4 ms·

Hm. This seems odd to me - the system certainly costs some money to install, and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it. Why

by nagrom 14y ago

Hm. This seems odd to me - the system certainly costs some money to install, and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it. Why would the driver pay for this system if not forced to by a regulator? Does it result in lower insurance premiums? I understand that it is nice to drive a car that is more safe for other people in the case of an accident, but you can do that cheaper by driving more slowly and more carefully, surely? I would think that if you are the type of driver who cares enough about potentially injuring others to pay several hundred dollars for this safety system, you're not the kind of driver who is recklessly endangering other people's lives and thus requiring it. EDIT: I don't understand this being downvoted at all. I'm not saying it is a bad or pointless system. I'm saying that the people most likely to need it are not likely to pay for it! Is the solution to enforce usage by regulation, to reduce insurance premiums for cars that have this system fitted or something else?

xyzzyz 14y ago
Your post suffers from fundamental attribution error, where you assume that the driver who hits the pedestrian must be reckless and dangerous driver. For example, I am a very inexperienced driver, and while I try to be as careful as I possibly can, to the point where people sometimes ridicule me, I still probably have higher probability of causing accident in near future than some slightly reckless, but much more experienced drivers.
- nagrom 14y ago
  Hm. My point was that I cannot see that the people most likely to use this system are also the people most likely to pay for it. I don't deny that inexperienced careful drivers may be interested - but the majority of careful, inexperienced drivers do not drive brand new Volvo V40 cars, and the addition of a pedestrian safety system won't make them do so!
  - lprubin 14y ago
    Let's say I'm a rich Dad who has two children, ages 15 and 16 who will begin driving soon. I want them to be less neurotic when they're driving and minimize the chance that they'll have to experience the traumatic event of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian. Then this car/option might be very appealing to me. But on top of that, the reason this is on the frontpage of HN isn't because the system is installed in a Volvo V40. It's that this system is now a reality and might soon become part of standard safety systems. I personally had never heard of this system and think it's a fantastic idea. And news coverage and consumer interest/awareness could result in this system being installed in more and more cars.
    - nagrom 14y ago
      > Let's say I'm a rich Dad... And if we don't want to limit this option to a tiny segment of the population, how do we encourage its uptake for the millions of vehicles that are marketed on the basis of economy and not on protecting the psyches of teenage drivers who are being given, and not choosing, their own cars?
      - lprubin 14y ago
        Many many product features start out on the high end models and gradually trickle down to the other, economy units if the feature is popular enough. Look at I-Pod/External media jacks in cars. At first only the expensive cars had them. Now many new vehicles have them. There are countless examples of this. But it often starts with the high-end model, and if there is interest, then more production/installations are done and in the process cheaper production methods are often discovered/engineered.
        nagrom 14y ago
        Yes, but the vast majority of these benefit the purchaser immediately. This system doesn't. It seems (to me) to have limited potential for crossing over in the same way as audio jacks, heated seats, HUDs, parking sensors, active lighting, sat navs, etc. All of those systems can be demonstrated by the salesman to benefit the purchaser. This system doesn't have that. To sell it, you need to talk about protecting strangers - which strikes me as difficult. So how else can you encourage its uptake?
flexie 14y ago
The risk of hitting someone is one of the worst things about driving. I would gladly pay a bit to minimize the risk of killing someone.
- nagrom 14y ago
  Enough to sway you towards the Volvo at a cost of (guessing) $500? Would you not be better served to deliberately drive more slowly and carefully at points in journeys that are the riskiest and/or to go on an advanced driving awareness course?
  - flexie 14y ago
    I don't think it's either or. I think most people try to drive carefully but we make mistakes, and so do pedestrians. For those situations it would be nice with a reduced risk. Now, there are other reasons I wouldn't want to buy a Volvo but if this system works it might be installed in other cars as well :-)
    - nagrom 14y ago
      Well, I agree that it is a nice system and that safety systems that protect pedestrians are worthwhile. But millions of vehicles are marketed based on how economical they are. How do you spread the usage of such a system into those vehicles and convince an economy-minded purchaser to shell out the extra money to equip it?
jules 14y ago
> and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it. If you're a psychopath maybe.
- nagrom 14y ago
  No, not at all. The majority of drivers think that they are better than average and very few ever expect to be in a crash. Of course it is entirely likely that you wish that you would have fitted this system after the fact, but how many people are, given the option, willing to pay up front to fit it?
  - jules 14y ago
