3 ms·

From the Reuters article linked in this thread: > NHTSA did not immediately comment but said in April the rule will save at least 360 lives annually With abou

From the Reuters article linked in this thread: > NHTSA did not immediately comment but said in April the rule will save at least 360 lives annually With about 43k traffic fatalities a year, this requirement is expected to save around 360? Is it that the vast majority of traffic fatalities do not involve someone not braking in time to avoid hitting another vehicle, or is it that braking in time would not save very many lives anyway? Either way, that's not an impressive statistic, especially if it is trying to justify a very intrusive mandate.

psunavy03 2y ago
This is the logical conclusion of the "if it saves just one life . . ." argument.
- teeray 2y ago
  I really wish lawmakers were required to state the asterisk on that statement: *this measure may end more lives than saved in new and unforeseen ways
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    **or decrease the quality of life of vast numbers of people in response for arguably insignificant returns.
toast0 2y ago
If you solve 0.8% of deaths here and there, pretty soon you've postponed a lot of deaths? I suspect though, that in addition to reducing fatalities, it'll also reduce the consequences of non-fatal collissions that match the pattern. Otoh, this pattern is perhaps an easily addressable pattern, not necessarily a particularly common pattern.
- karaterobot 2y ago
  I think you've got to ask whether this is the most effective way to save people's lives, if that's the actual goal of the legislation. Feels like many other things would be more effective, less expensive, and more welcomed by people. This is one that everyone seems to hate, it's going to cost a lot of money to implement, and it doesn't even promise to do very much to fix the problem, so I'd not have prioritized it so highly myself.