3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSorry, 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 agoEven 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 agoThe 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 agoPlease don't be a jerk on HN.
- mikeash 13y agoSorry, but I don't put up with the double standard where you're allowed to be a jerk as long as you're just completely derailing the conversation and acting like an idiot, but not if you come out and use sarcasm. It astonishes me that somebody can come out and say that the reasoning behind a rule is wrong, and then immediately turn around and say that they weren't actually talking about the reasoning, but the PR. And then he doesn't get called out on that at all, but I get called out for calling him out because I wasn't nice enough. Well, screw that.
- dang 13y agoHe may have been wrong, but unless I missed something, he wasn't personally abusive. If we can't keep a clear distinction between those two things, civil discussion is impossible.
- mikeash 13y agoNeither was I.
- dang 13y agoActually, you're right about that. I got my forms of abuse mixed up; there are so many. Sorry for accusing you of the wrong thing. If you really don't see anything wrong with posting that kind of aggressive sarcasm on Hacker News, then I don't think you believe in the guidelines here. They call for personal civility. Please follow them.
- mikeash 13y agoI'm civil as long as the people talking to me are civil. Once that stops, I don't bother holding up my end of the bargain.