I haven't found a name for this fallacy, and perhaps it isn't one, but I would describe it as over-application of a general rule while disregarding specific information to the contrary.
but here are three examples:
"You want to lower the speed limit on this road to 40kph during business hours? So you think driving at night is safer?"
(Ignoring the specific information that this road is particularly dangerous during business hours)
"Of course he had a motive: most female homicide victims are killed by their ex-lovers"
(Ignoring evidence that the accused was not angry, was not violent, and was still on friendly terms with the victim)
"I'm not driving your car, 90% of that model die within the first 6 months"
(Ignoring the fact that this car is 2 years old, so it's obviously in the 10%).
I'm assuming in these cases that the speaker is aware of the specific information and is choosing to ignore it (or, more charitably, is unaware of its relevance).
Is it possibly just an example of a badly applied "argument by analogy"?