It's not "contriving bullshit" to give some examples of how a single average number could be misleading, clearly labeled as hypotheticals.

It is literally the definition of FUD here, though. These aren't things that have happened. And the data is ridiculously clear on progress. To paint these doubts is pretty much only to spread fear and uncertainty.

It's not FUD, they're not stating it as a fact, they're asking for an analysis of AEB in lots of different situations and not just overall.

That is how many FUD tactics are done. It is a rhetorical trick to try and maintain an exit...

Yes, but sharing a characteristic with FUD is not enough to make something FUD. It's a realistic concern.

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.

We don't know it makes dangerous mistakes. Randos on the internet assert that. The data shows fairly convincing evidence is reduces wrecks.

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? ...

Do I need to go find dashcams? We know it makes dangerous mistakes. Come on.

This is not one I will cede without evidence, so yeah. With the amusing extra burden that I have yet to know a safe driver that used a dash camera.

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...

Let's see, what can I find on youtube in a couple minutes of searching. In increasing order of wrongness:

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...

I think they have a great point though, accurate measurement of the types of incidents is just as important if not more than the total.

This conjures the fear that the agency in question is bad at this. Do you have evidence that they are? Can it happen? Yes. We could also have it so that no wrecks from minorities are counted, such that we are blind to how they are impacted. Would be terrible. No evidence that that has happened.

> This conjures the fear that the agency in question is bad at this. Do you have evidence that they are?

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.

I'm at against bigger cars as you can be. Literally biking to places when I can. I am not clear that this is the nhtsa's fault.

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.