    Then why are normal airbags so popular? I understand that most people value their own life above that of others, but obviously people don't believe that they will not be in an accident (whether through their own fault or the fault of others). Therefore this: > and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it. Can only be true if you value the lives of others very low. There are plenty of people who do not value the lives of others very low, so there is most likely a market for this. Besides, even if you are purely selfish there are good reasons why you don't want to kill somebody in an accident.
    - nagrom 14y ago
      Interior airbags are mandated by regulation, you don't actually have a choice about it oftentimes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Regulatory_specifications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Regulatory_specification... Plenty of people value the lives of others very lowly - or, really, they just don't think about it. How often do you see people speed, run red lights, tailgate, etc? I don't think that I've ever taken a journey without seeing at least some of these behaviours. That doesn't make those drivers psychopaths! Just distracted, pressed for time or worrying about something else. In the same way, not fitting this system doesn't make you a bad person...maybe you just don't have the $500 (or however much it costs) to fit it as an optional extra. Just to be clear - I don't think this is a bad system. I'm curious how to go about marketing it to the average driver who is economically-minded. Does it have to be regulation, can it be insurance premiums, or is there some other mechanism to encourage uptake?
paddy_m 14y ago
The liability insurance rates for a car like this should be lower. Especially in a heavy populated area like NYC. Personal injury lawsuits are very expensive.
- nagrom 14y ago
  Best response to my comment so far :-) I would think that Volvo would look to work with insurers to show that the V40 should benefit from preferred premiums that payback the cost of this system in X years, based on some typical profile.
Gravityloss 14y ago
What about airbags protecting the driver? It'd be cheaper to just drive slower and not use any airbags whatsoever? Yet driver and passenger airbags have proliferated. I don't fully understand the thinking behind your question.
- nagrom 14y ago
  Driver and passenger airbags directly protect the purchaser, or the family of the purchaser. The purchaser cares specifically about these people and will be more likely to pay to increase their safety. In a sense, it's an easy sell. This system doesn't increase the safety of someone dear to the purchaser and therefore seems to be less attractive, unless there is some other compensation, e.g reduced insurance rates.
  - Gravityloss 14y ago
    But any normal person wouldn't want to hurt others if it's easily avoidable?
    - nagrom 14y ago
      Sure, but people are only limitedly altruistic (see the tragedy of the commons). If this system was free, then it should undoubtedly receive a huge uptake. But it's not free! So is there a way to encourage uptake without compulsion? Reduced insurance premiums could be one way. Are there others? Reduced car tax on vehicles with pedestrian-safety features installed?
bradleyland 14y ago
You're looking at the problem from only one perspective: injury. It is true that this system offers no protection from injury for occupants of the automobile, but any time you strike someone or something, there's the additional matter of liability. If a system like this is widely available, and it proves effective, then there will it will provide the benefit of reduced injury. Reduced injury means lower medical bills for the injured and lower settlement payouts. Insurance premiums are tightly modeled. Lower risk and incident costs mean lower rates. That's one potential benefit to the purchaser. You also have to consider regulation. Humans are poor judges of risk. There was a time not too long ago when consumers would choose "cheap" over "safe" if given a choice. I don't mean to say that consumers would walk in to a dealership and say, "Give me the cheapest car you have, safety be damned!" I mean to say that car manufacturers would say, "Oh yeah, of course it's safe," and consumers would take their claims at face value. That proved to be a poor choice. Enter government regulation. At some point, it became clear that automakers and consumers weren't going to make cars sufficiently safe on their own. The first steps in safety were things like mandatory fitment of seat belts, then compulsory wearing. Airbags followed, then ABS. Now we're seeing an increase in regulations related to pedestrian safety. There are already some pretty significant laws on the books in the EU related to pedestrian safety. Car and Driver, of course, takes the perspective of how this effects automobile design: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/taking-the-hit-how-pedestrian-protection-regs-make-cars-fatter-feature http://www.caranddriver.com/features/taking-the-hit-how-pede... Volvo has a pretty long history of pioneering safety systems that are later made compulsory by legislation. I suspect we may be seeing the same thing here.
- nagrom 14y ago
  Oh, I'm plentifully aware of the possibility of the possibility of regulation (see other comments). I guess, having debated this back and forth up and down the thread, my underlying question is: are there mechanisms other than insurance reductions and regulation to encourage the uptake of such a system?
  - dfxm12 14y ago
    What about branding/marketing? Volvos are known for their safety features. This certainly is an extension of that. It could be seen as a competitive advantage, regardless of its utility/impact on insurance premiums. If it is a competitive advantage, certainly other brands would want to catch up.
offdrey 14y ago
Could be for the personal pleasure of knowing that you drive a car that is safer for others. I think it's quite similar to people who drive hybrids because they pollute less.

