11 ms·

Unsafe at Any Speed

83 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

stonemetal12 5y ago
So was the 1960 Corvair dangerous? I notice the engineers all say performs comparable to other cars, but not weather that was a good or bad thing. Four other dangerous models doesn't make one of the dangerous models less dangerous.
- loeg 5y ago
  More or less all 1960 cars are objectively dangerous compared with modern automobiles.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    Yes, and I would thank Ralph Nader for pushing the industry in the right direction. Arguably though, the pendulum may have swung too far to the point that cars sold in the U.S. are boxed in by the crash-test requirements. I have seen where, for example, small, efficient commuter vehicles are only viable in the U.S. if they are 3-wheeled since, curiously, they are considered "motorcycles" then and are therefore exempt from many safety requirements. Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"?
    - larrik 5y ago
      We have Smart cars, so it can't be that onerous.
      - Hamuko 5y ago
        FWIW, the 2014 smart fortwo and smart forfour got 4/5 stars in Euro NCAP. It actually gets a better score than the 2017 Ford Mustang, where the safety rating for adult occupants is rated higher in the smart. https://youtu.be/iXUBU0eieLc https://youtu.be/iXUBU0eieLc doesn't look all that bad.
      - throaway46546 5y ago
        My friend had a Smart car and I was surprised to learn that it got about the same fuel efficiency as my 4 door Ford Focus. With a full cars I was getting over double the fuel efficiency per person and we were much more comfortable in my car. What's the point?
        Hamuko 5y ago
        The smart fortwo is so small that you can feasibly "parallel" park the car by driving directly into it. And if you live in a densily packed city, the ability to squeeze your car into tiny spaces can be great. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Smart_parking.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Smart_pa...
        throaway46546 5y ago
        Still you think it would get better gas mileage than a Sedan.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"? Not for use on public roads because "people are stupid and need to be saved from themselves" or something along those lines.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        The occupants of a vehicle are also not necessarily the person who voluntarily purchased it.
    - throwaway946513 5y ago
      Not to forget the U.S. mentality that 'Bigger vehicle is better, and therefore safer'.
      - DnDGrognard 5y ago
        That's pretty common in other countries - there's loads of Chelsea tractors (SUVS and 4wd) used on the school run in the UK for the height and perceived safety.
    - sparsely 5y ago
      The biggest issue IMO is that the safety standards more or less only seem to account for the driver/passengers. The EU equivalent has a pedestrian safety rating, that would be a good start.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      The category for 4-wheeled vehicles with reduced safety requirements is the "kit car". IOW, you have to put it together yourself for it to qualify.
      - JKCalhoun 5y ago
        Interesting.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Dangerous? meh. They were fun as hell. I learned to drive in a 1964 Corvair 2-door convertable. My dad bought it brand new, drove it for a year, then put it in storage where it sat until I turned 15. The stories my dad would tell me about the things they would do tinkering with them were pretty out there. He wound up putting cement bags in the trunk to keep the front end down when he would hit certain speeds. Got pulled over racing a GTO, and winning, but the cop gave no tickets. He was just interested in seeing what was done to the Corvair that it was out running a GTO. Oh the 60s!
- technothrasher 5y ago
  I've never driven a Corvair, but I've owned a 1965 Triumph Spitfire that has a very similar transverse leaf spring swing axle rear suspension setup. Most of the time its fine, but when pushing the car, the setup definitely could cause snap oversteer that, if you're not expecting it, could be dangerous. But its not like other suspension setups can't do the same thing, and the addition of a camber compensator makes the issue pretty much go away.
- khudgins 5y ago
