7 ms·

No, that isn't a problem with numbers. That is a problem with letting your imagination run things. The scenarios and questions you ask are easy to explore in

by taeric 3y ago

No, that isn't a problem with numbers. That is a problem with letting your imagination run things. The scenarios and questions you ask are easy to explore in the data. If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things. If they stay flat or go up, then you have to answer why. To emphasize, for your imagination here to be relevant, the number has to do one of those. If the number goes down, even if it shifted some situations into a wreck that would not have been before, it must have done fewer of those than it moved wrecks to non-wrecks. If it somehow causes more situations to be wrecks, the number, by definition, goes up.

omginternets 3y ago
The question is whether anyone is actually interrogating the data in that way, not whether it can be interrogated. Large data-driven institutions are notorious for taking a narrow view of things. The problem is precisely a lack of imagination, or perhaps more accurately, critical thought. The parent is precisely engaged in the kind of interrogation that is necessary. If you are aware or an analysis that bears on his questions, now would be the time to share it.
- taeric 3y ago
  This feels like sophistry to hinder progress. The OP is literally about studies done. Did you find problems with them? Or are you only imagining problems there could be?
  - omginternets 3y ago
    The latter, which is why the actual studies would be most welcome. But more to the point, there is a track record of narrow interpretation of studies and missing of the big picture. It’s hardly sophistry, it’s critical thought.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Is there a track record for this specific organization? Or there are a lot of publicly known tech companies that have missed the big picture?
CWuestefeld 3y ago
I disagree. I've been a licensed driver for over 40 years. I had one minor fender-bender at 16 years old, learned my lesson, and haven't had another accident since. I'm an exceptionally good driver as evidenced by this, plus the fact that I've taken performance driving classes, simulators, and so forth. I, personally, am a much lower risk than the typical driver. Putting a drivers' aid device in my car may well increase the danger to me and those around me, even while having it in other cars decreases danger. BTW - my car's traction control is evil. It's a rear wheel drive car, without limited slip. So when I pull out onto the road from a driveway, if there's the slightest bit of sand on the road, I get enough spin to engage the traction control. The car deals with this by vastly cutting engine power. In Texas, where the regular surface road I'm pulling out to is commonly 60mph, and often faster, I need to accelerate quickly to avoid the guy approaching - yet the traction control has just left me wallowing, dead in the water, unable to accelerate strongly. Except in wet conditions, disabling the traction control is always the first thing I do when I sit in the car.
- justahuman74 3y ago
  I thought I was a low risk driver, then when doing a lot of hours riding a motorcycle it became very apparent how incredibly terrible of a car driver I was. So much general threat and risk was invisible as a car driver contained in a big metal box.
  - mathieuh 3y ago
    I do a lot of cycling and it's amazing how much more aware you are when any minor bump is going to cause you injury. I've avoided accidents multiple seconds in advance because something about the way someone was driving made me nervous, it's like you get a sixth sense.
    - andbberger 3y ago
      visibility is also dramatically better on a bike
  - CalRobert 3y ago
Dylan16807 3y ago
> If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things. Yes they do impact things. Consider a pill that, given to a wide population of test subjects, reduces heart attacks by 20%. That's great! But when you look at the data more closely, it strongly reduces the risk for people older than 40, and it increases the risk for people under 40. Should you prescribe that pill to everyone at risk of heart attack? Of course not. Does AEB have a pattern like this? Who knows! Someone should test or cite a good test!
- taeric 3y ago
  TFA links a meta analysis. With a 38% impact, that is going to be tough to argue against. So... Consider it cited, but you aren't looking?
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    You're not listening. The 38% number can be true and there can be particular groups that are hurt more than helped. Nobody is trying to "argue against" the 38% number.
    - taeric 3y ago
      In a cost benefit, if the number drops 38%, you are going to have to work to show it isn't worth it. What would the number have to be? Can they make the system even better by finding cases it didn't help? Almost certainly. Progress isn't a straight line, but increases are increases.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        > In a cost benefit, if the number drops 38%, you are going to have to work to show it isn't worth it. What would the number have to be? Where did anyone say "isn't worth it"? The sentence I see is "The problem with numbers is that they don't tell the whole story." Though in a more general sense, if someone does invent a system that has strong average safety gains, but makes the majority of people less safe... that's a hard sell.
ramblenode 3y ago
> The scenarios and questions you ask are easy to explore in the data. This sounds like the beginnings of the McNamara fallacy: that there is some abstract "data" where all the relevant variables can be explored to decide the best course of action. The reason it's a fallacy is that data is itself only a reflection of conscientious decisions about what to measure and how to measure, and these are invariably limited to what we already appreciate and understand, not accounting for the things we don't know how to measure and don't know we should be measuring. To be more concrete, let's say we follow your suggestion and focus on crashes. Maybe it's found that automatic breaking reduces the number of crashes so it's mandated. But maybe automatic breaking also increases the likelihood that a crash is deadly in some sub-population like pedestrians, construction workers, and motorcyclists. So overall we see crashes decline because a large number of minor crashes are averted but we also see deadly crashes increase because pedestrians, construction workers, and motorcyclists are killed more frequently. So data isn't a free lunch. Every decision about what to measure and what to optimize involves some prior contextual understanding. A misunderstanding of the context means the data will misrepresent some aspect of the problem and you'll overoptimize yourself into a local maximum.
- taeric 3y ago
  Again, you are contriving bullshit to scare folks. And you didn't look at the studies. 38% decrease in accidents along with decrease in fatalities. In the data. For the worries you are sprouting, the data would have to look very different.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    It's not "contriving bullshit" to give some examples of how a single average number could be misleading, clearly labeled as hypotheticals.
    - taeric 3y ago
      It is literally the definition of FUD here, though. These aren't things that have happened. And the data is ridiculously clear on progress. To paint these doubts is pretty much only to spread fear and uncertainty.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
The confusion here is that some people realize they aren't "average". That is, while some policy or another is good on the whole, it can also be bad for them personally. For them, the chance of a wreck can actually increase. You're demanding that they sacrifice themselves to save imbeciles who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive anyway. For such people, these policies suck. And it's strange that there are those that demand they either be happy about it, or at least be quiet about it.
- taeric 3y ago
  Anyone that frames this as a sacrifice is an entitled person. Same as folks that argued against seat belts.
mikrotikker 3y ago
The number of crashes will go up because of this "safety" feature. And then we'll be stuck with this "safety" feature for decades till the govt gets their act together to undo what they did. I'll keep my 30yo car with no computers as long as I can thank you very much.

