On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:37:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4 advised:

I don't think the issue ever was that cell phones cause accidents.
The issue was that people *using* handheld cell phones while driving have
accidents at a rate far higher than other drivers because they
are distracted.

I understand you completely.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

I think I'm telling you something you don't already seem to know though.

Everyone, including me, would *intuitively* say the same thing.
I can't disagree with the intuition.

I have intuition myself.

The difference between me and you is that I don't *trust* my intuition as
much as you seem to trust your intuition (and certainly, neither of us
trusts our intuition as much as pfjw trusts his intuition).

So what do I do that is different from you?
Simple.

I check my facts.

That's it.
I simply intuit (like you do); but I double check the facts.

Most people don't.
They can't handle the detail involved.

My intuition says that a cat stuck in a tree won't come down without the
fire department or some other rescue effort. But it's just not true when
you look at the facts.

My intuition says that a mountain lion in the woods would attack a human it
sees, but the facts show extremely few attacks. So intuition is trumped by
facts (for the most part, since some attacks do occur but not as many as
you would intuit).

My intuition says that the sun revolves around the earth, and if someone
didn't tell me otherwise, I'd still believe my intuition. But facts always
trump intuition.

My intuition says that appeasement in politics should work, but facts show
that appeasement doesn't seem to work on most dictators; it just encourages
them.

Intuition that is not supported by facts is just pure speculation.

For example, pfjw, who clearly is a highly-intuitive highly-judgmental
person (in Myers-Brigg's terms), feels, intuitively, that my repairs are
unsafe.

Does he supply a single fact to support his safety claims?
Not one.

Can anything he says be believed?
Probably not.

Does *he* firmly believe everything he says?
Almost certainly he does.

Highly intuitive highly judgmental people are dangerous that way, if they
ever have power. They make decisions that they think are correct but which
are not supported by any facts.

And I think that is a valid issue. I believe there
are other studies that even using a hands-free cell phone leads to
significantly higher accident rates.

I can show you an arbitrary non-real-world study that proves almost
anything that I want to prove, simply by limiting the variables in the
study, so, as you already know, we'd have to look at each study you claim
to prove your point to see what its limitations are.

If I set my mind to it, I can probably prove, for example, that cancer is
caused by almost anything I want to prove is carcinogenic.

However, the double check of the study is the real world.

In the real world, nobody on this planet has ever been able to prove any
correlation in the accident statistics overall that can be atributd to
cellphone use while driving.

In fact, since the accident rate is steadily decreasing in all states, with
or without enforcement of cellphone laws, the opposite may actually be true
(but I won't go that far).

In summary, you and I (and everyone else) would *intuitively* feel that
cellphones are an added distraction which should cause added accidents; but
the facts show otherwise.

Why is that?
Most morons posit a mysterious counteracting force, which is possible, but
they never provide any proof of this mysterious force, so, it's not
probable.

What's most likely, IMHO, is the simple model that says distractions while
driving abound. There are literally thousands of distractions in any daily
drive. Thousands upon thousands.

So, my hypothesis, which fits the model that accidents are just not
occurring due to cellphone use, is that adding one more distraction to an
already long list of distractions only adversely affects the bottom
percentiles of drivers - who - the fact seem to show - would have
distracted driving accidents no matter what.

While that model isn't proven by me, it fits the facts.
Your model doesn't fit the facts.

How do you reconcile that your model does not fit the facts?
(Hint: That will take intelligence & attention to detail, but not pure
intuitive judgemental emotion.)