[asddubs]

What if the technology was only/primarily tested with white people, rather than inherently having better outcomes for white adults? It's not really as clear cut as you make it out to be, technologies at this level of complexity aren't just derived from physical/biological principles. Perhaps there was a better variant of the technology that was scrapped as a cost-cutting measure, because it performed the same for white adults, but better for other classes of people (alluding to radar here, though I'm not sure it really performed the same, but I'm trying to make a larger point than any specific technology anyway).

[hermannj314]

Fair point. Cost benefit analysis for adoption of safety features in automobiles is inconsistent.

Drunk drivers kill more Americans each few months than terrorists on planes have in the last 25 years. Yet every airline passenger must prove they aren't a terrorist but no one driving a car has a default presumption they are drunk. Unless you've been convicted previously, then maybe sometimes.

I wouldn't be surprised if a better model exists for object detection and we aren't using it to save pennies. Politics and ethics in automobile safety is asinine. Fair point.

[mrweasel]

> What if the technology was only/primarily tested with white people, rather than inherently having better outcomes for white adults?

I think we have a precedence for that in testing of drugs. The majority of drugs are primarily tested on white men, meaning that their effect and dosages may be problematic for women or people of color.

There's also the issue of the majority of tools being designed for right handed people and any left handed either needs to spend more on tools or accept a certain risk when operating a chainsaw.