3 ms·

> 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 "da

> 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.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      It's not FUD, they're not stating it as a fact, they're asking for an analysis of AEB in lots of different situations and not just overall.
      - taeric 3y ago
        That is how many FUD tactics are done. It is a rhetorical trick to try and maintain an exit...
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Yes, but sharing a characteristic with FUD is not enough to make something FUD. It's a realistic concern. Someone else mentioned airbags. Airbags are great overall but increase danger for some people, and that's without obvious signs of anything being wrong. With AEB we know it makes dangerous mistakes in significant amounts. So we very much should analyze different implementations under different kinds of weather, road, and driving style.
        taeric 3y ago
        We don't know it makes dangerous mistakes. Randos on the internet assert that. The data shows fairly convincing evidence is reduces wrecks. Is it a new behavior and jarring when engaged? Certainly. Should we keep watching the data for problems? Certainly. Should folks report all problems so that they are tracked? Certainly. Do most people actually have trouble driving safely? Despite their insistent view of how great they are at driving? ...
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Do I need to go find dashcams? We know it makes dangerous mistakes. Come on.
        taeric 3y ago
- aposticknit 3y ago
  I think they have a great point though, accurate measurement of the types of incidents is just as important if not more than the total.
  - taeric 3y ago
    This conjures the fear that the agency in question is bad at this. Do you have evidence that they are? Can it happen? Yes. We could also have it so that no wrecks from minorities are counted, such that we are blind to how they are impacted. Would be terrible. No evidence that that has happened.
    - ramblenode 3y ago
      > This conjures the fear that the agency in question is bad at this. Do you have evidence that they are? Yes. This was my movivation for questioning the "data says" logic. The NHTSA has made decisions based on data that were poor decisions because they misunderstood the problem domain and became overly reliant on specific metrics. Here is a copy-paste of an earlier comment in this thread: -- > 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.
      - taeric 3y ago
        I'm at against bigger cars as you can be. Literally biking to places when I can. I am not clear that this is the nhtsa's fault. That said, I could cede this point if you can show evidence of it in these studies. The org is a bunch of people, so I grant they could make mistakes. Without specific concerns, this is the definition of fud. You aren't giving criticism of these studies and actions, but seeding doubt on their data.

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.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    It's not FUD, they're not stating it as a fact, they're asking for an analysis of AEB in lots of different situations and not just overall.
    - taeric 3y ago
      That is how many FUD tactics are done. It is a rhetorical trick to try and maintain an exit...
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Yes, but sharing a characteristic with FUD is not enough to make something FUD. It's a realistic concern. Someone else mentioned airbags. Airbags are great overall but increase danger for some people, and that's without obvious signs of anything being wrong. With AEB we know it makes dangerous mistakes in significant amounts. So we very much should analyze different implementations under different kinds of weather, road, and driving style.
        taeric 3y ago
        We don't know it makes dangerous mistakes. Randos on the internet assert that. The data shows fairly convincing evidence is reduces wrecks. Is it a new behavior and jarring when engaged? Certainly. Should we keep watching the data for problems? Certainly. Should folks report all problems so that they are tracked? Certainly. Do most people actually have trouble driving safely? Despite their insistent view of how great they are at driving? ...
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Do I need to go find dashcams? We know it makes dangerous mistakes. Come on.
        taeric 3y ago
aposticknit 3y ago
I think they have a great point though, accurate measurement of the types of incidents is just as important if not more than the total.
- taeric 3y ago
  This conjures the fear that the agency in question is bad at this. Do you have evidence that they are? Can it happen? Yes. We could also have it so that no wrecks from minorities are counted, such that we are blind to how they are impacted. Would be terrible. No evidence that that has happened.
  - ramblenode 3y ago
    > This conjures the fear that the agency in question is bad at this. Do you have evidence that they are? Yes. This was my movivation for questioning the "data says" logic. The NHTSA has made decisions based on data that were poor decisions because they misunderstood the problem domain and became overly reliant on specific metrics. Here is a copy-paste of an earlier comment in this thread: -- > 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.
    - taeric 3y ago
      I'm at against bigger cars as you can be. Literally biking to places when I can. I am not clear that this is the nhtsa's fault. That said, I could cede this point if you can show evidence of it in these studies. The org is a bunch of people, so I grant they could make mistakes. Without specific concerns, this is the definition of fud. You aren't giving criticism of these studies and actions, but seeding doubt on their data.