Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltothewolf
I would rather take a 10% mpg hit over not being able to walk/ride atv's, or live my life due to not having enough safety equipment. Is this really even a debate, and why are we having it?
|
We're having the discussion because nothing in this world is off-limits for being questioned. It's the things we take for granted that should probably be re-examined and scrutinized.
There are many safety items that would make sense to do without if we could avoid a 10% reduction in MPG. We should be looking at the cost of various safety equipment and not only determine their impact to fuel economy, but in the total cost to produce, equip, and maintain on a vehicle. It could be that some safety equipment has a very low return and a very high price. Do headlights really need washers and wipers? Can their cost be justified?
This discussion is good because it shows how we have different perceptions of risk. For instance, cRiPpLe_rOoStEr said they would prefer to do without airbags and a shoulder belt, but finds great value in anti-lock brakes. My perception is that the shoulder belt has the most safety benefit and the least cost among those 3 things. It was the first thing to be included as standard safety equipment, so I would think that is the low-hanging fruit of increasing safety. Further advancements incrementally improve safety but increase in complexity. For my driving ability, I find anti-lock brakes to be of least importance. I'm practiced in feathering the brakes, and usually decide to either brake or steer, but rarely do both in an emergency. If I could choose 1 safety feature to omit, it would be ABS.
Eventually technology will improve safety so much that it will be cheaper to implement automatic driving functions than to continue to build cars with the expectation that error-prone humans will crash them.