  I own and drive a 1960 Corvair. Most Corvair fans will tell you it's not any more dangerous than any other 1960 car if you set it up right. (I'll elaborate later) The manual tells you specific tire pressures to run: 22psi in front, 32psi in back. That differential tire pressure is critical to compensate for the swingaxles and rear weight. The problem was that this spec is different from other cars people were used to, and like today, no one read the manual. Especially mechanics. So you'd take it to a shop for something, they'd notice your front tires were a little low, and "fill" them up with air for you. And you didn't know. I think there's some willful misinformation on both sides of this argument. There's a lawsuit between Chevrolet and National Highway Traffic Safety Admin that resolved in 1972 (3 years after the last Corvair was made) that settled saying that the 1963 Corvair (the one being tested) wasn't any worse than other small cars at the time. Early Corvairs, however, have more and more safety features added in over the years. There's an early 1960 (mine) and a later 1960 model, and there were significant suspension changes between 1961, '62, '63, and '64. After that, the Corvair had a full redesign and was honestly a different car (still rear-engined, air cooled, unibody, but a different model). Each model year for early Corvairs the car was refined and made much better, so that '64s are really nice, pretty damn safe cars for the era. I suspect the '60 definitely has some rollover issues if you drive it hard. "Spirited driving" was the term they used back in the day. I don't - I baby mine and keep it slow and easy. I'm not great with driving a manual yet anyway.
CobaltFire 5y ago
For anyone not familiar with it: The 1960 Corvair suspension design (swing axle) is shared with many older European cars, the most popular being the VW Beetle (with which it also shared the rear engine position). It was no more unsafe than most other cars on the road, and Nader is generally considered to be incorrect on this specific point in the book. I can't speak to the rest, as that is the point that I'm most familiar with. Also, the second generation Corvair is one of the most beautiful cars ever built IMO [0], and shares it's suspension design with the Corvette (unequal A-Arms at all four corners). Interestingly it's design study is what was used to do the first generation Camaro/Firebird as GM had nothing ready to compete with the Mustang. To get even more interesting about the Corvair (I grew up around someone who had 12+ of them...): the engine is one of only three families that spins "backwards": The Corvair, The Renault (correction from comment: Citroën!) 2CV, and the Honda D/B/H series. This was due to the transmission being a standard GM transmission thrown in a different case with the rearend attached, and a jackshaft going back to the engine, making the reverse rotation necessary. A couple of people have actually installed Honda B series engines on these [1], which surprisingly works quite well on the old transmission since they make little torque and rev very high. It's also why there were kits to put a V8 in the back seat by removing the jackshaft and mounting it to the normal GM transmission input. [0]: https://www.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/21/2012/03/hrdp-1202-1966-chevrolet-corvair-monza-the-corvin8er-000.jpg?fit=around%7C1000:625 https://www.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/21/2012/03/hrdp-1202-19... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t493sSD-V80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t493sSD-V80
- Svip 5y ago
  > The Renault 2CV Do you mean the Citroën 2CV or the Renault 4CV? I assume the former, because I recall something about the reverse spinning of its engine.
  - CobaltFire 5y ago
    Wow, you are absolutely right. I'll edit the comment if that's alright!
- jaclaz 5y ago
  >... the engine is one of only three families that spins "backwards" ... Yes and no, I believe there are more than three, here is a fourth one: The FIAT 100 engine[0] (in it's latest incarnation actually 903 cc that was derived from the original FIAT 600 was originally 600, then 750 and 850) was rear mounted on the 850[1] (and was spinning in one direction) the following series of cars (FIAT 127 [2], Autobianchi A112[3]) used the same engine but front mounted and it was spinning in the opposite direction). But most probably there are more examples in lesser known brands around the time they all moved from rear wheel traction to front wheel (roughly end of '60's begin of '70's). [0] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motore_FIAT_100 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motore_FIAT_100 [1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_850 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_850 [2] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_127 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_127 [3] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobianchi_A112 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobianchi_A112
yissp 5y ago
