7 ms·

'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

37 points by rntn 1y ago

mattmaroon 1y ago
“ "Safety today is a luxury," writes Giugiaro. "Those who can afford a new car have a better chance of making it home alive." Well, on the plus side, today’s luxury car features are tomorrow’s standard ones. I remember getting my first Lexus in 2006 and being wowed by the backup camera, they were new and only in luxury cars. Now every car has one. It sounds deeply unfair that those with money are safer than those without, but if the benefits really do (for lack of a better phrase) trickle down we’re all better off in the long run.
- schneems 1y ago
  Not all auto makers just up and decided backup camera are now a standard feature. Rather: it’s a regulation put in place by Congress. To assume that cars will continue getting the same level of steady safety updates also assumes that the regulatory environment of the next 20 years looks like the last 20 years. As opposed to a regulatory environment that looks like the last 20 months.
  - mattmaroon 1y ago
    It was becoming a standard on even low end cars before the mandate but you could pick any number of features that weren’t mandated that fit the same pattern.
    - schneems 1y ago
      It’s good that the industry does the right thing sometimes. It’s also good to have strong consumer protections when they don’t do the right thing. The bill that required backup cameras came out in 2008 but didn’t fully go into effect until 2018 in order to give carmakers time. (At least) Some of what you’ve attributed to “becoming a standard” is due in part to automakers anticipating the regulation and another part of it being social norms as more and more cars have them so consumers ask for them. I bought a car circa 2009-2010 as did a bunch of my friends (graduated college in 2008). We bought some of the most popular cars of the day, and zero of them had backup cameras. I appreciate what you’re saying, that companies do things due to norms and markets (demand). I’m suggesting they also do things due to laws and architecture (Lessig, Code 2.0) and that we cannot rely on only one of the four to protect ourselves.
      - mattmaroon 1y ago
        Sure but if a luxury car is safer than any other car it’s not because it was regulated to be. The laws don’t discriminate. It’s because they have to sell higher priced cars by making appealing features and that includes safety. And then the features make their way to the lower end cars. So having a market where rich people can buy greater safety in the end gives greater safety to everyone.
        schneems 1y ago
        > Sure but if a luxury car is safer than any other car it’s not because it was regulated to be. "Sure but" but what? I see zero people commenting on an article titled "Safety Today is a Luxury" arguing that the only reason luxury cars are safer is due to regulation. >So having a market where rich people can buy greater safety in the end gives greater safety to everyone. I think this is a great pipeline, and and it's worked really well when it's been coupled with a followup: strong consumer protection regulations that make sure the best features are in all the cars.
cyb0rg1 1y ago
[flagged]
jetrink 1y ago
I understand the point he's making: New cars are much safer than old cars, and the average person is driving a car that is 12 years old, while new cars are bought primarily by the wealthy. However, that seems like a natural consequence of two things that are very good for everyone. First, cars are lasting much longer than they used to, which lowers the lifetime cost of ownership. Second, cars have gotten much safer in the last fifteen years. As long as these trends continue, the safety gap will exist, but I think everyone would still prefer cars keep getting safer and more reliable.
- dfxm12 1y ago
  First, cars are lasting much longer than they used to I see cars on the road that are barely holding it together and probably wouldn't pass safety (or emissions) inspections if they were required to. The point is, there are other possibilities. First, safety features of older cars don't always work like new. Second, people might be driving old, unsafe, cars because it's all they can afford. Even in a recent trip to Italy, I was talking to someone complaining about this exact thing. This is not good.
- byw 1y ago
  I think it's a shame that we can't add new safety features into older cars. I feel like there's very little engineering reasons why we can't, and it's mostly regulatory hurdles, that removes any economic incentives to do so. I've recently read an article about what constitutes the right balance of regulations when it comes to aviation safety, and that while regulations have made modern planes extremely safe, overly stringent rules are also preventing planes from adopting modern safety features.
