I can easily imagine a scenario where it might prevent 25000 crashes a year that are caused because 5% of drivers are staring at their phones, have a high chance of rear-ending someone, and this software makes that far less likely. While also containing bugs causing 1000 crashes a year for the larger number of non-distracted drivers, resulting in a net change of 24000. This would mean that adding the software would be better for society, while making the majority of drivers slightly more likely to crash into someone.
The scenarios and questions you ask are easy to explore in the data. If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things. If they stay flat or go up, then you have to answer why.
To emphasize, for your imagination here to be relevant, the number has to do one of those. If the number goes down, even if it shifted some situations into a wreck that would not have been before, it must have done fewer of those than it moved wrecks to non-wrecks. If it somehow causes more situations to be wrecks, the number, by definition, goes up.
The problem is precisely a lack of imagination, or perhaps more accurately, critical thought.
The parent is precisely engaged in the kind of interrogation that is necessary. If you are aware or an analysis that bears on his questions, now would be the time to share it.
But more to the point, there is a track record of narrow interpretation of studies and missing of the big picture. It’s hardly sophistry, it’s critical thought.
I, personally, am a much lower risk than the typical driver. Putting a drivers' aid device in my car may well increase the danger to me and those around me, even while having it in other cars decreases danger.
BTW - my car's traction control is evil. It's a rear wheel drive car, without limited slip. So when I pull out onto the road from a driveway, if there's the slightest bit of sand on the road, I get enough spin to engage the traction control. The car deals with this by vastly cutting engine power. In Texas, where the regular surface road I'm pulling out to is commonly 60mph, and often faster, I need to accelerate quickly to avoid the guy approaching - yet the traction control has just left me wallowing, dead in the water, unable to accelerate strongly. Except in wet conditions, disabling the traction control is always the first thing I do when I sit in the car.
It terrifies me that people are so oblivious to their own flaws that they would willingly disable features such as AEB if they could. I’m extremely thankful for regulations that prevent such life-saving safety features from being disabled.
The only time I ever came close to having a crash is when lane assist tried to drive in the dividers on a highway with construction going on, so lane assist is the first to go in a new car.
Not everyone. I don't think I'm an above average driver at all.
Unless you are proposing that they should require it in everyone's cars except yorus.
Yes they do impact things.
Consider a pill that, given to a wide population of test subjects, reduces heart attacks by 20%. That's great! But when you look at the data more closely, it strongly reduces the risk for people older than 40, and it increases the risk for people under 40. Should you prescribe that pill to everyone at risk of heart attack? Of course not.
Does AEB have a pattern like this? Who knows! Someone should test or cite a good test!
Can they make the system even better by finding cases it didn't help? Almost certainly. Progress isn't a straight line, but increases are increases.
Where did anyone say "isn't worth it"? The sentence I see is "The problem with numbers is that they don't tell the whole story."
Though in a more general sense, if someone does invent a system that has strong average safety gains, but makes the majority of people less safe... that's a hard sell.
Logical fallacies like the base rate fallacy are real, and they fool all of us frequently, myself included.
Literally the same arguments were and are made against seat belts. Often. And is why I am not too willing to give way here.
Now, if you are just saying, "I hope they keep their eyes on the data and are willing to keep improving," great. I agree. If you are trying to angle it that this is not a safety improvement, I will loudly disagree.
This sounds like the beginnings of the McNamara fallacy: that there is some abstract "data" where all the relevant variables can be explored to decide the best course of action. The reason it's a fallacy is that data is itself only a reflection of conscientious decisions about what to measure and how to measure, and these are invariably limited to what we already appreciate and understand, not accounting for the things we don't know how to measure and don't know we should be measuring.
To be more concrete, let's say we follow your suggestion and focus on crashes. Maybe it's found that automatic breaking reduces the number of crashes so it's mandated. But maybe automatic breaking also increases the likelihood that a crash is deadly in some sub-population like pedestrians, construction workers, and motorcyclists. So overall we see crashes decline because a large number of minor crashes are averted but we also see deadly crashes increase because pedestrians, construction workers, and motorcyclists are killed more frequently.
So data isn't a free lunch. Every decision about what to measure and what to optimize involves some prior contextual understanding. A misunderstanding of the context means the data will misrepresent some aspect of the problem and you'll overoptimize yourself into a local maximum.
Someone else mentioned airbags. Airbags are great overall but increase danger for some people, and that's without obvious signs of anything being wrong.
With AEB we know it makes dangerous mistakes in significant amounts. So we very much should analyze different implementations under different kinds of weather, road, and driving style.
Is it a new behavior and jarring when engaged? Certainly. Should we keep watching the data for problems? Certainly. Should folks report all problems so that they are tracked? Certainly.
Do most people actually have trouble driving safely? Despite their insistent view of how great they are at driving? ...
I have been in a car where the alert went off that it was engaging aeb. The driver was far too close to the car in front of us...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLRRBHNjCn4 There's a car that it's reasonable to worry about, but it was clearly braking and almost stopped by the time AEB kicked in, and AEB kept going as that car went to zero.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO6tJnM_HSs Adaptive cruise was already in control and working fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCk6yrN453c Absolutely nothing in front.
