8 ms·

this seems like the sort of thing that would be better measured with actual numbers, not just anecdotes from people on the internet. the NHTSA is a pretty caut

this seems like the sort of thing that would be better measured with actual numbers, not just anecdotes from people on the internet. the NHTSA is a pretty cautious organization, and they like numbers. if they've studied it and found that automatic braking will prevent 24000 crashes and 360 deaths per year, i'd be inclined to believe them. having the car brake for me when i'm not expecting it sounds kind of scary to me too, but i'd rather experience that than let 360 people die every year.

JohnFen 3y ago
I agree. I also agree with this: > If the government wants to immediately improve car safety they should outlaw touchscreens instead.
- notatoad 3y ago
  i also hate touchscreens in cars, but that's not an either/or situation with AEB
- vkou 3y ago
  It sounds like they should do both, then?
  - josefx 3y ago
    Removing distractions like poor user interfaces would probably overlap with the improvements from emergency braking. So if you want to be throughout you would have to check if they still make sense with the other changes in place.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    That's what I was saying, yes.
LeifCarrotson 3y ago
The problem with numbers is that they don't tell the whole story. I can easily imagine a scenario where it might prevent 25000 crashes a year that are caused because 5% of drivers are staring at their phones, have a high chance of rear-ending someone, and this software makes that far less likely. While also containing bugs causing 1000 crashes a year for the larger number of non-distracted drivers, resulting in a net change of 24000. This would mean that adding the software would be better for society, while making the majority of drivers slightly more likely to crash into someone.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  I’d imagine this is exactly the sort of analysis the powers NHTSA’s recommendations. They collect huge amounts of data on this stuff.
- tqi 3y ago
  That's true of basically any change isn't it? Even seat belts conceivably could result in some very small increase in the chance of death as a result of it being harder to escape a vehicle. Obviously the benefits far outweigh the risk, but then we are just arguing over where to draw the line.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    They way you crash in terms of whether your seatbelt helps or harms doesn't depend on your life choices. Features likely benefiting drunk and distracted drivers and likely hurting aware ones are different.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    I think you missed their point. It's not that most situations are improved and some get worse, it's that those situations might be unevenly distributed among drivers. A seat belt is basically the same for everyone. It makes things safer when you look at all drivers, and it makes things safer for just about any subgroup of drivers. But a buggy AEB might not fit that pattern. Imagine a system that reduces crashes by half, but then adds an extra X crashes per million miles. If someone's unassisted crash rate is 5X, then this system reduces it to 3.5X and is a great help. If someone's unassisted crash rate is .5X, then this system increases their crash rate to 1.25X and is a terrible trade.
    - CJefferson 3y ago
      Your claim seems to be the group who are not helped are "good drivers"? ... except that doesn't feel like a well-defined group to me, and also is a group that almost everyone would say that they are in.
peteradio 3y ago
360 deaths is noise.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Was that determined by looking at the statistics or is this just your gut-reaction?
  - warkdarrior 3y ago
    I literally do not care about 360 deaths. Now if we get to 361 deaths, I am concerned and will raise my pitchfork.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Another interesting question is how many of the other 24,000 crashes were serious. And how many additional crashes wouldn’t have been avoided but would have had a lot of kinetic energy removed before impact.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    >>> math.sqrt(42939.0) 207.2172772719495 Not quite pure statistical noise but close.
- hallway_monitor 3y ago
  Exactly. It's 0.92% of the 38,000 car crash deaths in the US annually. I agree, this is noise and honestly it doesn't make sense the NHTSA would even consider a mandatory "safety" feature like this for that small of an expected change. Personally, I will not be purchasing a car with this feature until I'm forced to.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    Feel free to look at the numbers in the PRIA [1]. Those 360 deaths are a significant reduction in fatalities from baseline in the types of collisions they expect to be impacted by this rulemaking. That baseline itself assumes some 65% of new vehicles will come with compliant AEB systems regardless of this rulemaking. [1] https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0021-0004 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0021-0004
rad_gruchalski 3y ago
> but i'd rather experience that I experienced it multiple times and not even once it triggered in a correct situation. Usually a weird angle on a t-junction triggers it unnecessarily.
