What is the official name of the "but sometimes" logical fallacy or cognative bias?

Question

Context

We often put equal importance on differing options, without taking factors such as frequency or risk into account.

Examples

Traffic Lights

In their video The LED Traffic Light and the Danger of "But Sometimes!" Technology Connections adeptly describes how, when LEDs were first introduced into traffic lights, many suggested that this would reduce safety; LEDs do not produce enough heat to melt snow, which could obstruct the signals. Those concerned citizens, therefore, insisted that incandescent bulbs should be reinstalled. What this demand fails to take into account is the >90% of the year when, in many parts of the world, there is no snow.

For example, I am from Britain which spends ~95.7% of the year without snow¹, while a year in Chicago, the hometown of Alec Watson, Technology Connections², is ~92.7% snowless³. Furthermore, the risk of snow falling during July, the month in which both have recorded their hottest temperatures, is ≈0%, yet the incandescent light bulbs are merrily pumping out heat ready to melt it.

Instead of reintroducing incandescent light bulbs, which produce heat 100% of the year, Watson argues that it is significantly more efficient to install a heating element on the unit. This can then be turned on when it is actually needed during the ~5% of the year when snow is present, but turned off the rest of the time.

The maths behind this argument does add up.

• Cost to run a 50W traffic signal for 8760 hours ≈ $65⁴
• Cost to run a 6.8W MeltSmart LED Traffic Signal⁵ for 8322 hours, plus 438 hours with the heater on at 60W ≈ $12.26
• First-year running cost saving ≈ $52.59 per traffic signal per year; approximately $159,600 to a city such as Chicago⁶ alone.

When we include the initial purchase price of $232, we see that break-even is achieved within 5 years.

This still excludes the ongoing maintenance that incandescent units require. For example, incandescent bulbs have a significantly shorter life than LEDs so need crews on cherry pickers to replace them.

TL;DR, LED+Heater > Incandescent

Electric Vehicles

The same is true of electric vehicles, EVs, particularly those with smaller ranges. Many EV-naysayers exclaim that they absolutely must have the ability to do a 500-mile journey, and so could never possibly consider an EV. This is illogical when one considers that,

• they travel further than 30 miles in a day just twice per year; a risk of 0.55%.
• a cheap, little EV can fulfil >99% of their driving needs (commuting, shopping, taking the Budgerigar to the vet, etc) by simply charging overnight.
• running that little EV daily and then renting an internal combustion engine, ICE, car for the one weekend you do actually need more range is cheaper than running an ICE vehicle every day.

Or, better yet, just take the train to cover the longer distance.

Now that older EVs are starting to become available for <£4,000⁷, this is a saving that more people could start to access - if they could just get over their perceived need for 100% perfection!

Counterexample

As benrg has pointed out in the comments, one wears a seatbelt on every car journey to mitigate the risk of an injury which might (hopefully!) only happen sometimes. While this might appear to be a similar example, it is an exception, as the impact of the unlikely event is unquestionably massive. Unrestrained traffic collisions can result in serious injury or death, whereas seatbelt is a relatively negligible inconvenience. As such, >90% of car users now "clunk, click, every trip".

In this case, the advantage of mitigating the unlikely event (not dying) clearly outweighs the potential disadvantages (dying). I am referring to scenarios when those advantages and disadvantages might not be so obvious, so in the absence of that data, humans simply default to giving everything equal importance.

Question

Is there an official name for the human tendency to give equal weight to the importance of various scenarios, without taking other important factors, such as frequency and risk, into account?

---

Sources:

1. Met Office. (n.d.). UK snow and facts. [online] Available at: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/snow/snow-in-the-uk.
2. Wikitubia. (n.d.). Technology Connections. [online] Available at: https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Technology_Connections [Accessed 6 Oct. 2021].
3. www.currentresults.com. (n.d.). Chicago IL Snowfall Totals & Snow Accumulation Averages - Current Results. [online] Available at: https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Illinois/Places/chicago-snowfall-totals-snow-accumulation-averages.php.
4. Sust-it - simply efficient shopping. (2018). Electricity Cost Calculator. [online] Available at: https://www.sust-it.net/energy-calculator.php. Prices based on USA Average Feb 22.
5. MeltSmart ® LED Traffic Signal Modules The World First Proven Snow-Melting LED Traffic Signals With Outstanding Performance and Reliability. (n.d.). Available at: https://partner.tapconet.com/portal/resources/download/5efddebe432646370e256373 [Accessed 4 Mar. 2023].
6. www.chicago.gov. (n.d.). Traffic Siginals/Traffic Lights. [online] Available at: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/cdot/provdrs/traffic_signals_andstreetlights/svcs/traffic_signals.html [Accessed 4 Mar. 2023].
7. www.autotrader.co.uk. (n.d.). New & Used Cars for Sale - Auto Trader UK. [online] Available at: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?sort=price-asc&make=Nissan&model=Leaf Lowest price at the time of viewing £3950 [Accessed 4 Mar. 2023].
8. NHTSA (2019). Seat belts. [online] NHTSA. Available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/seat-belts.
9. Email quote from Manufacturer on 2023-03-06

‌