3 ms·
Pedestrian safety, because it's a benefit to society and not the specific owner of the car, should be handled by regulations and government tests. I don't want
by typewithrhythm 2y ago
Pedestrian safety, because it's a benefit to society and not the specific owner of the car, should be handled by regulations and government tests.
I don't want the independent kinds of safety rating, like what's included in the article to include anything other than what benefits the purchaser of the car.
I am in an adjacent industry where it's getting increasingly common to hear that these ratings are becoming less trustworthy, and part of it is they include points for gadgets and things seen as irrelevant to the end user.
- wtallis 2y ago> I don't want the independent kinds of safety rating, like what's included in the article to include anything other than what benefits the purchaser of the car. You may not want independent safety ratings to take pedestrians into account, but your insurance company may have other ideas, since pedestrian safety matters to their bottom line. Whose interests do you think matter more to an entity like IIHS?
- typewithrhythm 2y agoThe problem is one of how to create something that purchasers trust, and you can only do that by creating a rating that addresses the desires of whoever is making the purchasing decisions. I want to avoid a case where people return to "just buy the biggest x, x make safe cars".
- wtallis 2y agoIf a consumer is unwilling to trust safety ratings because the consumer doesn't care about pedestrian safety, the problem is not that the safety ratings don't match the consumer's priorities, the problem is that the consumer's priorities are wrong. The consumer should care about pedestrian safety, and making pedestrian safety part of the safety ratings and using those ratings to determine insurance premiums is a reasonable way to give the consumer a financial incentive to care about pedestrian safety.