  - byw 1y ago
    On the flip side, I bought an used 08 Sprinter van over the previous, more reliable generation, mainly for the side airbags. It turned out the one I bought didn't have them. It was a $120 option, and most buyers opted out. A few years later they were made mandatory.
  - ozim 1y ago
analog31 1y ago
On the other hand, newer cars have gotten more dangerous for pedestrians. Safety is indeed a luxury.
- lifestyleguru 1y ago
  Roaming in my huge SUV in Sardinia, being lethal danger to pedestrians: https://www.corriere.it/cronache/25_luglio_11/vivian-spohr-ad-lufthansa-incidente-sardegna-16f75477-3daa-4096-9f70-b84c9873dxlk.shtml https://www.corriere.it/cronache/25_luglio_11/vivian-spohr-a... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/lufthansa-ceo-wife-accident-italy-family-b2788313.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/lufthansa-ceo-wife-...
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  Pedestrians walking around staring at their phones have made the streets less safe for pedestrians, as have drivers staring at their phones. IMO that phenomenon completely confounds any attempt at assessing real-world vehicle-pedestrian safety against older statistics.
  - lifestyleguru 1y ago
    What's even more dangerous for pedestrian is SUV driver staring at their phone.
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      Exactly. It also doesn't help that cars are harder to see out of these days.
  - caycep 1y ago
    Such a deference of responsibility. The world and the community should absolutely prioritize pedestrians. The driver operating a 5000 lb dangerous weapon should 100% be the responsible for the consequences.
    - deleted 1y ago
lifestyleguru 1y ago
"I'm a rich asshole and even when I almost kill myself that I'll remind you I'm rich and you are poor"
dinkblam 1y ago
> He considers himself "privileged" to be in as good shape as he is, and credits the modern luxury car he was driving for making it possible. perhaps if the "modern" car wasn't such a shitshow the accident wouldn't have happened in the first place
SilverElfin 1y ago
I don’t know about this. Lots of luxury safety features are standard in budget cars today. Even if not standard, the dealers mostly stock vehicles with safety packages. Hyundais I see come with lane keeping and radar cruise and surround cameras and blind spot monitors and automatic braking and other stuff. These have made driving MUCH safer. For drivers and others.
- throwawaylaptop 1y ago
  The point is, those features were available to people buying S classes 15 years ago. So not only were rich people safer for those 15 years, there's still a huge subset of people that even today drive old cheaper cars instead of buying the Hyundai that has it today. There's probably a 30 year safety difference between rich and poor.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    So what? Seems like a good thing safety is improving.
    - throwawaylaptop 1y ago
      Idk so what. We can go from there once we at least are talking about the same thing correctly, so I tried to correct the misconception by OP. One random idea... Instead of giving well off people $7500 to buy huge luxury electric cars that are safe, we give poor people trading in old unsafe cars (that they've owned for over 12 months) $7500 to buy a car with side airbags so they don't die as easily in accidents.
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
        Well the government does both. Also, the 7500 is so the rich people buy electric instead of gas. Also, 7500 seems too much for the risk reduction. How much is that per life, tens of millions? More?Seems terribly inefficient. You can save a life for $150 and most people don't want to. The government is actively moving in the opposite direction, defunding that as a waste of money.
decimalenough 1y ago
The headline is misleading. Yes, a new luxury car is safer than one from 15 years ago, but both are infinitely safer than a car from the 1970s where seatbelts didn't exist and the crumple zone for the steering wheel column was your chest.
- sheepscreek 1y ago
  That’s a great point - safety has been improving at an incredible pace over the years. The same argument could possibly be made when comparing a vehicle from 1960 with another from 1975. I wonder if some things got lost in translation.
- mikestew 1y ago
  Your point stands, but collapsible steering columns and seat belts have been mandated in the U. S. since the late '60s. At the same time, "luxury"? Even our 20 year old Scion has ABS and air bags. Okay, no lane keeping or collision avoidance, but I've got that on my (granted, top trim) Hyundai.
- tim333 1y ago
  Seat belts were compulsory equipment in cars from about 1966.
