6 ms·

Would you be willing to pay millions for your car to make it safer? The pope has bullet proof glass, different body materials can protect your life. How would

• gottorf 3y ago
  Yeah, everything is a tradeoff that should have a coherent risk-benefit analysis attached to it. "X at all costs" isn't realistic.
  • wutwutwat 3y ago
    Never said "X at all costs" but thanks for trying to speak for me. Going forward, please note that my preference is to speak for myself, as should you.
    • gottorf 3y ago
      I'm not sure why you took such offense; it's a reasonable interpretation of the words you spoke for yourself: > there is no such thing as excessive "playing it safe" As you noted in your other comment: > I'm asking them to "play it safe" when developing components for the car so the car doesn't kill me while I'm in the car. As in the old adage in computing ("the only unhackable computer is one that isn't connected to anything"), there's no way to ensure that the components of a car don't fail, even while in routine use. There is only more or less likely that they won't fail, and of course, less and less likely to fail is more and more expensive. We might say that the only uncrashable car is one that sits in the garage and never goes anywhere. Obviously, that would be playing it safe excessively, since it would defeat the purpose of having a car to begin with. But what about less obvious cases? Toyota recalled millions of cars for their "unintended acceleration" issue. The merits of that particular case aside, how much more would someone pay for a Corolla that would be progressively less likely to have safety issues? At some point before infinity, it would be considered excessive. I think the sliding scale of how safe is playing it too safe is a discussion very much worth having.
• Spivak 3y ago
  Yes, I just don't want to pay all of it myself. I just want to pay the marginal cost of making it. Let the automaker invest said millions (really billions over all the individual components) into the design and manufacture.
• wutwutwat 3y ago
  R&D is already baked into the final price of everything we buy so that has no argument. And the bullet proof glass thing I shouldn't even respond to because of the ridiculous extreme you've had to go to, trying to argue against me saying the companies should play it safe, but I'll reply this one time. I'm not asking the car company to protect me from an assassin's bullets. That is not something they control. I'm asking them to "play it safe" when developing components for the car so the car doesn't kill me while I'm in the car. They are responsible for their domain and are not producing armored vehicles for war time. So ridiculous lol
  • shiroiuma 3y ago
    If you live in the US, getting shot while driving (or at school, or at work) at is something that happens from time to time, so if you value safety, you really do need armor and bullet-resistant glass on your car to drive in America.
    • wutwutwat 3y ago
      So edgy
      • shiroiuma 3y ago
        Are you denying that there's more guns than people in the US, or that tens of thousands of people are killed by guns there every year? Strange how Americans are so in denial of the war-like state of their country and daily life in it.
        • wutwutwat 3y ago
          Where did I deny anything? I called the comment edgy. I was stating my opinion regarding the edginess of the parent comment. My opinion, on the comment I replied to, was that it was edgy. That was my conclusion, regarding my opinion, on the topic of the parent comment. Strange how HNs assume what country others reside in and apply their opinions, projecting them even, onto anything possible, whether or not the thing they are applying them to is at all related to what they reply with, and how they like to put words into the mouths of others with absolutely zero context to be able to make such assumptions, and are in denial about the ignorant-like state of their psyche and daily life as an idiot.