Perhaps you should be looking for data that shows that traffic-aware cruise control increases or matches safety of human drivers then? Seems strange to just assume one side of the argument if there's no proof either way.
I can rephrase my original comment according to your terms: there is no evidence that TACC reduces safety. That's equivalent to what I said. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Moreover, if experience showed that TACC reduces safety, NHTSA and its counterparts in other countries would have noticed and put the brakes on it. If you don't think this is a reasonable assumption, so be it.
Editted to respond to edit. (perhaps my original comment was a bit brash as well)
The problem here is that you're mis specifying the null hypothesis. We have had human drivers for 100 years. New automated systems start to come into the fray. We're trying to figure out if they are safer than humans. The null in this case is that they are not. That's what we assume until proven otherwise.
> We're trying to figure out if they are safer than humans.
No, we're not. We're trying to figure out if TACC has any impact either way. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is that they are no more and no less safe than human drivers alone. You need data to show the direction of the change. You just picked a direction (i.e., towards worse) that was more intuitive to you.
Fair enough. I'd still say that invalidates your original comment.
>I think it is reasonable to assume that Tesla TACC is not less safe than Tesla non-TACC, therefore the conclusion is also relevant to comparisons between Tesla level 0 (entirely human-driven, no assist) vs. Tesla level 2.
Is it really reasonable to assume it's not less safe in this case? Neither of us can say either way, seems like it would be impossible to assume either way.
> Is it really reasonable to assume it's not less safe in this case?
Yes, because this assumption is consistent with the null hypothesis. The negation of this statement is that it is strictly less safe, which is not consistent with the null hypothesis, and for which there is no evidence.
Okay so let me follow. We're fine assuming it's not less safe. So then we must be fine assuming it's not more safe.
These two lead us to your null which is that it is as safe.
When a new unproven technology comes out does it seem correct to automatically assume that it is as safe as the current standard? Would you not expect some proof?
> When a new unproven technology comes out does it seem correct to automatically assume that it is as safe as the current standard? Would you not expect some proof?
In the absence of any data or given priors whatsoever, we should give the three possibilities (less safe, as safe, more safe) equal weight. This means that there is a 33% chance it's less safe, which is too large to ignore. That's why we want more proof when we deploy new tech, introduce a new drug, etc.
But note that specifically in the context of TACC as it stands today, we are not in that situation. There has been plenty of data accumulated already, which constitutes the proof you are looking for (i.e., the data we do have doesn't show a decrease in safety.) That's why today it is reasonable to assume that TACC is not less safe than no TACC.