by taeric 3y ago

omginternets 3y ago

The question is whether anyone is actually interrogating the data in that way, not whether it can be interrogated. Large data-driven institutions are notorious for taking a narrow view of things. The problem is precisely a lack of imagination, or perhaps more accurately, critical thought. The parent is precisely engaged in the kind of interrogation that is necessary. If you are aware or an analysis that bears on his questions, now would be the time to share it.

taeric 3y ago
This feels like sophistry to hinder progress. The OP is literally about studies done. Did you find problems with them? Or are you only imagining problems there could be?
- omginternets 3y ago
  The latter, which is why the actual studies would be most welcome. But more to the point, there is a track record of narrow interpretation of studies and missing of the big picture. It’s hardly sophistry, it’s critical thought.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Is there a track record for this specific organization? Or there are a lot of publicly known tech companies that have missed the big picture?

CWuestefeld 3y ago

I disagree. I've been a licensed driver for over 40 years. I had one minor fender-bender at 16 years old, learned my lesson, and haven't had another accident since. I'm an exceptionally good driver as evidenced by this, plus the fact that I've taken performance driving classes, simulators, and so forth. I, personally, am a much lower risk than the typical driver. Putting a drivers' aid device in my car may well increase the danger to me and those around me, even while having it in other cars decreases danger. BTW - my car's traction control is evil. It's a rear wheel drive car, without limited slip. So when I pull out onto the road from a driveway, if there's the slightest bit of sand on the road, I get enough spin to engage the traction control. The car deals with this by vastly cutting engine power. In Texas, where the regular surface road I'm pulling out to is commonly 60mph, and often faster, I need to accelerate quickly to avoid the guy approaching - yet the traction control has just left me wallowing, dead in the water, unable to accelerate strongly. Except in wet conditions, disabling the traction control is always the first thing I do when I sit in the car.

