>Cynically I’d suppose the incumbents are heavily optimised to maximise shareholder value so vehicle safety might actually be reduced to maximise profit given e

>Cynically I’d suppose the incumbents are heavily optimised to maximise shareholder value so vehicle safety might actually be reduced to maximise profit given expected liability from damages How else should we arrive at the optimal amount of safety? What moral formula, if not the averted costs of accidents, do you propose? In this world at least, resources are not unlimited. An ultra-safe car that cost a million dollars would not be very useful to many people. As for why Tesla would go beyond that, I can think of several reasons: it might be betting that its customers place a higher subjective value on the feeling of security, it might think that higher safety is important to fend off unfavorable press/regulation, etc. It could also be that the costs for Tesla to increase safety are lower than for other car companies for some reason (e.g. older car companies have already invested into older sub-optimal components). But these are all rational, self-interested reasons just like the avoidance of liability.