by nagrom 14y ago

xyzzyz 14y ago

Your post suffers from fundamental attribution error, where you assume that the driver who hits the pedestrian must be reckless and dangerous driver. For example, I am a very inexperienced driver, and while I try to be as careful as I possibly can, to the point where people sometimes ridicule me, I still probably have higher probability of causing accident in near future than some slightly reckless, but much more experienced drivers.

nagrom 14y ago
Hm. My point was that I cannot see that the people most likely to use this system are also the people most likely to pay for it. I don't deny that inexperienced careful drivers may be interested - but the majority of careful, inexperienced drivers do not drive brand new Volvo V40 cars, and the addition of a pedestrian safety system won't make them do so!
- lprubin 14y ago
  Let's say I'm a rich Dad who has two children, ages 15 and 16 who will begin driving soon. I want them to be less neurotic when they're driving and minimize the chance that they'll have to experience the traumatic event of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian. Then this car/option might be very appealing to me. But on top of that, the reason this is on the frontpage of HN isn't because the system is installed in a Volvo V40. It's that this system is now a reality and might soon become part of standard safety systems. I personally had never heard of this system and think it's a fantastic idea. And news coverage and consumer interest/awareness could result in this system being installed in more and more cars.
  - nagrom 14y ago
    > Let's say I'm a rich Dad... And if we don't want to limit this option to a tiny segment of the population, how do we encourage its uptake for the millions of vehicles that are marketed on the basis of economy and not on protecting the psyches of teenage drivers who are being given, and not choosing, their own cars?
    - lprubin 14y ago
      Many many product features start out on the high end models and gradually trickle down to the other, economy units if the feature is popular enough. Look at I-Pod/External media jacks in cars. At first only the expensive cars had them. Now many new vehicles have them. There are countless examples of this. But it often starts with the high-end model, and if there is interest, then more production/installations are done and in the process cheaper production methods are often discovered/engineered.
      - nagrom 14y ago
        Yes, but the vast majority of these benefit the purchaser immediately. This system doesn't. It seems (to me) to have limited potential for crossing over in the same way as audio jacks, heated seats, HUDs, parking sensors, active lighting, sat navs, etc. All of those systems can be demonstrated by the salesman to benefit the purchaser. This system doesn't have that. To sell it, you need to talk about protecting strangers - which strikes me as difficult. So how else can you encourage its uptake?

flexie 14y ago

The risk of hitting someone is one of the worst things about driving. I would gladly pay a bit to minimize the risk of killing someone.

nagrom 14y ago
Enough to sway you towards the Volvo at a cost of (guessing) $500? Would you not be better served to deliberately drive more slowly and carefully at points in journeys that are the riskiest and/or to go on an advanced driving awareness course?
- flexie 14y ago
  I don't think it's either or. I think most people try to drive carefully but we make mistakes, and so do pedestrians. For those situations it would be nice with a reduced risk. Now, there are other reasons I wouldn't want to buy a Volvo but if this system works it might be installed in other cars as well :-)
  - nagrom 14y ago
    Well, I agree that it is a nice system and that safety systems that protect pedestrians are worthwhile. But millions of vehicles are marketed based on how economical they are. How do you spread the usage of such a system into those vehicles and convince an economy-minded purchaser to shell out the extra money to equip it?

jules 14y ago

> and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it. If you're a psychopath maybe.

