3 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoIt'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.