TFA links a meta analysis. With a 38% impact, that is going to be tough to argue against. So... Consider it cited, but you aren't looking?

You're not listening. The 38% number can be true and there can be particular groups that are hurt more than helped. Nobody is trying to "argue against" the 38% number.

In a cost benefit, if the number drops 38%, you are going to have to work to show it isn't worth it. What would the number have to be?

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.

> In a cost benefit, if the number drops 38%, you are going to have to work to show it isn't worth it. What would the number have to be?

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.

Fair, if you are just pushing that we need to keep looking at the numbers and to be aware of some ways it can go bad, fine. I took the topic here to be that these studies were bad. In a known and showable way.

It isn't a binary choice, you can disable the function for situations it's not suited for. Nothing should be forcing us to enable harmful scenarios just because.

well, the law explicitly says mandatory. Defaults tend to stick.

Respectfully, you're taking an extremely naive stance to a topic where others are trying to bring nuance. I think if you listen carefully, you'd learn something that will help you not just on this topic but in your life.

Logical fallacies like the base rate fallacy are real, and they fool all of us frequently, myself included.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

Bringing nuance is fine, but it is also an easy stalling tactic in progress. Clear improvements in safety are shown in the studies linked here. From an organization that has shown remarkable progress in safety over the years. And has been beset with such "nuance" since the beginning.

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.

I think it is probably overall a safety improvement, and I think many of the arguments about losing control of your car are a bit overblown. But, there's something to them, and it rubs me the wrong way to ignore and dismiss those you disagree with. It's too easy to characterize a position you don't agree with as one that is operating in bad faith or ignorance.