of vehicles & roadways canceling the rates
4. Safety advantages of cellphones exactly outweighing distractions
5. Cellphone laws themselves preventing cellphone usage
6. Voluntary non-usage of the cellphones that are owned

Did I miss any?