- dfxm12 1y ago
  What do you mean misleading? It is a direct quote.
  - decimalenough 1y ago
    The headline implies the situation "today" is somehow worse than it used to be, when this is manifestly not the case.
    - dfxm12 1y ago
      The headline implies Giorgetto Giugaro said something. If you infer something else, that's on you. It is important for media literacy to understand these distinctions.
throwaway22032 1y ago
Well, new things are generally more expensive than second hand and retrofitting older things is more expensive than doing nothing. So, water is wet. I would also argue that it isn’t necessarily true in the strictest way of thinking, because personally if I had infinite money and technicians to maintain things I’d have 70s-90s sports cars before everything got massive and wide and heavy. That’s way more expensive and luxurious than a new Model 3 or something.
mikestew 1y ago
He rolled his Defender off a cliff. Maybe he was trying to adjust the volume on the radio with the "luxury" touchscreen on his luxury car? (If I could find an easily-linked photo of that dashboard, I'd include it.)
- tonyedgecombe 1y ago
  It’s a Land Rover, he is lucky it didn’t burst into flames.
- daveguy 1y ago
  [0] https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_22MY_031_US?wid=480&fit=stretch%2C1 https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_22MY_031_US?wid=480... [1] https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_23MY_014_US?wid=480&fit=stretch%2C1 https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_23MY_014_US?wid=480... [2] https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_23MY_025_US?wid=480&fit=stretch%2C1 https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_23MY_025_US?wid=480...
  - mikestew 1y ago
    Thanks much! However...first one works, but I get "access denied" for [1] and [2] (and I have no idea if you control that or not).
    - daveguy 1y ago
      I don't, sorry. These are just images that I pulled off this site: https://www.landroverusa.com/vehicles/defender/interior-gallery.html https://www.landroverusa.com/vehicles/defender/interior-gall... (probably should have lead with that instead of just dropping direct links)
  - nimbius 1y ago
    Giugiaro lost control on a tight right-hand hairpin between Cala di Volpe and Romazzino. this sounds like a cautionary tale of why octogenarians should have their license revoked.
b3lvedere 1y ago
https://thedevilspanties.com/archives/16626 https://thedevilspanties.com/archives/16626
dzink 1y ago
He’s a car designer who designed a lot of famous cars in the past and now he appreciates the focus on safety in modern cars. What I appreciate is that most of the original push for safety was done to market cars to Moms. Including seat belts and other features. Another fun fact is that the safer cars become, the faster they are driven, causing more risks outside of the car than in it. In Bulgaria the newly wealthy really expensive car owners and their children have caused tremendous suffering by wrecking their vehicles into other people at high speed and killing more and more. That included severing a bus this last week, killing a journalist several years ago, and many in between. The world is pulled by the brilliant and dragged by the stupidity of its most arrogant.
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  He's something of a legend, for example he designed the delorean, which had the great safety feature of being very slow.
aussiegreenie 1y ago
Safety is not a luxury in Europe. Roads are designed to minimise the chances of an accident.
- YeGoblynQueenne 1y ago
  I take it you haven't driven in Greece?
schappim 1y ago
In the past, high-end safety always worked its way down. ABS, airbags, and backup cameras all started out as luxuries and became standard. The real question is whether this new wave of sensor-driven safety will do the same, or if the economics of software and subscriptions will freeze the gap in place.
deadbabe 1y ago
This is why it always make me so mad about people who cry about how big vehicles are getting and why can’t we have the tiny thin dangerous vehicles from like 30 years ago instead. Shut up. You’re just standing in the way of progress. Vehicles have to be bigger in order to be safer and more deformable, and they’re even safer for pedestrians. If they take up too much space on a road, build bigger roads. You cannot miniaturize automotive safety.
- lifestyleguru 1y ago
  > Vehicles have to be bigger in order to be safer I'm not a specialist but I'm pretty certain that's not why cars are getting bigger and bigger. "I'll pick this X5/Land Rover SUV so it deforms easier when I hit a pedestrian" thought no one ever.
- BLKNSLVR 1y ago
  No sure if sarcasm...

