this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
807 points (97.4% liked)

Comic Strips

12016 readers
1470 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It is still about fire safety. Fire fatalities are a part of the cost analysis. The implied cost of averting a fatality far outstrips the value of a statistical life. This is clinical language that's used across government agencies and industries to evaluate the value of a policy or regulation.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It's seriously not about fire safety, the data is right there as well as their rationale. The addition of seatbelts would save lives from bus accidents, but likely increase fatalities from decreased ridership.
NHTSA believes the cost in lives and dollars isn't justified given the data.

Also, it looks like they reevaluated, and now believe that they are worth it given new information.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, and fatalities due to fire is part of the calculation. You can't possibly think that all of the data they used to reach the determination is in a fucking slide deck, right? These people are smarter than you, don't make the mistake of assuming the opposite.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

No, they don't omit seatbelts because of fire safety, and you can tell because their numbers say that including seatbelts would increase the numbers of lives saved.

Who said anything about them being dumb? People said "no seatbelts because fire safety", and a summary of the NHTSA policy rationale saying "seatbelts would save lives, but the money would be better used elsewhere" is a rebuttal to that.

Are you somehow thinking I'm saying the NHTSA doesn't look at fire data?