5 ms·
True. Nor does any other manufacturer of cars nor toys nor paint nor cosmetics nor AI software nor canned foods.... Consumers and victims care about safety. Re
by xbar 2y ago
True. Nor does any other manufacturer of cars nor toys nor paint nor cosmetics nor AI software nor canned foods....
Consumers and victims care about safety. Regulation is the only reason safety exists.
- borski 2y agoLucid and Volvo both care very much about safety. Safety is core to both their brands, and part of what they’ve built them on.
- zie 2y agoVolvo in the past absolutely cared, future Volvo it's still unknown(they have a new owner and their position is unknown last I checked).
- InsideOutSanta 2y agoVolvo is majority-owned by Geely, a car brand that is definitely not known for safety.
- zie 2y agoI meant Volvo’s position under the new ownership. It’s possible Geely enforces Volvo to care as much as they care. It’s also possible they let Volvo be Volvo around safety and have some other way to juice the returns and make them a bunch of money from the purchase. Time will tell.
- InsideOutSanta 2y agoI think Volvo is a good example for why most companies don't care about safety any more than the law and basic PR requires: the market does not reward companies that try to use safety as a selling point. Volvo is the only major car company that consistently manufactures cars that widely exceed legal safety requirements, but have a global market share of less than half a percent. That's probably about the number of people who take safety into consideration as a major factor when making purchasing decisions.
- me_me_me 2y agoThats a bit weird take given that safety standards are increasing year on year. Crash tests from 2000 are way stricter today. So they all force the manufactures to fight for 5 stars
- InsideOutSanta 2y agoI'm not sure how what you said disagrees with what I said?
- constantcrying 2y ago>the market does not reward companies that try to use safety as a selling point. But it absolutely does punish companies whose products are shown to be dangerous. >Volvo is the only major car company that consistently manufactures cars that widely exceed legal safety requirements Exceeding safety standards can easily be a negative. Their cars will be more expensive than similar ones. Also, do the Chinese care at all? Or are you just talking about the past?
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago"Exceeding safety standards can easily be a negative. Their cars will be more expensive than similar ones." That's exactly my point.
- constantcrying 2y agoVolvo is a (mostly) made in China brand of a large Chinese automotive company. If in the past safety conscious swedish engineers cared about it, they surely have very little say right now. Lucid has a sample size too small to evaluate. What matters for safety is precisely one thing. Does the company culture, meaning the engineers on the ground, view it as a goal by itself or a list of checkboxes you need to tick.
- borski 2y agoI agree, except that Lucid’s small sample size has achieved the only complete 5-star rating on every test on their one vehicle; this can’t happen unless, as you say, the engineers on the ground view it as a goal by itself. The only other company that has done this, to my knowledge, is Volvo.
- constantcrying 2y ago>this can’t happen unless, as you say, the engineers on the ground view it as a goal by itself. Obviously it can. Cars are engineered to satisfy specific test, which are well known in advance. You can always engineer cars to satisfy them. Crash tests aren't everything though and I mention sample size because issues might only reveal themselves after a prolonged period in a few cars. E.g. a defect on a very important component, which only occurs after some years in a few circumstances is an obvious safety issue which Lucids could not have proven themselves against. I say this not as particular slight against Lucid, but because safety is more than satisfying tests. Often safety is where you are doing things which aren't tested at all. >The only other company that has done this, to my knowledge, is Volvo. Looking at the Euro NCAP is the VW ID.7 Tourer is also getting pretty decent marks.
- sangnoir 2y ago> If in the past safety conscious swedish engineers cared about it, they surely have very little say right now Subsidiaries can have a different culture from their parent organizations. Volvo still has engineers and designers in Sweden, and Tata owns Land Rover and Jaguar, which seem to be doing okay safety wise and don't appear to be obviously cutting corners like the Vinfast project. I have seen no evidence of a decline in Volvo's safety record, the "but surely Geely doesn't care." argument is a reverse appeal-to-authority, in the absence of evidence. It is entirely possible that Geely (and Tata) may have poor safety cultures, but their foreign subsidiaries do a much better job.
- herbturbo 2y agoYou are wrong about cars. There are many automakers who absolutely care about safety, particularly in Germany, where even the slightest possibility of safety concerns can end an initiative. Not everyone is following the China model.
- mmooss 2y agoDisregard for the public long predates modern Chinese business, and in the OP has nothing to do with China.
- brookst 2y agoWay too extreme. Seeing the world in such manicheanist terms is not healthy. All companies care about safety, to varying degrees and for a mix of reasons ranging from PR to regulatory burden to the fact the CEO uses the product. Many don’t care enough by my subjective standards, but it’s silly and childish to say no company cares even the tiniest bit about safety in any context.
- fazeirony 2y agoi'm sorry but > All companies care about safety is naive at best. yes, all companies care about safety...after profits we've structured corporations that this is the main driver, full stop. as an example, earlier in my career i worked in aviation test equipment. for commercial and govt't agencies. let's just say i avoid flying anywhere at all costs now if i can. why? because, as always, safety is secondary to profits (and most of the time, you hope it is secondary and not ternary or worse). and this was in a 'highly regulated' industry.
- brookst 2y agoMeh — you’re getting into mind reading. Safety and profits are related. If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain, have at it. That hasn’t been my experience.
- aguaviva 2y agoSafety and profits are related. Except the relationship is not strong enough to compel companies to always do the right thing (or even to do so adequately often). Especially when they perceive that the market will let them get away with it. For example when negative impacts are scheduled to occur far into the future (or in the present but affecting non-customers, or the environment). Or when they occur in the present, but (as with seatbelts before they were mandatory) the customers just don't perceive the risks. If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain The comment you initially chimed in on was definitely quite hyperbolic. But this take is also. Of course not "every" person working at a company needs to be ethically challenged for bad things to happen. All that's need are a few bad apples (whom we know are in no short supply) at approrpriate levels of responsibility. The rest will simply go along, to keep their jobs. You know that.
- EasyMark 2y agothat's why we have regulations and bureaucracies like NHTSA to report to. Probably better than reporting on reddit I would guess.
- constantcrying 2y agoCompanies care about: - Regulators. And caring about regulations means caring about safety. - Consumers. Who value safety a great deal. Being able to credibly signal the safety of your product is a huge factor in selling a car
- sangnoir 2y agoCounterpoint: safety can be a market differentiator. Volvo had seatbelts as standards before regulators mandated them. To this day, and leans heavily into safety. I can confidently say Volvo cares more about safety than Vinfast.