37 points by rntn 1y ago

“ "Safety today is a luxury," writes Giugiaro. "Those who can afford a new car have a better chance of making it home alive." Well, on the plus side, today’s luxury car features are tomorrow’s standard ones. I remember getting my first Lexus in 2006 and being wowed by the backup camera, they were new and only in luxury cars. Now every car has one. It sounds deeply unfair that those with money are safer than those without, but if the benefits really do (for lack of a better phrase) trickle down we’re all better off in the long run.

schneems 1y ago
Not all auto makers just up and decided backup camera are now a standard feature. Rather: it’s a regulation put in place by Congress. To assume that cars will continue getting the same level of steady safety updates also assumes that the regulatory environment of the next 20 years looks like the last 20 years. As opposed to a regulatory environment that looks like the last 20 months.
- mattmaroon 1y ago
  It was becoming a standard on even low end cars before the mandate but you could pick any number of features that weren’t mandated that fit the same pattern.
  - schneems 1y ago
    It’s good that the industry does the right thing sometimes. It’s also good to have strong consumer protections when they don’t do the right thing. The bill that required backup cameras came out in 2008 but didn’t fully go into effect until 2018 in order to give carmakers time. (At least) Some of what you’ve attributed to “becoming a standard” is due in part to automakers anticipating the regulation and another part of it being social norms as more and more cars have them so consumers ask for them. I bought a car circa 2009-2010 as did a bunch of my friends (graduated college in 2008). We bought some of the most popular cars of the day, and zero of them had backup cameras. I appreciate what you’re saying, that companies do things due to norms and markets (demand). I’m suggesting they also do things due to laws and architecture (Lessig, Code 2.0) and that we cannot rely on only one of the four to protect ourselves.
    - mattmaroon 1y ago
      Sure but if a luxury car is safer than any other car it’s not because it was regulated to be. The laws don’t discriminate. It’s because they have to sell higher priced cars by making appealing features and that includes safety. And then the features make their way to the lower end cars. So having a market where rich people can buy greater safety in the end gives greater safety to everyone.
      - schneems 1y ago
        > Sure but if a luxury car is safer than any other car it’s not because it was regulated to be. "Sure but" but what? I see zero people commenting on an article titled "Safety Today is a Luxury" arguing that the only reason luxury cars are safer is due to regulation. >So having a market where rich people can buy greater safety in the end gives greater safety to everyone. I think this is a great pipeline, and and it's worked really well when it's been coupled with a followup: strong consumer protection regulations that make sure the best features are in all the cars.

cyb0rg1 1y ago

[flagged]

jetrink 1y ago

I understand the point he's making: New cars are much safer than old cars, and the average person is driving a car that is 12 years old, while new cars are bought primarily by the wealthy. However, that seems like a natural consequence of two things that are very good for everyone. First, cars are lasting much longer than they used to, which lowers the lifetime cost of ownership. Second, cars have gotten much safer in the last fifteen years. As long as these trends continue, the safety gap will exist, but I think everyone would still prefer cars keep getting safer and more reliable.

dfxm12 1y ago
First, cars are lasting much longer than they used to I see cars on the road that are barely holding it together and probably wouldn't pass safety (or emissions) inspections if they were required to. The point is, there are other possibilities. First, safety features of older cars don't always work like new. Second, people might be driving old, unsafe, cars because it's all they can afford. Even in a recent trip to Italy, I was talking to someone complaining about this exact thing. This is not good.
byw 1y ago
I think it's a shame that we can't add new safety features into older cars. I feel like there's very little engineering reasons why we can't, and it's mostly regulatory hurdles, that removes any economic incentives to do so. I've recently read an article about what constitutes the right balance of regulations when it comes to aviation safety, and that while regulations have made modern planes extremely safe, overly stringent rules are also preventing planes from adopting modern safety features.
- byw 1y ago
  On the flip side, I bought an used 08 Sprinter van over the previous, more reliable generation, mainly for the side airbags. It turned out the one I bought didn't have them. It was a $120 option, and most buyers opted out. A few years later they were made mandatory.
- ozim 1y ago

analog31 1y ago

On the other hand, newer cars have gotten more dangerous for pedestrians. Safety is indeed a luxury.

