6 ms·

I wouldn’t want to pay 33% more for that extra increment of safety. I drive a car, after all.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 5y ago
The premium that you pay extra for the safety equipment in your car is likely more than 33%. We would have many new cars for 4-digit prices if not for the large number of safety systems required on cars.
- yes_really 5y ago
  He could pay a bit extra to reduce his commute from 30 minutes to 29 minutes. That would already be a reduction of death risk higher than the second staircase in the building.
- sgtnoodle 5y ago
  Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you, though, and carry along a vast amount of stored energy. Buildings are designed to stand still and generally not be flammable. The expected value calculations are seemingly quite a bit different.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    > Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you And buildings in North America are often framed out of the same material that they burn in their fireplaces. Both present inherent dangers. Both have widespread safety regulations for this reason. Vehicle accidents are the 2nd leading cause of accidental death in the US and fires are 6th. And this is the result of many decades of both being highly regulated.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. People still die in scary numbers there no matter the regulations. Cars can't be made safer anymore. 60Mphs frontal collisions have single digit percentage survivability chance because physics. Homes can be made much safer by building them differently.
      - Turing_Machine 5y ago
        > And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. A lot of those people live in seismically active areas. While modern masonry construction is certainly safer than traditional masonry, in general wood is far less dangerous than stone or brick in an earthquake.
        baybal2 5y ago
        And steel, or reinforced concrete are safer than both.
        Turing_Machine 5y ago
        Where in the world are single-family homes typically made of steel or reinforced concrete? Note: not apartments. Houses.
        baybal2 5y ago
        Quite a lot in Russia, China, and Middle East from my personal experience.
        Turing_Machine 5y ago
        Those aren't exactly the locations that come to mind when you think of "luxury housing". I mean, I don't think people are living in those houses by choice, do you? Steel and concrete are ugly and cold. Wood is warm. Even brick and stone are more humane.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you It's not the speed that kills you, it's the impact. Multifloor buildings are designed to help you live and work at a height that can kill you, and to prevent air entering and escaping which can kill you. If you can assume that the risk of fire or collapse isn't worth mitigating against, why not assume that a car will never hit anything?
    - sgtnoodle 5y ago
      The risk of fire and collapse is mitigated to a large degree already. People are arguing about the relative utility of further mitigations. At least in the US, folk mostly build interior walls with sheetrock and their exterior walls with cement based composites. Bedrooms are legally required to have smoke detectors. Electrical and gas runs are supposed to be installed "to code". Tall buildings require engineering to make appropriately strong structures. Buildings don't completely burn down or collapse very often, especially compared to the frequency of serious car crashes.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

The premium that you pay extra for the safety equipment in your car is likely more than 33%. We would have many new cars for 4-digit prices if not for the large number of safety systems required on cars.

yes_really 5y ago
He could pay a bit extra to reduce his commute from 30 minutes to 29 minutes. That would already be a reduction of death risk higher than the second staircase in the building.
sgtnoodle 5y ago
Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you, though, and carry along a vast amount of stored energy. Buildings are designed to stand still and generally not be flammable. The expected value calculations are seemingly quite a bit different.
- kube-system 5y ago
  > Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you And buildings in North America are often framed out of the same material that they burn in their fireplaces. Both present inherent dangers. Both have widespread safety regulations for this reason. Vehicle accidents are the 2nd leading cause of accidental death in the US and fires are 6th. And this is the result of many decades of both being highly regulated.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. People still die in scary numbers there no matter the regulations. Cars can't be made safer anymore. 60Mphs frontal collisions have single digit percentage survivability chance because physics. Homes can be made much safer by building them differently.
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      > And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. A lot of those people live in seismically active areas. While modern masonry construction is certainly safer than traditional masonry, in general wood is far less dangerous than stone or brick in an earthquake.
      - baybal2 5y ago
        And steel, or reinforced concrete are safer than both.
        Turing_Machine 5y ago
        Where in the world are single-family homes typically made of steel or reinforced concrete? Note: not apartments. Houses.
        baybal2 5y ago
        Quite a lot in Russia, China, and Middle East from my personal experience.
        Turing_Machine 5y ago
        Those aren't exactly the locations that come to mind when you think of "luxury housing". I mean, I don't think people are living in those houses by choice, do you? Steel and concrete are ugly and cold. Wood is warm. Even brick and stone are more humane.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you It's not the speed that kills you, it's the impact. Multifloor buildings are designed to help you live and work at a height that can kill you, and to prevent air entering and escaping which can kill you. If you can assume that the risk of fire or collapse isn't worth mitigating against, why not assume that a car will never hit anything?
  - sgtnoodle 5y ago
    The risk of fire and collapse is mitigated to a large degree already. People are arguing about the relative utility of further mitigations. At least in the US, folk mostly build interior walls with sheetrock and their exterior walls with cement based composites. Bedrooms are legally required to have smoke detectors. Electrical and gas runs are supposed to be installed "to code". Tall buildings require engineering to make appropriately strong structures. Buildings don't completely burn down or collapse very often, especially compared to the frequency of serious car crashes.