Perhaps they know others who've done it and haven't yet had an accident.
Or, they themselves do it and have had no close calls yet.
My friends have never had accidents.' She is using a very minimal sample of people to prove her point, which is not effective evidence in this case given how many people drive on the road. Government that deals with distracted driving, 'Engaging in visual-manual sub-tasks (such as reaching for a phone, dialing and texting) associated with the use of hand-held phones and other portable devices increased the risk of getting into a crash by three times.' The research was released by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, which utilized official reports of real-life accidents as examples. Zoey may have a harder time refuting this specific data that estimates that a person is three times more likely to get in a crash, a significant jump up from the usual level of risk.
What if we presented Zoey with statistics that have been gathered by those that do have access to what causes great numbers of drivers to crash? What about in philosophy, where there may or may not be statistics and concrete data like the distracted driving information from Virginia Tech?
We may rely on intuition in various areas of our life, especially ones involving our safety, when all of the needed information is not available and we have to make a snap judgment quickly.