I really dislike the way the data is being summarized as "100% avoided or mitigated*". First, they're omitting the types of case they're failing to mitigate (r

I really dislike the way the data is being summarized as "100% avoided or mitigated*". First, they're omitting the types of case they're failing to mitigate (rear endings in this case). Cue "60% of the time it works every time" anchorman scene. Second, "mitigated" is defined to mean a 25% relative reduction in chance of serious injury. Which is good, but again smacks of "60% of the time it works every time". Basically, it looks to me like someone wanted to be able to show a bold blue 100% and required the definitions they were using to be massaged to match. And apparently they got their way. This has damaged my trust in future summaries put out by Waymo. A more truthful summarization style would be e.g. "X fewer serious injuries over 72 incidents", referring to expected injuries and simulated incidents of course.