nagrom 14y ago
No, not at all. The majority of drivers think that they are better than average and very few ever expect to be in a crash. Of course it is entirely likely that you wish that you would have fitted this system after the fact, but how many people are, given the option, willing to pay up front to fit it?
- jules 14y ago
  Then why are normal airbags so popular? I understand that most people value their own life above that of others, but obviously people don't believe that they will not be in an accident (whether through their own fault or the fault of others). Therefore this: > and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it. Can only be true if you value the lives of others very low. There are plenty of people who do not value the lives of others very low, so there is most likely a market for this. Besides, even if you are purely selfish there are good reasons why you don't want to kill somebody in an accident.
  - nagrom 14y ago
    Interior airbags are mandated by regulation, you don't actually have a choice about it oftentimes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Regulatory_specifications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Regulatory_specification... Plenty of people value the lives of others very lowly - or, really, they just don't think about it. How often do you see people speed, run red lights, tailgate, etc? I don't think that I've ever taken a journey without seeing at least some of these behaviours. That doesn't make those drivers psychopaths! Just distracted, pressed for time or worrying about something else. In the same way, not fitting this system doesn't make you a bad person...maybe you just don't have the $500 (or however much it costs) to fit it as an optional extra. Just to be clear - I don't think this is a bad system. I'm curious how to go about marketing it to the average driver who is economically-minded. Does it have to be regulation, can it be insurance premiums, or is there some other mechanism to encourage uptake?

paddy_m 14y ago

The liability insurance rates for a car like this should be lower. Especially in a heavy populated area like NYC. Personal injury lawsuits are very expensive.

nagrom 14y ago
Best response to my comment so far :-) I would think that Volvo would look to work with insurers to show that the V40 should benefit from preferred premiums that payback the cost of this system in X years, based on some typical profile.

Gravityloss 14y ago

What about airbags protecting the driver? It'd be cheaper to just drive slower and not use any airbags whatsoever? Yet driver and passenger airbags have proliferated. I don't fully understand the thinking behind your question.

nagrom 14y ago
Driver and passenger airbags directly protect the purchaser, or the family of the purchaser. The purchaser cares specifically about these people and will be more likely to pay to increase their safety. In a sense, it's an easy sell. This system doesn't increase the safety of someone dear to the purchaser and therefore seems to be less attractive, unless there is some other compensation, e.g reduced insurance rates.
- Gravityloss 14y ago
  But any normal person wouldn't want to hurt others if it's easily avoidable?
  - nagrom 14y ago
    Sure, but people are only limitedly altruistic (see the tragedy of the commons). If this system was free, then it should undoubtedly receive a huge uptake. But it's not free! So is there a way to encourage uptake without compulsion? Reduced insurance premiums could be one way. Are there others? Reduced car tax on vehicles with pedestrian-safety features installed?

bradleyland 14y ago

You're looking at the problem from only one perspective: injury. It is true that this system offers no protection from injury for occupants of the automobile, but any time you strike someone or something, there's the additional matter of liability. If a system like this is widely available, and it proves effective, then there will it will provide the benefit of reduced injury. Reduced injury means lower medical bills for the injured and lower settlement payouts. Insurance premiums are tightly modeled. Lower risk and incident costs mean lower rates. That's one potential benefit to the purchaser. You also have to consider regulation. Humans are poor judges of risk. There was a time not too long ago when consumers would choose "cheap" over "safe" if given a choice. I don't mean to say that consumers would walk in to a dealership and say, "Give me the cheapest car you have, safety be damned!" I mean to say that car manufacturers would say, "Oh yeah, of course it's safe," and consumers would take their claims at face value. That proved to be a poor choice. Enter government regulation. At some point, it became clear that automakers and consumers weren't going to make cars sufficiently safe on their own. The first steps in safety were things like mandatory fitment of seat belts, then compulsory wearing. Airbags followed, then ABS. Now we're seeing an increase in regulations related to pedestrian safety. There are already some pretty significant laws on the books in the EU related to pedestrian safety. Car and Driver, of course, takes the perspective of how this effects automobile design: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/taking-the-hit-how-pedestrian-protection-regs-make-cars-fatter-feature http://www.caranddriver.com/features/taking-the-hit-how-pede... Volvo has a pretty long history of pioneering safety systems that are later made compulsory by legislation. I suspect we may be seeing the same thing here.

nagrom 14y ago
Oh, I'm plentifully aware of the possibility of the possibility of regulation (see other comments). I guess, having debated this back and forth up and down the thread, my underlying question is: are there mechanisms other than insurance reductions and regulation to encourage the uptake of such a system?
- dfxm12 14y ago
  What about branding/marketing? Volvos are known for their safety features. This certainly is an extension of that. It could be seen as a competitive advantage, regardless of its utility/impact on insurance premiums. If it is a competitive advantage, certainly other brands would want to catch up.

offdrey 14y ago

Could be for the personal pleasure of knowing that you drive a car that is safer for others. I think it's quite similar to people who drive hybrids because they pollute less.