No, but they should be changed because a mass experiment has already been conducted and is being conducted every day. As dozens if not hundreds of devices are left "on" (whether purposely or not) at all stages of flight.
As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, the current "mass experiment" does not cover the case in question. I would suggest that removing the rule would likely lead to an increase in device usage. The current empirical evidence involves the current, lower, level of device usage, and hence doesn't tell us what would happen with the increased level.
If you're claiming that the current evidence does apply you have to show that either:
- removing the rule will not increase the level of device usage, or
- the increased level of device usage will not increase the level of risk.
If you're aware of any studies covering those two options, please provide references. If you're not aware of any, then you have no argument.
What she meant was you are not thinking for yourself if you merely meekly follow rules that are patently absurd.
You are assuming they are patently absurd. You're also assuming that the answer to absurd rules is to ignore them - how about argue against them while continuing to follow?
And Mr. rule follower, how many times have you gone over the speed limit?
That's irrelevant. If I go over the speed limit, that's because I'm a flawed human being. It would be something that I recognise is wrong but do anyway due to weakness. What I don't do is encourage others to break the speed limit, saying (with no evidence) that it's all right to do so because speed limits are stupid.
One place where your analogy *is* helpful, however, is that it demonstrates nicely why it doesn't make sense to remove a rule just because it's widely flouted. As a policeman acquaintance of mine has pointed out - just because everybody drives at 40mph in a 30mph limit doesn't mean we should increase those limits to 40. If we did, everybody would drive at 50.
-- HJKL