And whatever happened here probably counts: https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/tesla-crash-footage-auto...
Yes. This was my movivation for questioning the "data says" logic. The NHTSA has made decisions based on data that were poor decisions because they misunderstood the problem domain and became overly reliant on specific metrics. Here is a copy-paste of an earlier comment in this thread:
--
> the NHTSA is a pretty cautious organization, and they like numbers.
They may be cautious but they're not necessarily smart. Their vehicle safety ratings only measure the safety of occupants in that vehicle. Result? An arms race where cars keep getting bigger, heavier, and taller to do better in crash tests against bigger, heavier, and taller cars. These "safer" vehicles are now more deadly to everyone else, especially pedestrians and bicyclists.
McNamara fallacy in action.
That said, I could cede this point if you can show evidence of it in these studies. The org is a bunch of people, so I grant they could make mistakes. Without specific concerns, this is the definition of fud. You aren't giving criticism of these studies and actions, but seeding doubt on their data.
For such people, these policies suck. And it's strange that there are those that demand they either be happy about it, or at least be quiet about it.
I'll keep my 30yo car with no computers as long as I can thank you very much.
A seat belt is basically the same for everyone. It makes things safer when you look at all drivers, and it makes things safer for just about any subgroup of drivers.
But a buggy AEB might not fit that pattern. Imagine a system that reduces crashes by half, but then adds an extra X crashes per million miles. If someone's unassisted crash rate is 5X, then this system reduces it to 3.5X and is a great help. If someone's unassisted crash rate is .5X, then this system increases their crash rate to 1.25X and is a terrible trade.
I think that may be true in all cases - for example seat belts and airbags requirements may affect people differently depending on height and weight?
I also agree with this:
> If the government wants to immediately improve car safety they should outlaw touchscreens instead.
I experienced it multiple times and not even once it triggered in a correct situation. Usually a weird angle on a t-junction triggers it unnecessarily.
[1] https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0021-0004
207.2172772719495
Not quite pure statistical noise but close.
> A metanalysis in 2015 found a 38 percent decrease in collisions for vehicles that utilized such a system, for instance.
Barring massive fuckups in methodology, that should account for false positives that cause an accident. The number of non-collision severe injuries (are we theorizing folks get their head banged against something when it brakes heavily?) is likely to be pretty small versus that 38% stat.
> The number of non-collision severe injuries (are we theorizing folks get their head banged against something when it brakes heavily?) is likely to be pretty small
(People can be injured directly by the seatbelt, and there's also whiplash to consider.)
I don't doubt it's possible, just like it's possible for a seatbelt to trap you in a burning car... but common enough to offset a 38% drop in crashes? I severely doubt it.
If someone can demonstrate that people driving these cars have a dramatically increased incidence of whiplash or seatbelt injuries, by all means, but I'm comfortable saying the burden of proof is on them there.
On Wednesday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would see automatic emergency braking become a standard feature on all new light passenger vehicles.
And the actual numbers should include the opportunity cost (in lives saved or QALYs, if you like) of the increased price of vehicles with these systems. Could that money have been spent on smoke detectors or healthier food or ?
In response I said:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Then mhb said:
What's your point?
Can you explain what my point was to mhb?
ChatGPT:
It seems like you're suggesting that the responsibility and scope of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is primarily focused on improving safety on the roads, specifically through regulations related to vehicles, rather than other broader public health initiatives like smoke detectors or promoting healthier food.
Your comment may imply that while considering the opportunity cost is a valid point for an overall public health or policy perspective, it may not be directly relevant to the mission and function of the NHTSA. The NHTSA's mandate is to ensure the safety of vehicles and roads, so they would prioritize improvements and regulations in that area, even if those funds might have a higher impact if spent elsewhere from a wider public health perspective.
In other words, the comment might suggest that each organization has its own scope and priorities, and while we can consider overall opportunity costs, we also need to consider the specific roles and responsibilities of different organizations. However, without more context, this is just one possible interpretation.
That point being: maybe NHTSA's advocacy of a requirement for all new vehicles is beyond the scope of its mission and it should confine itself to providing information to the policy makers who might possibly understand the tradeoffs.
They may be cautious but they're not necessarily smart. Their vehicle safety ratings only measure the safety of occupants in that vehicle. Result? An arms race where cars keep getting bigger, heavier, and taller to do better in crash tests against bigger, heavier, and taller cars. These "safer" vehicles are now more deadly to everyone else, especially pedestrians and bicyclists.
McNamara fallacy in action.
At least part of that effect will show up in these vehicles being rear-ended themselves (as they're exhibiting that exact sudden-stop behavior), and that sort of accident should be reduced if all cars come with AEB.
You'll never be able to wipe out all variables in this sort of study, but I don't think the methodology's as flawed as you're asserting.
While the costs of phantom breaking are decreased if everyone has AEB, I don't think this makes the roads safer for me unless I want to buy a newer vehicle and I don't want to have to do that.
the NHTSA is a pretty cautious organization, and they like numbers. if they've studied it and found that automatic braking will prevent 24000 crashes and 360 deaths per year, i'd be inclined to believe them. having the car brake for me when i'm not expecting it sounds kind of scary to me too, but i'd rather experience that than let 360 people die every year.