loeg 3y ago
I agree, but... false positive automatic braking can cause severe injury, too, though. And I worry that that is just harder to measure.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  The article says: > A metanalysis in 2015 found a 38 percent decrease in collisions for vehicles that utilized such a system, for instance. Barring massive fuckups in methodology, that should account for false positives that cause an accident. The number of non-collision severe injuries (are we theorizing folks get their head banged against something when it brakes heavily?) is likely to be pretty small versus that 38% stat.
  - loeg 3y ago
    This is a pretty big handwave: > The number of non-collision severe injuries (are we theorizing folks get their head banged against something when it brakes heavily?) is likely to be pretty small (People can be injured directly by the seatbelt, and there's also whiplash to consider.)
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > People can be injured directly by the seatbelt, and there's also whiplash to consider. I don't doubt it's possible, just like it's possible for a seatbelt to trap you in a burning car... but common enough to offset a 38% drop in crashes? I severely doubt it. If someone can demonstrate that people driving these cars have a dramatically increased incidence of whiplash or seatbelt injuries, by all means, but I'm comfortable saying the burden of proof is on them there.
mhb 3y ago
And the actual numbers should include the opportunity cost (in lives saved or QALYs, if you like) of the increased price of vehicles with these systems. Could that money have been spent on smoke detectors or healthier food or ?
- williamcotton 3y ago
  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  - mhb 3y ago
    What's your point? On Wednesday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would see automatic emergency braking become a standard feature on all new light passenger vehicles.
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      mhb said: And the actual numbers should include the opportunity cost (in lives saved or QALYs, if you like) of the increased price of vehicles with these systems. Could that money have been spent on smoke detectors or healthier food or ? In response I said: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Then mhb said: What's your point? Can you explain what my point was to mhb? ChatGPT: It seems like you're suggesting that the responsibility and scope of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is primarily focused on improving safety on the roads, specifically through regulations related to vehicles, rather than other broader public health initiatives like smoke detectors or promoting healthier food. Your comment may imply that while considering the opportunity cost is a valid point for an overall public health or policy perspective, it may not be directly relevant to the mission and function of the NHTSA. The NHTSA's mandate is to ensure the safety of vehicles and roads, so they would prioritize improvements and regulations in that area, even if those funds might have a higher impact if spent elsewhere from a wider public health perspective. In other words, the comment might suggest that each organization has its own scope and priorities, and while we can consider overall opportunity costs, we also need to consider the specific roles and responsibilities of different organizations. However, without more context, this is just one possible interpretation.
ramblenode 3y ago
> the NHTSA is a pretty cautious organization, and they like numbers. They may be cautious but they're not necessarily smart. Their vehicle safety ratings only measure the safety of occupants in that vehicle. Result? An arms race where cars keep getting bigger, heavier, and taller to do better in crash tests against bigger, heavier, and taller cars. These "safer" vehicles are now more deadly to everyone else, especially pedestrians and bicyclists. McNamara fallacy in action.
HWR_14 3y ago
But they didn't study anything real world. They looked at all rear-end collisions, assumed that a percentage would be prevented and did the math to result in the 24000/360 numbers. No analysis of other affects (like sudden stops causing crashes from the cars behind them). No extrapolating from measured data.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > No analysis of other affects (like sudden stops causing crashes from the cars behind them). At least part of that effect will show up in these vehicles being rear-ended themselves (as they're exhibiting that exact sudden-stop behavior), and that sort of accident should be reduced if all cars come with AEB. You'll never be able to wipe out all variables in this sort of study, but I don't think the methodology's as flawed as you're asserting.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    It's fair that you can never wipe out all variables. However, a lot of people (especially taeric) were dismissing any attempt to discuss if other aspects were important as "the NHTSA has data and you only have conjecture." While the costs of phantom breaking are decreased if everyone has AEB, I don't think this makes the roads safer for me unless I want to buy a newer vehicle and I don't want to have to do that.