lifestyleguru 1y ago
Roaming in my huge SUV in Sardinia, being lethal danger to pedestrians: https://www.corriere.it/cronache/25_luglio_11/vivian-spohr-ad-lufthansa-incidente-sardegna-16f75477-3daa-4096-9f70-b84c9873dxlk.shtml https://www.corriere.it/cronache/25_luglio_11/vivian-spohr-a... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/lufthansa-ceo-wife-accident-italy-family-b2788313.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/lufthansa-ceo-wife-...
CamperBob2 1y ago
Pedestrians walking around staring at their phones have made the streets less safe for pedestrians, as have drivers staring at their phones. IMO that phenomenon completely confounds any attempt at assessing real-world vehicle-pedestrian safety against older statistics.
- lifestyleguru 1y ago
  What's even more dangerous for pedestrian is SUV driver staring at their phone.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    Exactly. It also doesn't help that cars are harder to see out of these days.
- caycep 1y ago
  Such a deference of responsibility. The world and the community should absolutely prioritize pedestrians. The driver operating a 5000 lb dangerous weapon should 100% be the responsible for the consequences.
  - deleted 1y ago

lifestyleguru 1y ago

"I'm a rich asshole and even when I almost kill myself that I'll remind you I'm rich and you are poor"

dinkblam 1y ago

> He considers himself "privileged" to be in as good shape as he is, and credits the modern luxury car he was driving for making it possible. perhaps if the "modern" car wasn't such a shitshow the accident wouldn't have happened in the first place

SilverElfin 1y ago

I don’t know about this. Lots of luxury safety features are standard in budget cars today. Even if not standard, the dealers mostly stock vehicles with safety packages. Hyundais I see come with lane keeping and radar cruise and surround cameras and blind spot monitors and automatic braking and other stuff. These have made driving MUCH safer. For drivers and others.

throwawaylaptop 1y ago
The point is, those features were available to people buying S classes 15 years ago. So not only were rich people safer for those 15 years, there's still a huge subset of people that even today drive old cheaper cars instead of buying the Hyundai that has it today. There's probably a 30 year safety difference between rich and poor.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  So what? Seems like a good thing safety is improving.
  - throwawaylaptop 1y ago
    Idk so what. We can go from there once we at least are talking about the same thing correctly, so I tried to correct the misconception by OP. One random idea... Instead of giving well off people $7500 to buy huge luxury electric cars that are safe, we give poor people trading in old unsafe cars (that they've owned for over 12 months) $7500 to buy a car with side airbags so they don't die as easily in accidents.
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      Well the government does both. Also, the 7500 is so the rich people buy electric instead of gas. Also, 7500 seems too much for the risk reduction. How much is that per life, tens of millions? More?Seems terribly inefficient. You can save a life for $150 and most people don't want to. The government is actively moving in the opposite direction, defunding that as a waste of money.

decimalenough 1y ago

The headline is misleading. Yes, a new luxury car is safer than one from 15 years ago, but both are infinitely safer than a car from the 1970s where seatbelts didn't exist and the crumple zone for the steering wheel column was your chest.

sheepscreek 1y ago
That’s a great point - safety has been improving at an incredible pace over the years. The same argument could possibly be made when comparing a vehicle from 1960 with another from 1975. I wonder if some things got lost in translation.
mikestew 1y ago
Your point stands, but collapsible steering columns and seat belts have been mandated in the U. S. since the late '60s. At the same time, "luxury"? Even our 20 year old Scion has ABS and air bags. Okay, no lane keeping or collision avoidance, but I've got that on my (granted, top trim) Hyundai.
tim333 1y ago
Seat belts were compulsory equipment in cars from about 1966.
dfxm12 1y ago
What do you mean misleading? It is a direct quote.
- decimalenough 1y ago
  The headline implies the situation "today" is somehow worse than it used to be, when this is manifestly not the case.
  - dfxm12 1y ago
    The headline implies Giorgetto Giugaro said something. If you infer something else, that's on you. It is important for media literacy to understand these distinctions.