justahuman74 3y ago
I thought I was a low risk driver, then when doing a lot of hours riding a motorcycle it became very apparent how incredibly terrible of a car driver I was. So much general threat and risk was invisible as a car driver contained in a big metal box.
- mathieuh 3y ago
  I do a lot of cycling and it's amazing how much more aware you are when any minor bump is going to cause you injury. I've avoided accidents multiple seconds in advance because something about the way someone was driving made me nervous, it's like you get a sixth sense.
  - andbberger 3y ago
    visibility is also dramatically better on a bike
- CalRobert 3y ago

Dylan16807 3y ago

> If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things. Yes they do impact things. Consider a pill that, given to a wide population of test subjects, reduces heart attacks by 20%. That's great! But when you look at the data more closely, it strongly reduces the risk for people older than 40, and it increases the risk for people under 40. Should you prescribe that pill to everyone at risk of heart attack? Of course not. Does AEB have a pattern like this? Who knows! Someone should test or cite a good test!

taeric 3y ago
TFA links a meta analysis. With a 38% impact, that is going to be tough to argue against. So... Consider it cited, but you aren't looking?
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  You're not listening. The 38% number can be true and there can be particular groups that are hurt more than helped. Nobody is trying to "argue against" the 38% number.
  - taeric 3y ago
    In a cost benefit, if the number drops 38%, you are going to have to work to show it isn't worth it. What would the number have to be? Can they make the system even better by finding cases it didn't help? Almost certainly. Progress isn't a straight line, but increases are increases.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      > In a cost benefit, if the number drops 38%, you are going to have to work to show it isn't worth it. What would the number have to be? Where did anyone say "isn't worth it"? The sentence I see is "The problem with numbers is that they don't tell the whole story." Though in a more general sense, if someone does invent a system that has strong average safety gains, but makes the majority of people less safe... that's a hard sell.

ramblenode 3y ago

> The scenarios and questions you ask are easy to explore in the data. This sounds like the beginnings of the McNamara fallacy: that there is some abstract "data" where all the relevant variables can be explored to decide the best course of action. The reason it's a fallacy is that data is itself only a reflection of conscientious decisions about what to measure and how to measure, and these are invariably limited to what we already appreciate and understand, not accounting for the things we don't know how to measure and don't know we should be measuring. To be more concrete, let's say we follow your suggestion and focus on crashes. Maybe it's found that automatic breaking reduces the number of crashes so it's mandated. But maybe automatic breaking also increases the likelihood that a crash is deadly in some sub-population like pedestrians, construction workers, and motorcyclists. So overall we see crashes decline because a large number of minor crashes are averted but we also see deadly crashes increase because pedestrians, construction workers, and motorcyclists are killed more frequently. So data isn't a free lunch. Every decision about what to measure and what to optimize involves some prior contextual understanding. A misunderstanding of the context means the data will misrepresent some aspect of the problem and you'll overoptimize yourself into a local maximum.

taeric 3y ago
Again, you are contriving bullshit to scare folks. And you didn't look at the studies. 38% decrease in accidents along with decrease in fatalities. In the data. For the worries you are sprouting, the data would have to look very different.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  It's not "contriving bullshit" to give some examples of how a single average number could be misleading, clearly labeled as hypotheticals.
  - taeric 3y ago
    It is literally the definition of FUD here, though. These aren't things that have happened. And the data is ridiculously clear on progress. To paint these doubts is pretty much only to spread fear and uncertainty.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

The confusion here is that some people realize they aren't "average". That is, while some policy or another is good on the whole, it can also be bad for them personally. For them, the chance of a wreck can actually increase. You're demanding that they sacrifice themselves to save imbeciles who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive anyway. For such people, these policies suck. And it's strange that there are those that demand they either be happy about it, or at least be quiet about it.

taeric 3y ago
Anyone that frames this as a sacrifice is an entitled person. Same as folks that argued against seat belts.

mikrotikker 3y ago

The number of crashes will go up because of this "safety" feature. And then we'll be stuck with this "safety" feature for decades till the govt gets their act together to undo what they did. I'll keep my 30yo car with no computers as long as I can thank you very much.