JohnFen 3y ago

I agree. I also agree with this: > If the government wants to immediately improve car safety they should outlaw touchscreens instead.

notatoad 3y ago
i also hate touchscreens in cars, but that's not an either/or situation with AEB
vkou 3y ago
It sounds like they should do both, then?
- josefx 3y ago
  Removing distractions like poor user interfaces would probably overlap with the improvements from emergency braking. So if you want to be throughout you would have to check if they still make sense with the other changes in place.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  That's what I was saying, yes.

LeifCarrotson 3y ago

The problem with numbers is that they don't tell the whole story. I can easily imagine a scenario where it might prevent 25000 crashes a year that are caused because 5% of drivers are staring at their phones, have a high chance of rear-ending someone, and this software makes that far less likely. While also containing bugs causing 1000 crashes a year for the larger number of non-distracted drivers, resulting in a net change of 24000. This would mean that adding the software would be better for society, while making the majority of drivers slightly more likely to crash into someone.

ethanbond 3y ago
I’d imagine this is exactly the sort of analysis the powers NHTSA’s recommendations. They collect huge amounts of data on this stuff.
tqi 3y ago
That's true of basically any change isn't it? Even seat belts conceivably could result in some very small increase in the chance of death as a result of it being harder to escape a vehicle. Obviously the benefits far outweigh the risk, but then we are just arguing over where to draw the line.
- jojobas 3y ago
  They way you crash in terms of whether your seatbelt helps or harms doesn't depend on your life choices. Features likely benefiting drunk and distracted drivers and likely hurting aware ones are different.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I think you missed their point. It's not that most situations are improved and some get worse, it's that those situations might be unevenly distributed among drivers. A seat belt is basically the same for everyone. It makes things safer when you look at all drivers, and it makes things safer for just about any subgroup of drivers. But a buggy AEB might not fit that pattern. Imagine a system that reduces crashes by half, but then adds an extra X crashes per million miles. If someone's unassisted crash rate is 5X, then this system reduces it to 3.5X and is a great help. If someone's unassisted crash rate is .5X, then this system increases their crash rate to 1.25X and is a terrible trade.
  - CJefferson 3y ago
    Your claim seems to be the group who are not helped are "good drivers"? ... except that doesn't feel like a well-defined group to me, and also is a group that almost everyone would say that they are in.

peteradio 3y ago

360 deaths is noise.

ethanbond 3y ago
Was that determined by looking at the statistics or is this just your gut-reaction?
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  I literally do not care about 360 deaths. Now if we get to 361 deaths, I am concerned and will raise my pitchfork.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Another interesting question is how many of the other 24,000 crashes were serious. And how many additional crashes wouldn’t have been avoided but would have had a lot of kinetic energy removed before impact.
- peteradio 3y ago
  >>> math.sqrt(42939.0) 207.2172772719495 Not quite pure statistical noise but close.
hallway_monitor 3y ago
Exactly. It's 0.92% of the 38,000 car crash deaths in the US annually. I agree, this is noise and honestly it doesn't make sense the NHTSA would even consider a mandatory "safety" feature like this for that small of an expected change. Personally, I will not be purchasing a car with this feature until I'm forced to.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  Feel free to look at the numbers in the PRIA [1]. Those 360 deaths are a significant reduction in fatalities from baseline in the types of collisions they expect to be impacted by this rulemaking. That baseline itself assumes some 65% of new vehicles will come with compliant AEB systems regardless of this rulemaking. [1] https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0021-0004 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0021-0004

rad_gruchalski 3y ago

> but i'd rather experience that I experienced it multiple times and not even once it triggered in a correct situation. Usually a weird angle on a t-junction triggers it unnecessarily.