throwaway22032 1y ago

Well, new things are generally more expensive than second hand and retrofitting older things is more expensive than doing nothing. So, water is wet. I would also argue that it isn’t necessarily true in the strictest way of thinking, because personally if I had infinite money and technicians to maintain things I’d have 70s-90s sports cars before everything got massive and wide and heavy. That’s way more expensive and luxurious than a new Model 3 or something.

mikestew 1y ago

He rolled his Defender off a cliff. Maybe he was trying to adjust the volume on the radio with the "luxury" touchscreen on his luxury car? (If I could find an easily-linked photo of that dashboard, I'd include it.)

tonyedgecombe 1y ago
It’s a Land Rover, he is lucky it didn’t burst into flames.
daveguy 1y ago
[0] https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_22MY_031_US?wid=480&fit=stretch%2C1 https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_22MY_031_US?wid=480... [1] https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_23MY_014_US?wid=480&fit=stretch%2C1 https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_23MY_014_US?wid=480... [2] https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_23MY_025_US?wid=480&fit=stretch%2C1 https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_23MY_025_US?wid=480...
- mikestew 1y ago
  Thanks much! However...first one works, but I get "access denied" for [1] and [2] (and I have no idea if you control that or not).
  - daveguy 1y ago
    I don't, sorry. These are just images that I pulled off this site: https://www.landroverusa.com/vehicles/defender/interior-gallery.html https://www.landroverusa.com/vehicles/defender/interior-gall... (probably should have lead with that instead of just dropping direct links)
- nimbius 1y ago
  Giugiaro lost control on a tight right-hand hairpin between Cala di Volpe and Romazzino. this sounds like a cautionary tale of why octogenarians should have their license revoked.

b3lvedere 1y ago

https://thedevilspanties.com/archives/16626 https://thedevilspanties.com/archives/16626

dzink 1y ago

He’s a car designer who designed a lot of famous cars in the past and now he appreciates the focus on safety in modern cars. What I appreciate is that most of the original push for safety was done to market cars to Moms. Including seat belts and other features. Another fun fact is that the safer cars become, the faster they are driven, causing more risks outside of the car than in it. In Bulgaria the newly wealthy really expensive car owners and their children have caused tremendous suffering by wrecking their vehicles into other people at high speed and killing more and more. That included severing a bus this last week, killing a journalist several years ago, and many in between. The world is pulled by the brilliant and dragged by the stupidity of its most arrogant.

FridayoLeary 1y ago
He's something of a legend, for example he designed the delorean, which had the great safety feature of being very slow.

aussiegreenie 1y ago

Safety is not a luxury in Europe. Roads are designed to minimise the chances of an accident.

YeGoblynQueenne 1y ago
I take it you haven't driven in Greece?

schappim 1y ago

In the past, high-end safety always worked its way down. ABS, airbags, and backup cameras all started out as luxuries and became standard. The real question is whether this new wave of sensor-driven safety will do the same, or if the economics of software and subscriptions will freeze the gap in place.

deadbabe 1y ago

This is why it always make me so mad about people who cry about how big vehicles are getting and why can’t we have the tiny thin dangerous vehicles from like 30 years ago instead. Shut up. You’re just standing in the way of progress. Vehicles have to be bigger in order to be safer and more deformable, and they’re even safer for pedestrians. If they take up too much space on a road, build bigger roads. You cannot miniaturize automotive safety.

lifestyleguru 1y ago
> Vehicles have to be bigger in order to be safer I'm not a specialist but I'm pretty certain that's not why cars are getting bigger and bigger. "I'll pick this X5/Land Rover SUV so it deforms easier when I hit a pedestrian" thought no one ever.
BLKNSLVR 1y ago
No sure if sarcasm...