4 ms·

You make it sound like customers don't care about safety. If company will deliver better customer satisfaction they will get more profit. If anything I would tr

You make it sound like customers don't care about safety. If company will deliver better customer satisfaction they will get more profit. If anything I would trust a for-profit motive more than a feature forced by regulations.

ProblemFactory 7y ago
Very few customers care about pedestrian safety, and pedestrians can only control what sort of cars other people buy with regulations.
- perceptronas 7y ago
  I would argue that more innovations and overall safety for passengers increased more due markets than it did due regulations. While it might not be the priority, but more pedestrian safety is still a nice thing to have.
Renaud 7y ago
Ahhh, the "Magical Market" that solves all... even in the most capitalists of countries safety regulations are necessary. Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road. Safety Regulation is there to make sure those constraints are given a high priority in the design of equipment so it doesn't kill you, your passengers or the people around you.
- perceptronas 7y ago
  >Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road. It does if it is important for customer. And even if it doesn't - it doesn't mean they will make it dangerous for pedestrians. Furthermore, regulations come from what market innovates. An imperfect analogy on why regulations don't always bring best results: having side mirrors is incredibly important safety regulation. That is of course until you can introduce better safety by not having them, but regulation prevents you from doing so (cameras)
  - foepys 7y ago
    Customers are dumb. People are putting CIA-level surveillance equipment into their homes just to not get up from the couch to turn the lights on. The Stasi or Nazis would have loved that back then. If a car costs $1,000 less but would catch fire in an instant when turned on its roof, people would opt for the money, I guarantee you that, because when was the last time you car was upside down?
foepys 7y ago
In 1973 Ford made a cost-benefit analysis for the Pinto after it was revealed that it tended to catch fire extremely quickly after rear-end collisions. Ford concluded that paying victim's families after a deadly crash was cheaper than redesigning the car. So they kept it the way it was. From 2000 to 2010 Toyota used cheap materials in their cars that made cars accelerate and crash. It's estimated that 89 people died due to this in the US alone. Your blind believe in "the market" is simply wrong. Without regulatory oversight, this might never have come to light and you would still see Toyotas running into barriers or Fords burning after an accident. Just you wouldn't actually know about it because it's relatively rare.
mnm1 7y ago
I trust the people with incentives to kill me for money over the people whose job is to protect me all the time too.

ProblemFactory 7y ago

Very few customers care about pedestrian safety, and pedestrians can only control what sort of cars other people buy with regulations.

perceptronas 7y ago
I would argue that more innovations and overall safety for passengers increased more due markets than it did due regulations. While it might not be the priority, but more pedestrian safety is still a nice thing to have.

Renaud 7y ago

Ahhh, the "Magical Market" that solves all... even in the most capitalists of countries safety regulations are necessary. Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road. Safety Regulation is there to make sure those constraints are given a high priority in the design of equipment so it doesn't kill you, your passengers or the people around you.

perceptronas 7y ago
>Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road. It does if it is important for customer. And even if it doesn't - it doesn't mean they will make it dangerous for pedestrians. Furthermore, regulations come from what market innovates. An imperfect analogy on why regulations don't always bring best results: having side mirrors is incredibly important safety regulation. That is of course until you can introduce better safety by not having them, but regulation prevents you from doing so (cameras)
- foepys 7y ago
  Customers are dumb. People are putting CIA-level surveillance equipment into their homes just to not get up from the couch to turn the lights on. The Stasi or Nazis would have loved that back then. If a car costs $1,000 less but would catch fire in an instant when turned on its roof, people would opt for the money, I guarantee you that, because when was the last time you car was upside down?

foepys 7y ago

In 1973 Ford made a cost-benefit analysis for the Pinto after it was revealed that it tended to catch fire extremely quickly after rear-end collisions. Ford concluded that paying victim's families after a deadly crash was cheaper than redesigning the car. So they kept it the way it was. From 2000 to 2010 Toyota used cheap materials in their cars that made cars accelerate and crash. It's estimated that 89 people died due to this in the US alone. Your blind believe in "the market" is simply wrong. Without regulatory oversight, this might never have come to light and you would still see Toyotas running into barriers or Fords burning after an accident. Just you wouldn't actually know about it because it's relatively rare.

mnm1 7y ago

I trust the people with incentives to kill me for money over the people whose job is to protect me all the time too.