Every possible change to a car’s safety system will cause some deaths and save others… look at airbags.

The aggregate stats are the most important things to look at, especially for something like AEB which has the ability to save pedestrians, which as of late are getting mowed down more and more frequently.

Agreed that overall it can be an improvement. But I've clocked up a good 40K km since I got rid of the car that was equipped with defunct EAB and I'm fairly sure (but of course can not prove it) that I would have been in an accident by now on account of it triggering falsely. Conversely, I've never had a problem with airbags deploying without cause and my seatbelt is on just to move the car 10 meters because it is deeply ingrained and I refuse to drive - or be in - a car without it.

But faulty EAB caused more trouble for me than any other safety feature to date and I really wonder what caused Mercedes Benz to release this feature in such a horrific functional state. It is beyond belief how broken it is and I would love to see their internal stats for how often their EAB caused - not prevented - single vehicle accidents.

At the very least it sounds like people will benefit from actual tests and requirements about how the braking system must act.

Those would be good stats to mandate sharing with the proposed rules. Would likely cause them to rework the system if they started losing sales over it.

There needs to be a tiered license then - if you pass the more rigorous exam you can drive cars without the extra "safety" features. Making AEB mandatory would increase the survival rate of poor drivers and punish people who actually pay attention on the road.

> and punish people who actually pay attention on the road.

It can benefit people who have reaction times slower than silicon.

It can also cause accidents, and some people go their whole lives without getting in an accident.

Including those that drive cars with aeb.

Wasn't AIG an insurance company? They don't seem to be good at math, much less statistics.

Exceptions, rules and all that.

> EAB will cause some accidents and prevents a whole lot more, and that's enough for the insurers.

It should be enough for everybody on the road. People always say "don't be a statistic" but we are all part of these statistics whether we like it or not. AEB can also protect occupants of other vehicles, so using it or not is not a choice whose consequences only affect the individual making it.

Which is funny considering the explanation that was presented to me about why is it legal in the US to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet. The explanation is: in case of an accident, the motorcycle driver has a lower chance to survive without the helmet. From the insurer’s perspective paying out a one time death insurance might be cheaper than paying someone money every month for the rest of their life.

No idea how much truth is in that, though.

> why is it legal in the US to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet.

This depends on the state:

https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/calculator/factshee...

> As of 2021, 18 states and the District of Columbia had universal motorcycle helmet laws, 29 states had laws requiring helmets for certain riders, and three states did not have any motorcycle helmet laws.

Well, forgive me then. That’s the discussion I had back in 2016, when visiting the US the last time. Good to see there’s progress.