This video of a crash test between a 2009 Chevy Malibu and 1959 Bel Air is a good illustration of the improvements that have been made in car safety https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
- hannasanarion 5y ago
  There is still much to be improved. US crash safety tests only use dummies in the size and shape of adult males. Crash safety for women and children is not tested. Safety for other road users: other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, is also completely unconsidered in US testing, directly contributing to the trends of wall-frontend pickups and SUVs that are now often deliberately designed and advertised for their ability to cause harm.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    > now often deliberately designed and advertised for their ability to cause harm. Whattttt? Can you provide some examples?
    - hannasanarion 5y ago
      "What do you get when you have a 603 horsepower v8 bi-turbo engine? You get the fuck out of the way" - footage of pedestrian running in fear from the car being advertised That's the only example from this article [1] that I had saved for containing a list of egregious examples of aggressively dangerous car advertisements that is still online. The dangers of relying on youtube embeds of the things you wish to criticize. 1. https://archive.curbed.com/2020/1/31/21115593/super-bowl-worst-car-ads https://archive.curbed.com/2020/1/31/21115593/super-bowl-wor...
      - sdoering 5y ago
        This ad was a oh my WTF moment. This would never fly in Germany. Oh hey, wait. Were does this company originate? I was absolutely blown away by this.
frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago
>In response to Nader's criticisms, GM attempted to sabotage Nader's reputation. It "(1) conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances of the plaintiff, 'questioning them about, and casting aspersions upon [his] political, social, racial and religious views; his integrity; his sexual proclivities and inclinations; and his personal habits'; (2) kept him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time; (3) caused him to be accosted by girls for the purpose of entrapping him into illicit relationships; (4) made threatening, harassing and obnoxious telephone calls to him; (5) tapped his telephone and eavesdropped, by means of mechanical and electronic equipment, on his private conversations with others; and (6) conducted a 'continuing' and harassing investigation of him."[12] Wow I had no idea, that's kind of scary how far they went. Wasn't there something similar recently with a Nissan harassment campaign? Is this behavior somehow specific to automakers or are they just the only ones we hear about engaging in it?
- dylan604 5y ago
  > Is this behavior somehow specific to automakers or are they just the only ones we hear about engaging in it? No. Not unique at all. Just usually the people complaining about come off as consipiracy nuts. That's because the campaings are that effective. Great, now I sound like one of those people.
  - throwaway946513 5y ago
    Not only that, but in a similar case, see the McDonald's Coffee Scandal[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    What GM did to Nader ~50 years ago is nothing compared to what Chevron did to Steven Donziger recently: https://www.democracynow.org/2021/10/27/steven_donziger_judicial_harassment_from_chevron https://www.democracynow.org/2021/10/27/steven_donziger_judi...
    - 5y ago
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
In hundreds of years archeologists will unearth these comment threads and think that this stuff is our religion. Edit: Just pop into the air quality thread if you want to see some other examples. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188877. Everyone going through the same motions as usual, beating the same old dead trope horses. Reminds me a lot of a religious service with all its tradition.
- oaktrout 5y ago
  Are you a bot?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    From the karma level, I would guess, no. (The comment did seem to be pretty irrelevant and out-there, though...)
Havoc 5y ago
Was expecting the US tendency to have different rules for tricks to feature
7373737373 5y ago
One day this book will be written about software and programming languages. Almost none of them were designed and developed with security in mind. Many popular ones originated in a pre-internet age, in trusting, cooperative (often academic) environments. Companies prefer to insure themselves against losses rather than supporting research, development and adoption of languages and standards in this area. And as long as security doesn't become easy and economically viable, the digital world will continue to be built on unsafe foundations.

