[kulahan]

These types of arguments are always so easy when you present everything as insanely black and white.

A thought experiment: if we could install a device which increases the likelihood of everyone surviving a car crash by 0.001%, but it costs $100,000 should it be mandated in every car? After all, this involves a victim as well.

I don’t think anyone would agree to that particular law. There is inevitably going to be a cutoff where you say “the increased safety is no longer worth the cost”. That’s acceptable risk and it’s not only good, it’s absolutely necessary to a functioning society.

[os2warpman]

Your thought experiment is flawed because its results are known already and you are discarding them for a catastrophizing fantasy.

And the harm reduction wouldn't be 0.001%, it would be practically 99%.

And it costs much less than $100k.

It's found in race cars, today, and you can install it today (in most cars).

[kulahan]

What can you install? I’m talking about a fake device. It can’t be installed because it doesn’t exist. It also obviously reduces harm by 0.01% because again, this is a thought experiment meant to illustrate a point.

I literally have no idea what device you think I’m talking about

[os2warpman]

5-point harnesses, roll cages, seatbelt-ignition interlocks, fuel cells, fire extinguishers, and Hans devices for drivers and passengers would eliminate nearly all vehicle fatalities.

They exist today and can be added to passenger vehicles for much less than $100k.

Broadly, the only fatalities they wouldn't prevent are offset frontal crashes at speeds so great as to be unreasonable and vehicles that have driven off cliffs or into bodies of water (though many would be able to self-extricate).

These are all dumb devices, I'm sure you were thinking of an AI or self driving doohickey.

We've already gotten results from your thought experiment. The results are: "an arbitrary point where cost/convenience lines cross over, based on general consensus but mainly liability costs".

If $10k (what I spent to get my Miata track-ready) isn't the line, $100k ain't it either-- especially since my solution saves tens of thousands annually and yours, like, less than one (45k deaths * 0.001% = 0.45 lives saved annually).

[shadowpho]

> if we could install a device which increases the likelihood of everyone surviving a car crash by 0.001%, but it costs $100,000 should it be mandated in every car

I mean we can do that right now and we don’t.

However we do mandate rear back up camera which costs $1-2k and saves some percentage of lives when backing up.

So it’s all about balance.

[kulahan]

Well yeah, that’s my point - acceptable risk is, in fact, good. If it weren’t, then there would be no resistance to that $100,000 component. But of course we still want to reduce danger, so adding an extra 2% to the cost of a car is fairly reasonable.

[os2warpman]

>However we do mandate rear back up camera which costs $1-2k and saves some percentage of lives when backing up.

A rear backup camera module, its wiring, and the screen cost less than $15 at volume for minimally-viable options and $100-300 for "good" (HD, guidance lines, proximity sensors, etc.) options.

Not $1,000-2,000.

What manufacturers charge for them is a different matter.

[Aloha]

rear backup cameras are one of the cases where I think the math falls apart - its like 250m dollars to save approx 30 lives a year - where is does work is reduced body damage to vehicles, however I dont know thats enough to mandate them.

[BenjiWiebe]

Surely the backup camera wouldn't need to cost that much?