Well yeah, that’s my point - acceptable risk is, in fact, good. If it weren’t, then there would be no resistance to that $100,000 component. But of course we still want to reduce danger, so adding an extra 2% to the cost of a car is fairly reasonable.
rear backup cameras are one of the cases where I think the math falls apart - its like 250m dollars to save approx 30 lives a year - where is does work is reduced body damage to vehicles, however I dont know thats enough to mandate them.
Re:The Conquest of Hell Gate [pdf]
by BenjiWiebe on Sunday May 18, 2025 @05:24PM
(#44024405)
Surely the backup camera wouldn't need to cost that much?
Re:The Conquest of Hell Gate [pdf]
by os2warpman on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @09:39AM
(#44041527)
>However we do mandate rear back up camera which costs $1-2k and saves some percentage of lives when backing up.
A rear backup camera module, its wiring, and the screen cost less than $15 at volume for minimally-viable options and $100-300 for "good" (HD, guidance lines, proximity sensors, etc.) options.
Not $1,000-2,000.
What manufacturers charge for them is a different matter.
I mean we can do that right now and we don’t.
However we do mandate rear back up camera which costs $1-2k and saves some percentage of lives when backing up.
So it’s all about balance.