4 ms·
This article is flawed. It seems to revolve around the fact that 'people commuting to work are more dangerous than 1 car stopping on the freeway'. The article
by SCHiM 11y ago
This article is flawed.
It seems to revolve around the fact that 'people commuting to work are more dangerous than 1 car stopping on the freeway'.
The article then proceeds to explain why this is so:
> 'No human is a perfect driver. Every time we get into our cars, instead of cycling or taking public transportation, we add risk to those around us.'
> 'We often see cars on the side of the road. Few accidents are caused by such cars. Sure, they add risk, but so do people abruptly changing lanes.'
The problem with this is that, obviously, the act of stopping the car in the middle of traffic needs to be _added_ to the risk that the security researchers involved have been generating the whole year round. Instead the author seems to compare the security risk of this incident with the risk an average driver generates in a whole year.
And even if it didn't the author's example is also a fallacy of relative privation. The fact that other things are more risky than stopping a car on the freeway, does not mean that it is not dangerous.
Pretty ironic that the author fails in his own analysis while talking about 'proper "risk analysis"'.
- tptacek 11y agoI think this is an interesting and valid response but that you might be missing his point. He's not saying that relative risk says the highway stunt was ok; in fact, he's saying the opposite, if you read all the way to the end. In that context, it is reasonable to argue that the added risk was minimal.
- SCHiM 11y agoI did not miss his point, I even agree with his final paragraph. But all but the last paragraph of the article is based on flawed comparisons.
- sprkyco 11y agoIt is quite ironic that the article completely fails at risk analysis even from a perspective where an abundant amount of data is available. After some brief googling through top causes of accidents [1] most attributed deaths to speeding, drunk driving, or distracted driving. It would be a fair attribution to say that the behavior of the vehicle as viewed from another drivers perspective was none of these situations as the driver was to at least some extent still in control of the car. While I do not know the exact model of the Jeep I'm assuming that there is a mechanical emergency brake still present. Stopping in the middle of traffic is probably very low on the metric of causes of accidents or death. Although I did not accumulate enough data to give a metric on how much risk the researchers incurred through this experiment it may be beneficial for the author to at least do some due diligence in acquiring data before labeling an industry (one the author is well known in for that matter) as having an inability to quantify risk and then immediately fail to quantify risk. [1] Pretty ironic that the author fails in his own analysis while talking about 'proper "risk analysis"'.