Skip to content

Comment on The Conquest of Hell Gate [pdf]parent

Comments

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.