3 ms·
Fatalities seems like a pretty low bar to measure failures by... I would prefer to measure reliability by reported accidents per 100k miles. This stat seems to
by sdenton4 9y ago
Fatalities seems like a pretty low bar to measure failures by... I would prefer to measure reliability by reported accidents per 100k miles. This stat seems to be 183 per million miles in 2009, compared to 1.13 for fatalities per million miles. So quite enough to shave 7 9's down to 5ish...
- cimmanom 9y agoCollisions with trees and with other vehicles? Or collisions with pedestrians? Maybe we're fine with five 9s of reliability with inanimate objects and with other 2-ton metal crash protection cages but prefer seven 9s with fragile unprotected human bodies (which are far more likely to end up as fatalities than just crashes).
- oldgradstudent 9y agoThe problem is that a lot of accidents are not reported and even injury severity can be very subjective (especially if there's an interest to do so[1]). I prefer counting fatalities because it's a hard endpoint - bodies are hard to hide. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ogxZxu6cjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ogxZxu6cjM
- ars 9y ago> So quite enough to shave 7 9's down to 5ish... From other comments in this thread, the correct number is actually 10 9's, not 7. So using the accident rate instead of fatality takes you to 8 9's.