Comment by kulahan

Comment by kulahan 8 hours ago

These types of arguments are always so easy when you present everything as insanely black and white.

A thought experiment: if we could install a device which increases the likelihood of everyone surviving a car crash by 0.001%, but it costs $100,000 should it be mandated in every car? After all, this involves a victim as well.

I don’t think anyone would agree to that particular law. There is inevitably going to be a cutoff where you say “the increased safety is no longer worth the cost”. That’s acceptable risk and it’s not only good, it’s absolutely necessary to a functioning society.

shadowpho 7 hours ago

> if we could install a device which increases the likelihood of everyone surviving a car crash by 0.001%, but it costs $100,000 should it be mandated in every car

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.

Reply View 3 replies

kulahan 5 hours ago

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.

Reply View | 0 replies
Aloha 7 hours ago

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.

Reply View | 0 replies
BenjiWiebe 6 hours ago

Surely the backup camera wouldn't need to cost that much?

Reply View | 0 replies