3 ms·
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, b
by 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 agoOh, 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 agoWhat 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.
- nagrom 14y agoIt's not immediately obvious from the exterior that the feature exists or not. You'd have to market the hell out of it and that costs money, which puts the price up, etc.