> Adding AEB specifically is estimated to cost $100-$300 per vehicle in the US, and it wouldn't be much different in Europe.

Isn't this exactly the issue? Any given thing is "only" $300 but you add one of these requirements a year for several decades straight and now you've added thousands of dollars to the price of a car.

> And AEB is proven to work: reducing the rate of accidents by 40% or more.

It reduces the rate of accidents that occur under certain circumstances. Pretty good chance that those circumstances are "in a city in traffic". But then the feature is required on all cars, even when the owner knows they'll rarely if ever be driving it under the conditions where it's useful. Or worse, when they know they'll be commonly driving under circumstances where it's more likely to encounter a false positive and cause an accident.

▲

wqaatwt 2 days ago | parent [-]

But its also there to protect pedestrians and others from the owner as much as himself. From the government/regulatory perspective.

	▲	AnthonyMouse a day ago \| parent [-]
		That only changes the math if collisions are "free" to the vehicle purchaser while causing damage to someone else. Otherwise their interests are aligned, i.e. neither of them wants that to happen and so will want the safety feature unless it has low effectiveness in their circumstances. Obviously some people will make a poor choice, but that's just as true as legislators, and all costs are a trade off against what else you could have gotten for the money. In other words, all safety features that cost money have an opportunity cost, which is also measured in lost lives, so the ones that aren't effective or have diminished effectiveness under particular circumstances shouldn't be mandatory in all cases.