3 ms·

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?

by taeric 3y ago

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.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Fair, if you are just pushing that we need to keep looking at the numbers and to be aware of some ways it can go bad, fine. I took the topic here to be that these studies were bad. In a known and showable way.
  - aposticknit 3y ago
    It isn't a binary choice, you can disable the function for situations it's not suited for. Nothing should be forcing us to enable harmful scenarios just because.
    - tm-guimaraes 3y ago
      well, the law explicitly says mandatory. Defaults tend to stick.
  - darkerside 3y ago
    Respectfully, you're taking an extremely naive stance to a topic where others are trying to bring nuance. I think if you listen carefully, you'd learn something that will help you not just on this topic but in your life. Logical fallacies like the base rate fallacy are real, and they fool all of us frequently, myself included. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
    - taeric 3y ago
      Bringing nuance is fine, but it is also an easy stalling tactic in progress. Clear improvements in safety are shown in the studies linked here. From an organization that has shown remarkable progress in safety over the years. And has been beset with such "nuance" since the beginning. Literally the same arguments were and are made against seat belts. Often. And is why I am not too willing to give way here. Now, if you are just saying, "I hope they keep their eyes on the data and are willing to keep improving," great. I agree. If you are trying to angle it that this is not a safety improvement, I will loudly disagree.
      - darkerside 3y ago
        I think it is probably overall a safety improvement, and I think many of the arguments about losing control of your car are a bit overblown. But, there's something to them, and it rubs me the wrong way to ignore and dismiss those you disagree with. It's too easy to characterize a position you don't agree with as one that is operating in bad faith or ignorance.

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?

by 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.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Fair, if you are just pushing that we need to keep looking at the numbers and to be aware of some ways it can go bad, fine. I took the topic here to be that these studies were bad. In a known and showable way.
- aposticknit 3y ago
  It isn't a binary choice, you can disable the function for situations it's not suited for. Nothing should be forcing us to enable harmful scenarios just because.
  - tm-guimaraes 3y ago
    well, the law explicitly says mandatory. Defaults tend to stick.
- darkerside 3y ago
  Respectfully, you're taking an extremely naive stance to a topic where others are trying to bring nuance. I think if you listen carefully, you'd learn something that will help you not just on this topic but in your life. Logical fallacies like the base rate fallacy are real, and they fool all of us frequently, myself included. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
  - taeric 3y ago
    Bringing nuance is fine, but it is also an easy stalling tactic in progress. Clear improvements in safety are shown in the studies linked here. From an organization that has shown remarkable progress in safety over the years. And has been beset with such "nuance" since the beginning. Literally the same arguments were and are made against seat belts. Often. And is why I am not too willing to give way here. Now, if you are just saying, "I hope they keep their eyes on the data and are willing to keep improving," great. I agree. If you are trying to angle it that this is not a safety improvement, I will loudly disagree.
    - darkerside 3y ago
      I think it is probably overall a safety improvement, and I think many of the arguments about losing control of your car are a bit overblown. But, there's something to them, and it rubs me the wrong way to ignore and dismiss those you disagree with. It's too easy to characterize a position you don't agree with as one that is operating in bad faith or ignorance.