83 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

So was the 1960 Corvair dangerous? I notice the engineers all say performs comparable to other cars, but not weather that was a good or bad thing. Four other dangerous models doesn't make one of the dangerous models less dangerous.

loeg 5y ago
More or less all 1960 cars are objectively dangerous compared with modern automobiles.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  Yes, and I would thank Ralph Nader for pushing the industry in the right direction. Arguably though, the pendulum may have swung too far to the point that cars sold in the U.S. are boxed in by the crash-test requirements. I have seen where, for example, small, efficient commuter vehicles are only viable in the U.S. if they are 3-wheeled since, curiously, they are considered "motorcycles" then and are therefore exempt from many safety requirements. Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"?
  - larrik 5y ago
    We have Smart cars, so it can't be that onerous.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      FWIW, the 2014 smart fortwo and smart forfour got 4/5 stars in Euro NCAP. It actually gets a better score than the 2017 Ford Mustang, where the safety rating for adult occupants is rated higher in the smart. https://youtu.be/iXUBU0eieLc https://youtu.be/iXUBU0eieLc doesn't look all that bad.
    - throaway46546 5y ago
      My friend had a Smart car and I was surprised to learn that it got about the same fuel efficiency as my 4 door Ford Focus. With a full cars I was getting over double the fuel efficiency per person and we were much more comfortable in my car. What's the point?
      - Hamuko 5y ago
        The smart fortwo is so small that you can feasibly "parallel" park the car by driving directly into it. And if you live in a densily packed city, the ability to squeeze your car into tiny spaces can be great. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Smart_parking.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Smart_pa...
        throaway46546 5y ago
        Still you think it would get better gas mileage than a Sedan.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"? Not for use on public roads because "people are stupid and need to be saved from themselves" or something along those lines.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      The occupants of a vehicle are also not necessarily the person who voluntarily purchased it.
  - throwaway946513 5y ago
    Not to forget the U.S. mentality that 'Bigger vehicle is better, and therefore safer'.
    - DnDGrognard 5y ago
      That's pretty common in other countries - there's loads of Chelsea tractors (SUVS and 4wd) used on the school run in the UK for the height and perceived safety.
  - sparsely 5y ago
    The biggest issue IMO is that the safety standards more or less only seem to account for the driver/passengers. The EU equivalent has a pedestrian safety rating, that would be a good start.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    The category for 4-wheeled vehicles with reduced safety requirements is the "kit car". IOW, you have to put it together yourself for it to qualify.
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      Interesting.
dylan604 5y ago
Dangerous? meh. They were fun as hell. I learned to drive in a 1964 Corvair 2-door convertable. My dad bought it brand new, drove it for a year, then put it in storage where it sat until I turned 15. The stories my dad would tell me about the things they would do tinkering with them were pretty out there. He wound up putting cement bags in the trunk to keep the front end down when he would hit certain speeds. Got pulled over racing a GTO, and winning, but the cop gave no tickets. He was just interested in seeing what was done to the Corvair that it was out running a GTO. Oh the 60s!
technothrasher 5y ago
I've never driven a Corvair, but I've owned a 1965 Triumph Spitfire that has a very similar transverse leaf spring swing axle rear suspension setup. Most of the time its fine, but when pushing the car, the setup definitely could cause snap oversteer that, if you're not expecting it, could be dangerous. But its not like other suspension setups can't do the same thing, and the addition of a camber compensator makes the issue pretty much go away.
khudgins 5y ago
I own and drive a 1960 Corvair. Most Corvair fans will tell you it's not any more dangerous than any other 1960 car if you set it up right. (I'll elaborate later) The manual tells you specific tire pressures to run: 22psi in front, 32psi in back. That differential tire pressure is critical to compensate for the swingaxles and rear weight. The problem was that this spec is different from other cars people were used to, and like today, no one read the manual. Especially mechanics. So you'd take it to a shop for something, they'd notice your front tires were a little low, and "fill" them up with air for you. And you didn't know. I think there's some willful misinformation on both sides of this argument. There's a lawsuit between Chevrolet and National Highway Traffic Safety Admin that resolved in 1972 (3 years after the last Corvair was made) that settled saying that the 1963 Corvair (the one being tested) wasn't any worse than other small cars at the time. Early Corvairs, however, have more and more safety features added in over the years. There's an early 1960 (mine) and a later 1960 model, and there were significant suspension changes between 1961, '62, '63, and '64. After that, the Corvair had a full redesign and was honestly a different car (still rear-engined, air cooled, unibody, but a different model). Each model year for early Corvairs the car was refined and made much better, so that '64s are really nice, pretty damn safe cars for the era. I suspect the '60 definitely has some rollover issues if you drive it hard. "Spirited driving" was the term they used back in the day. I don't - I baby mine and keep it slow and easy. I'm not great with driving a manual yet anyway.

CobaltFire 5y ago

For anyone not familiar with it: The 1960 Corvair suspension design (swing axle) is shared with many older European cars, the most popular being the VW Beetle (with which it also shared the rear engine position). It was no more unsafe than most other cars on the road, and Nader is generally considered to be incorrect on this specific point in the book. I can't speak to the rest, as that is the point that I'm most familiar with. Also, the second generation Corvair is one of the most beautiful cars ever built IMO [0], and shares it's suspension design with the Corvette (unequal A-Arms at all four corners). Interestingly it's design study is what was used to do the first generation Camaro/Firebird as GM had nothing ready to compete with the Mustang. To get even more interesting about the Corvair (I grew up around someone who had 12+ of them...): the engine is one of only three families that spins "backwards": The Corvair, The Renault (correction from comment: Citroën!) 2CV, and the Honda D/B/H series. This was due to the transmission being a standard GM transmission thrown in a different case with the rearend attached, and a jackshaft going back to the engine, making the reverse rotation necessary. A couple of people have actually installed Honda B series engines on these [1], which surprisingly works quite well on the old transmission since they make little torque and rev very high. It's also why there were kits to put a V8 in the back seat by removing the jackshaft and mounting it to the normal GM transmission input. [0]: https://www.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/21/2012/03/hrdp-1202-1966-chevrolet-corvair-monza-the-corvin8er-000.jpg?fit=around%7C1000:625 https://www.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/21/2012/03/hrdp-1202-19... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t493sSD-V80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t493sSD-V80

