Quote:
Originally Posted by evolutionmovement
Cheapest is collisions involving cars with less weight. Hatchbacks wouldn't need to weigh 3000 lbs. to be safe if the likelihood of getting hit by something weighing near 5000 lbs. and attempting passenger survivability wasn't so likely. And what kind of injuries are we talking? I'd rather die in a crash than end up paralyzed, sucking limited resources away from fully-functioning people who could use them better. How many kids could go to college for what it costs to maintain a helpless person for a 4-year period? As I said, cars are too safe. It's been shown in traffic studies that people drive worse in cars that are perceived to be safer. Less accidents altogether is even cheaper. As an extreme example, install a spear point in the center of the steering wheel (not too far from what they had on many cars in the '50's) and see how much better people pay attention. Cheapest still, would be making a license hard to get, but the government screwed that decades ago when they redesigned the country around the automobile, making only select cities a place where not owning an automobile and still being able to have a real job is a practical possibility. But people don't want practical redesigns of the existing poor infrastructure, they want to keep Mickey Mousing the status quo. Humans. Where are the replacements?
|
The problem with your logic is it assumes that all parties involved in the accident are at fault. If I'm hit by someone who isn't paying attention I want every safety feature known to man so I might survive the crash.