3 ms·

Yes, I acknowledge that, but it's important to bear in mind that costs for improvements are typically linear (or super-linear) so the cost/benefit of more safet

• mikeash 11y ago
  Sure, all the low-hanging fruit is gone. It's a lot easier and cheaper to cut fatalities by X% by installing three-point seat belts in every car than it is to do it by building advanced stability control systems. But still, the returns are still significant and the dangers are still huge. I'd guess that your tremendous backlash comes from using a deeply misleading graph as the foundation of your comment and from the strong implication that additional safety improvements are no longer worthwhile.
  • carsongross 11y ago
    And that's where I would disagree with what is obviously an overwhelming majority: I don't think the returns, compared to costs, are significant and I don't think that the dangers are still huge. Modern cars are very, very safe and have been for years, and I think the industry should begin to prioritize other things (costs, simplicity, aesthetics, etc.) in some cases. I would be less obstinate if much of the safety equipment was optional, rather than required by law. OTOH, given the absolute blow out that this comment took, I can see that mine is not a popular position. And I would be lying if I didn't admit that a lot of my animus comes from the fact that the vehicles I prefer (the 70-series landcruiser, the Defender 90) are not available in the U.S. due to safety restrictions.