To be fair, those experts are pushing a particular agenda. They are advocating for making roads and cars foolproof, which is a fine idea, but doesn't disprove the claim that in the absence of such foolproofing, phone distraction increases dangers.

The article makes a specious argument on behalf of those experts, and the statistics that were so heavy at top of article, disappear when these experts show up:

> Plus, within the US, pedestrian death occurs disproportionately in neighbourhoods populated by people with low-incomes and people of colour. Is distraction really more endemic in those neighbourhoods, or among people driving through them, than it is in wealthier, whiter areas? Or is it more likely that these neighbourhoods are more likely to be criss-crossed by high-speed roads, and less likely to receive investment in transit interventions that protect pedestrians?

It's silly to claim that poor neighborhoods have gotten 41% more high-speed roads in the past 10 years.

Remember that "expert testimony" is what one uses when one doesn't have evidence to show.