4 ms·
Also: against pedestrians and cyclists. In fact, I'll argue that from a moral point of view it's more important to ensure the safety of people who choose to no
by Beltalowda 4y ago
Also: against pedestrians and cyclists.
In fact, I'll argue that from a moral point of view it's more important to ensure the safety of people who choose to not operate a vehicle vs. those that did. Both are important of course, but this would be correct priorities. In reality the priorities are of course rather different.
- dont__panic 4y agoAgreed. The larger and larger vehicles of today are so much more dangerous for pedestrians, but they make me wonder: has any country ever prioritized pedestrian safety in car design? Feels like the sort of thing that manufacturers ought to do, but I'm not aware of it ever happening. Maybe there are regulators I don't know about who oversee this?
- necovek 4y agoEuropean tests specifically test for pedestrian collisions: this is why we've got softer, crumpling bonnets and bumpers in newer cars, for instance. I would be surprised if other test agencies like the US one did not do the same. Cyclists are definitely harder because they are similarly unprotected human bodies travelling at higher speeds and with more chances of different collisions (i.e. it's very rare for a pedestrian to hit a car on the side, whereas I am guessing that's more likely for a cyclist). In general, I would give equal priority to testing for everyone, iow, prioritise by the numbers getting injured/killed. Btw, cyclists also make a choice of operating a vehicle (motorcyclists are similarly vulnerable because the characters of their vehicles are similar).