[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).