▲ | margalabargala 18 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It could make sense. We don't know the numbers. Let's say net X lives are saved each year because of automatic lights turning on. Let's say net Y lives would be saved each year without automatic lights, via more effective detection of drunk drivers and stopping them before they kill someone. Is X > Y? We don't know. > Eliminatung DUI is not a matter of detection There are a lot of avenues to decrease DUI, among which one is effective detection combined with enforcement. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | smcleod 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The EU has done lots of reach on road and car safety, there's lots of data out there - just perhaps not in the US as many American made cars have significantly lagged behind in terms of safety features. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | cma 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There may be something like that that does make it counterintuitive. Usually those kind of Malcom Gladwell paradoxes end up overstated. There would be other factors, like drunk people are probably safer with their lights on too. Lane keeping probably makes it harder to detect drunk drivers too but also may make them safer. |