• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 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?