Do we really need all that safety stuff?

[freebeard]

Done right, it would be air-bagged with massive wheel travel.

That F-1 is called a bobber truck. I think it's the first one I ever saw, with new flames cut into the hood.

[duncan]

If we go back to the initial conversation
- Do we really need all this safety stuff -

A couple of things
If the safety "stuff" wasn't being made in massive volumes it would cost an enormous amount
The safety stuff in a car these days "costs" about $100
If it was in low volume production it would cost close to $100,000 - each car
So by making it mandatory the costs have been massively reduced

Despite all of these features thousands of people are killed (over 30,000 in the USA alone)
If each death "cost" $1million in legal fees costs and such that is $30Billion
And about 8 million cars are sold
That is $3750 per car sold
So eliminating all of the safety gear would save $100 and cost $3750 extra
Does not sound like a bargain to me

[Xist]

Duncan,

Math! Not even once!

Interesting argument, though.

[duncan]

Originally Posted by Xist

Duncan,

Math! Not even once!

Interesting argument, though.

I think the maths is OK
$1m x 30,000 = $30B

$30B / 8Million = $3750/car

I'm not as sure about the logic - except to say that deaths and accidents are costing a LOT more than safety gear

Another way of looking at it
Deaths - 30,00 x 1Million = $30B
Injury - 3.8M accidents causing injury - say $20,000/injury = $76B

So total $100B

Total cars - 200M -
So that gives $500/car

Not as much as the first calculation but still a lot more than the cost of about $100/car

A lot of these numbers are just guesses - but I have low balled them a fatal accident normally costs a lot more than $1m and a reportable injury a LOT more than $20,000

[Hersbird]

Except 1/2 the population is a drain on the other 1/2 financially so depending on if the deaths come from the givers or the takers.
I still say the safety features in their totality cost much Kore then $100, where do you even get that? I ask for a 3rd time, how come the cheapest car that !eets these standards is over $10,000 while there are cars out there that don't for a 1/3 that price.

[niky]

In terms of cost...

Cost and Weight Added by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

That's about $500 in current money. And about two dozen pounds. But do note... the prices can and do go down over time. That's why everyone has been using Takata... and why the recall was so devastating... economies of scale make it easier to fold airbag prices invisibly into the cost of the car, so many manufacturers share airbag suppliers.

What that means, however, for non-Takata users, is that your airbag costs, potentially, as little as it did in 2001 or possibly less. And that cost is ridiculously easy to fold into the price of a car... where other options, like radio, satnav, and heated seats already add a nice premium to the price from which manufacturers earn a tidy profit.

-

One takeaway from the FMVSS study cited, however, is seatbelts. $125. I'd rather spend a little more than that and have five point belts that keep you far away from the roof, the roll-hoops and the dashboard.

That would eliminate the need for airbags, entirely, and make crashes much safer, and make me very happy.

-

Unfortunately, you can't wear a five point with a skirt.

-

Oh well.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Some safety features such as a collapsible steering collumn and decent seats to prevent whiplash are undeniably worthwhile, but I'd still rather have the interior trim designed to also provide impact absorption at some extent instead of blowing money on airbags, and would still rather have lap-belts instead of 3-point belts. Too bad nowadays even in Brazil airbags are mandatory (just a few vehicles, either trucks with a payload above one metric ton, passenger vans and buses, and some 4WD vehicles, are exempt)...

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Sense those congress members are also voters .. and all the people at the EPA are also all voters ... many more than a single voter was asked.

- - - - -

That technicality aside .. We don't have a democracy .. we have a republic .. we vote for representatives .. (generally speaking) .. it is pretty rare that policy , laws, regulations , etc... are put forth to the general public for direct voting .. because we don't have a democracy... and that is intentional on the part of the majority.

But ... if the majority of voters were significantly against the EPA regulation .. it would be a major campaign issue .. And thus ... the next election cycle would have removed any member of congress in favor of it and only elected members who were against it ... thus it would have been changed ... that isn't what happened ... as far as the majority is concerned EPA regulations are extremely low campaign issue ..


Off hand .. I can't think of any example of something that the majority actually seriously wants and pushes for as a high priority ... that the government has ever successfully been able to 'squash'... Please give me one of the 100s of examples you were thinking of ??? ... Off hand I think of examples of the exact opposite .. prohibition being an easy one

So are we talking epa or safety now? But I degress..

So let me think of a few majority supported ideas that have yet to see the light of day
1. 62% say increased boarder security should be the first priority in immigration policy
2. 64% want a simple tax code.
3. 65% say budgets should be reduced by spending cuts rather then tax hikes
4. 61% favor increased drilling on public lands and offshore.
5. 78% favor term limits for congress.
6. The RCP average is +10.6% oppose the health care law.
7. 65% believe competition and choice in schools improves education.
8. 60% support abortion ban after 20 weeks
9. A majority supports advanced interrogation methods for terrorists.
10. A majority supports legalized marijuana.
11. 66% oppose the NSA data collection programs
12. 85% support a balanced budget for the federal government.
13. 61% oppose federal regulation of internet.
These are all just on the right and just in then last couple years. I could do a list like that for the left as well and then imagine all the stuff that has come down the pipe over the last 50 years.

This is why I support the 50 individual states idea. Out of the 50 you can really try different ideas and philosophies and really see what works and what is snake oil.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by niky

In terms of cost...

Cost and Weight Added by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

That's about $500 in current money. And about two dozen pounds. But do note... the prices can and do go down over time. That's why everyone has been using Takata... and why the recall was so devastating... economies of scale make it easier to fold airbag prices invisibly into the cost of the car, so many manufacturers share airbag suppliers.

What that means, however, for non-Takata users, is that your airbag costs, potentially, as little as it did in 2001 or possibly less. And that cost is ridiculously easy to fold into the price of a car... where other options, like radio, satnav, and heated seats already add a nice premium to the price from which manufacturers earn a tidy profit.

-

One takeaway from the FMVSS study cited, however, is seatbelts. $125. I'd rather spend a little more than that and have five point belts that keep you far away from the roof, the roll-hoops and the dashboard.

That would eliminate the need for airbags, entirely, and make crashes much safer, and make me very happy.

-

Unfortunately, you can't wear a five point with a skirt.

-

Oh well.

How is $850 in 2001 only $500 in current money? Plus how much have they added since 2001?

[duncan]

I've worked in the industry
If they told the feds it was $850 it was less than $150
And they will have managed to half that at least once in the last 15 years!