15 million light vehicles per year, so over 1 billion dollars, and they say it will save "13 to 15 lives per year and prevent as many as 1,125 injuries annually".

I don't want to get all Tyler Durden, but are there more effective ways of spending all that money? e.g. road improvements or driver education and law enforcement?

There is an east-west cultural difference here.

In the West, we have "plausible deniability", where we can't be 100% sure they knew they were telling lies.

In the East, a plain-as-day outright lie is more polite than saying "no, we withdraw from your treaty.".

That suggestion goes against other evidence, and simple logic that distraction contributes to accidents.
The simple point is that you have naively assumed the laws changed driver behavior in that particular case. But this is often not true.

That proves nothing, unless you can show that the law actually succeeded in substantially reducing cell-phone use in cars.
e.g. with data from the carriers showing reduced cell handovers. Were the laws strongly enforced and publicised?

Yes, but only very briefly, and only once.

Are you talking about the 1990 invasion here? Because Saddam was no serious threat to anyone in 2003.
The invasion was justified by falsified evidence of WMDs, but had long been sought by the neocons, and was mostly about oil (not just in Iraq, but the region.)
It was not popular with the people of those coalition countries, but the US put sufficient influence on the governments to get them in.

(Unlike in 1990 where the US had genuine popular support for the invasion and partial occupation of Iraq. And Bush the First had enough sense to keep out of Baghdad.)

I think people keep overestimating the usefulness of nukes.
You really think Ukraine would have threatened Russia with ICBMs over Crimea? And Putin would have backed down? Not likely!

Cars with hub motors could be more accurately said to have no gears. As could penny-farthing bicycles.

A good example of a gear-less car is this Porsche hybrid from the year 1900 : (not a typo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Flu vaccine is an argument that genuinely is not clear cut, unless you are high risk. So publishing two opinions is fine. Its not like MMR where the two sides are clearly defined as science vs nut-jobs. (Are you sure the pediatrician mentioned autism, or was that your friend? )

Unlike Fukushima, the roads will be open for trucks to deliver fuel for backup generators to hospitals, pumping stations, and other vital infrastructure.
People will get by in the short run, but I'd be very scared of the global economic impact.

What!? The settlers brought land with them from Britain? How small was NZ originally then?

Gross oversimplification. The gifted kids might teach themselves to read, and do maths, but then get bored and drop out.
Many may need extra stimulation and direction - depends on the kid.
Similar for remedial - some are keen to learn, but slow. Others cannot / will not, and it's a waste trying to force them beyond basic literacy and numeracy.

No matter how plausible you proposed mechanism, it is no substitute for actual empirical evidence.
Anyway, I was making a joke at the expense of the religious. Sorry if it went over your head.

Citation? Correlation is not causation.

So we learned nothing from the 2001 US bombardment and invasion of Saudi Arabia then?