Svip 5y ago
> The Renault 2CV Do you mean the Citroën 2CV or the Renault 4CV? I assume the former, because I recall something about the reverse spinning of its engine.
- CobaltFire 5y ago
  Wow, you are absolutely right. I'll edit the comment if that's alright!
jaclaz 5y ago
>... the engine is one of only three families that spins "backwards" ... Yes and no, I believe there are more than three, here is a fourth one: The FIAT 100 engine[0] (in it's latest incarnation actually 903 cc that was derived from the original FIAT 600 was originally 600, then 750 and 850) was rear mounted on the 850[1] (and was spinning in one direction) the following series of cars (FIAT 127 [2], Autobianchi A112[3]) used the same engine but front mounted and it was spinning in the opposite direction). But most probably there are more examples in lesser known brands around the time they all moved from rear wheel traction to front wheel (roughly end of '60's begin of '70's). [0] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motore_FIAT_100 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motore_FIAT_100 [1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_850 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_850 [2] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_127 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_127 [3] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobianchi_A112 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobianchi_A112

yissp 5y ago

This video of a crash test between a 2009 Chevy Malibu and 1959 Bel Air is a good illustration of the improvements that have been made in car safety https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

hannasanarion 5y ago
There is still much to be improved. US crash safety tests only use dummies in the size and shape of adult males. Crash safety for women and children is not tested. Safety for other road users: other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, is also completely unconsidered in US testing, directly contributing to the trends of wall-frontend pickups and SUVs that are now often deliberately designed and advertised for their ability to cause harm.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  > now often deliberately designed and advertised for their ability to cause harm. Whattttt? Can you provide some examples?
  - hannasanarion 5y ago
    "What do you get when you have a 603 horsepower v8 bi-turbo engine? You get the fuck out of the way" - footage of pedestrian running in fear from the car being advertised That's the only example from this article [1] that I had saved for containing a list of egregious examples of aggressively dangerous car advertisements that is still online. The dangers of relying on youtube embeds of the things you wish to criticize. 1. https://archive.curbed.com/2020/1/31/21115593/super-bowl-worst-car-ads https://archive.curbed.com/2020/1/31/21115593/super-bowl-wor...
    - sdoering 5y ago
      This ad was a oh my WTF moment. This would never fly in Germany. Oh hey, wait. Were does this company originate? I was absolutely blown away by this.

frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago

>In response to Nader's criticisms, GM attempted to sabotage Nader's reputation. It "(1) conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances of the plaintiff, 'questioning them about, and casting aspersions upon [his] political, social, racial and religious views; his integrity; his sexual proclivities and inclinations; and his personal habits'; (2) kept him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time; (3) caused him to be accosted by girls for the purpose of entrapping him into illicit relationships; (4) made threatening, harassing and obnoxious telephone calls to him; (5) tapped his telephone and eavesdropped, by means of mechanical and electronic equipment, on his private conversations with others; and (6) conducted a 'continuing' and harassing investigation of him."[12] Wow I had no idea, that's kind of scary how far they went. Wasn't there something similar recently with a Nissan harassment campaign? Is this behavior somehow specific to automakers or are they just the only ones we hear about engaging in it?

dylan604 5y ago
> Is this behavior somehow specific to automakers or are they just the only ones we hear about engaging in it? No. Not unique at all. Just usually the people complaining about come off as consipiracy nuts. That's because the campaings are that effective. Great, now I sound like one of those people.
- throwaway946513 5y ago
  Not only that, but in a similar case, see the McDonald's Coffee Scandal[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  What GM did to Nader ~50 years ago is nothing compared to what Chevron did to Steven Donziger recently: https://www.democracynow.org/2021/10/27/steven_donziger_judicial_harassment_from_chevron https://www.democracynow.org/2021/10/27/steven_donziger_judi...
  - 5y ago

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

In hundreds of years archeologists will unearth these comment threads and think that this stuff is our religion. Edit: Just pop into the air quality thread if you want to see some other examples. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188877. Everyone going through the same motions as usual, beating the same old dead trope horses. Reminds me a lot of a religious service with all its tradition.

oaktrout 5y ago
Are you a bot?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  From the karma level, I would guess, no. (The comment did seem to be pretty irrelevant and out-there, though...)

Havoc 5y ago

Was expecting the US tendency to have different rules for tricks to feature

7373737373 5y ago

One day this book will be written about software and programming languages. Almost none of them were designed and developed with security in mind. Many popular ones originated in a pre-internet age, in trusting, cooperative (often academic) environments. Companies prefer to insure themselves against losses rather than supporting research, development and adoption of languages and standards in this area. And as long as security doesn't become easy and economically viable, the digital world will continue to be built on unsafe foundations.