If you have contradicting data I'd be glad to see it

>It's likely that a fully-attentive human driver would have done worse.

Is based off the source I gave in my comment, the peer-reviewed model

> a huge portion of human drivers

Is based on my experience and bits of data like 30% of fatal accidents involving alcohol

Like I said, if you have better data I'm glad to see it

> based on my experience

The data completely disagrees with you.

> Like I said, if you have better data I'm glad to see it

We all have better data. It's been here the entire time:

	▲	jobs_throwaway 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Your data that shows 30% of fatal crashes involve alcohol, not to mention any of the other factors I named? Seems like your data supports my conclusion! Again, I welcome you to point to data that contradicts my claims, but it seems you are unable
	▲	yesfitz 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What data completely disagrees with them and what does it disagree with them about? The "Persons Killed, by Highest Driver Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) in the Crash"[1] report shows that in 2023, 30% of fatal crashes involved at least one driver with a BAC > 0.08 (the legal limit), and 36% involved a BAC > 0.01. Interesting that "Non-motorist" fatalities have dropped dramatically for everyone under the age of 21, but increased for everyone between 21 and 74.[2] Those are raw numbers, so it'd be even more interesting to display them as a ratio of the group's size. Are less children being killed by drivers because there are less children generally? Changes in parents' habits? Backup cameras? 1: https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Trends/TrendsAlcohol.aspx 2: https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Trends/TrendsNonMotorist.aspx