> Why would you assume private insurance wouldnt also price their policies based on how safe a train is, what the risk is that it crashes, etc.? I don't assume

> Why would you assume private insurance wouldnt also price their policies based on how safe a train is, what the risk is that it crashes, etc.? I don't assume this and I don't think I have even slightly implied that I do. It's obviously, trivially, verifiably false. Your mistake is in assuming that cost is the primary motivating factor for consumers^[1], and that corporations and their stakeholders won't favor paying higher insurance costs (and fines, etc.) today over paying even more toward safety improvements that won't break even wrt. insurance costs for many years. As I mentioned above, the observable state of the real world explicitly disproves the claim that market forces will drive positive trends in safety outcomes. ^[1] Look how many huge, expensive pickup trucks are on the road in America today. Look at the monthly payments their owners are enduring to satisfy their vanity; look at their spotless paintjobs, empty beds (except perhaps the token equally spotless toolbox), and mud-free fenders.