[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?