loeg 3y ago

I agree, but... false positive automatic braking can cause severe injury, too, though. And I worry that that is just harder to measure.

ceejayoz 3y ago
The article says: > A metanalysis in 2015 found a 38 percent decrease in collisions for vehicles that utilized such a system, for instance. Barring massive fuckups in methodology, that should account for false positives that cause an accident. The number of non-collision severe injuries (are we theorizing folks get their head banged against something when it brakes heavily?) is likely to be pretty small versus that 38% stat.
- loeg 3y ago
  This is a pretty big handwave: > The number of non-collision severe injuries (are we theorizing folks get their head banged against something when it brakes heavily?) is likely to be pretty small (People can be injured directly by the seatbelt, and there's also whiplash to consider.)
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > People can be injured directly by the seatbelt, and there's also whiplash to consider. I don't doubt it's possible, just like it's possible for a seatbelt to trap you in a burning car... but common enough to offset a 38% drop in crashes? I severely doubt it. If someone can demonstrate that people driving these cars have a dramatically increased incidence of whiplash or seatbelt injuries, by all means, but I'm comfortable saying the burden of proof is on them there.

mhb 3y ago

And the actual numbers should include the opportunity cost (in lives saved or QALYs, if you like) of the increased price of vehicles with these systems. Could that money have been spent on smoke detectors or healthier food or ?

williamcotton 3y ago
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
- mhb 3y ago
  What's your point? On Wednesday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would see automatic emergency braking become a standard feature on all new light passenger vehicles.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    mhb said: And the actual numbers should include the opportunity cost (in lives saved or QALYs, if you like) of the increased price of vehicles with these systems. Could that money have been spent on smoke detectors or healthier food or ? In response I said: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Then mhb said: What's your point? Can you explain what my point was to mhb? ChatGPT: It seems like you're suggesting that the responsibility and scope of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is primarily focused on improving safety on the roads, specifically through regulations related to vehicles, rather than other broader public health initiatives like smoke detectors or promoting healthier food. Your comment may imply that while considering the opportunity cost is a valid point for an overall public health or policy perspective, it may not be directly relevant to the mission and function of the NHTSA. The NHTSA's mandate is to ensure the safety of vehicles and roads, so they would prioritize improvements and regulations in that area, even if those funds might have a higher impact if spent elsewhere from a wider public health perspective. In other words, the comment might suggest that each organization has its own scope and priorities, and while we can consider overall opportunity costs, we also need to consider the specific roles and responsibilities of different organizations. However, without more context, this is just one possible interpretation.

ramblenode 3y ago

> the NHTSA is a pretty cautious organization, and they like numbers. They may be cautious but they're not necessarily smart. Their vehicle safety ratings only measure the safety of occupants in that vehicle. Result? An arms race where cars keep getting bigger, heavier, and taller to do better in crash tests against bigger, heavier, and taller cars. These "safer" vehicles are now more deadly to everyone else, especially pedestrians and bicyclists. McNamara fallacy in action.

HWR_14 3y ago

But they didn't study anything real world. They looked at all rear-end collisions, assumed that a percentage would be prevented and did the math to result in the 24000/360 numbers. No analysis of other affects (like sudden stops causing crashes from the cars behind them). No extrapolating from measured data.

ceejayoz 3y ago
> No analysis of other affects (like sudden stops causing crashes from the cars behind them). At least part of that effect will show up in these vehicles being rear-ended themselves (as they're exhibiting that exact sudden-stop behavior), and that sort of accident should be reduced if all cars come with AEB. You'll never be able to wipe out all variables in this sort of study, but I don't think the methodology's as flawed as you're asserting.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  It's fair that you can never wipe out all variables. However, a lot of people (especially taeric) were dismissing any attempt to discuss if other aspects were important as "the NHTSA has data and you only have conjecture." While the costs of phantom breaking are decreased if everyone has AEB, I don't think this makes the roads safer for me unless I want to buy a newer vehicle and I don't want to have to do that.