5 ms·

Because his statement was not loaded with emotion like the one from the NHTSA. >""We are committed to protecting the most vulnerable victims of back-over accid

Because his statement was not loaded with emotion like the one from the NHTSA. >""We are committed to protecting the most vulnerable victims of back-over accidents — our children and seniors," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement." This rule doesn't pass the "sniff" test. There is absolutely nothing backing this except an estimate that several dozen lives might be saved. No cost effectiveness analysis, no comparison to other changes.

mikeash 13y ago
Actually, his statement was just as loaded with emotion. It was just a different emotion. Instead of "think of the children", it was the typical nerd emotional appeal of "the problem is that people are idiots and if they would just stop being idiots then we wouldn't have to deal with people being idiots." Regarding your "absolutely nothing backing this" statement, did you read through their documentation before saying this, or did you just assume? It's pretty extensive. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/FMVSS-111_Rear_Visibility_Final_Rule.pdf http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/FMVSS-111_Re...
- Perdition 13y ago
  I was talking about their statements, not information buried in a report the public won't read. You think people would approve of this rule if the NHTSA had of worked, "Based on the aforementioned revised estimates for costs and benefits, the net cost per equivalent life saved for rear visibility systems meeting the requirements of today’s final rule ranges from $15.9 to $26.3 million.", into their public statement? If you actually read the report it is clear this has nothing to do with rear-vision camera systems being cost effective and is just about the NHTSA doing what they are told by congress. >"Throughout this rulemaking process, the agency has been sensitive to the costs of today’s rule and has sought to ensure that the requirements adopted impose the least amount of regulatory burden on the economy while still achieving Congress’ goal of reducing fatalities and injuries resulting from backover crashes." And hyperion2010 was right, having a rear-vision system doesn't mean you will use it (where I live it is illegal to use them when actually reversing). The solution to these accidents is education. Technology is often the answer to human stupidity, but not at $15.9 to $26.3 million per life saved.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Sorry, the telepathy lobe of my brain was damaged when I was young, so when I read "There is absolutely nothing backing this" I took that as meaning what it said.
    - Perdition 13y ago
      Even if you took it that way there is still nothing backing this. Finding the best way to implement a dumb policy does not mean the overall policy is backed by a good argument. Even if this was the most cost-effective life saving measure the NHTSA could implement, it still doesn't mean it is the most cost-effective life saving measure that government could take.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        The argument was that these accidents don't happen because of an inability to see, but due to being "oblivious". Cost effectiveness doesn't enter into it. The question at hand is simply whether back up cameras save lives. NHTSA says they do. hyperion2010 says they don't. I asked hyperion2010 why I should believe him over the NHTSA. You then replied with two completely nonsensical arguments: 1. That the NHTSA was wrong because their statement was loaded with emotion. This is silly, because emotion doesn't make a statement wrong any more than it makes a statement right. So let's move on to the meat: 2. That the NHTSA has no evidence for their claim. And this is just plain wrong. The link I provided shows a reasonably thorough study which illustrates that having a camera does substantially reduce these types of accidents. It is not perfect, because some people really are oblivious. But neither is it useless, because some accidents are not due to simple obliviousness. Your response to this was that it somehow doesn't count if it's not spelled out in their press release, which is just plain stupid. If you want to discuss the cost/benefit tradeoff of this decision and whether the money would be better spent elsewhere, go for it. But that was not what we were discussing in this thread, so don't act like statements about cost effectiveness are somehow relevant.
    - dang 13y ago
      Please don't be a jerk on HN.

mikeash 13y ago

Actually, his statement was just as loaded with emotion. It was just a different emotion. Instead of "think of the children", it was the typical nerd emotional appeal of "the problem is that people are idiots and if they would just stop being idiots then we wouldn't have to deal with people being idiots." Regarding your "absolutely nothing backing this" statement, did you read through their documentation before saying this, or did you just assume? It's pretty extensive. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/FMVSS-111_Rear_Visibility_Final_Rule.pdf http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/FMVSS-111_Re...

Perdition 13y ago
I was talking about their statements, not information buried in a report the public won't read. You think people would approve of this rule if the NHTSA had of worked, "Based on the aforementioned revised estimates for costs and benefits, the net cost per equivalent life saved for rear visibility systems meeting the requirements of today’s final rule ranges from $15.9 to $26.3 million.", into their public statement? If you actually read the report it is clear this has nothing to do with rear-vision camera systems being cost effective and is just about the NHTSA doing what they are told by congress. >"Throughout this rulemaking process, the agency has been sensitive to the costs of today’s rule and has sought to ensure that the requirements adopted impose the least amount of regulatory burden on the economy while still achieving Congress’ goal of reducing fatalities and injuries resulting from backover crashes." And hyperion2010 was right, having a rear-vision system doesn't mean you will use it (where I live it is illegal to use them when actually reversing). The solution to these accidents is education. Technology is often the answer to human stupidity, but not at $15.9 to $26.3 million per life saved.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Sorry, the telepathy lobe of my brain was damaged when I was young, so when I read "There is absolutely nothing backing this" I took that as meaning what it said.
  - Perdition 13y ago
    Even if you took it that way there is still nothing backing this. Finding the best way to implement a dumb policy does not mean the overall policy is backed by a good argument. Even if this was the most cost-effective life saving measure the NHTSA could implement, it still doesn't mean it is the most cost-effective life saving measure that government could take.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      The argument was that these accidents don't happen because of an inability to see, but due to being "oblivious". Cost effectiveness doesn't enter into it. The question at hand is simply whether back up cameras save lives. NHTSA says they do. hyperion2010 says they don't. I asked hyperion2010 why I should believe him over the NHTSA. You then replied with two completely nonsensical arguments: 1. That the NHTSA was wrong because their statement was loaded with emotion. This is silly, because emotion doesn't make a statement wrong any more than it makes a statement right. So let's move on to the meat: 2. That the NHTSA has no evidence for their claim. And this is just plain wrong. The link I provided shows a reasonably thorough study which illustrates that having a camera does substantially reduce these types of accidents. It is not perfect, because some people really are oblivious. But neither is it useless, because some accidents are not due to simple obliviousness. Your response to this was that it somehow doesn't count if it's not spelled out in their press release, which is just plain stupid. If you want to discuss the cost/benefit tradeoff of this decision and whether the money would be better spent elsewhere, go for it. But that was not what we were discussing in this thread, so don't act like statements about cost effectiveness are somehow relevant.
  - dang 13y ago
    Please don't be a jerk on HN.