> Because humans, without regulation, don't value vehicle safety. Gotcha.
Basically. Humans are horrible at cost/benefit calculations on an abstract level that may not directly affect them for years or even ever on an individual scale. I've known people who won't wear seatbelts because someone they know got trapped by one in a freak accident, despite overwhelming statistical evidence that's a dumb approach. The industry also has a long history of fighting regulations that require safety features but make cars more expensive.
> Last month, Ford proposed weakening the transportation department's 1984 rule in exchange for faster introduction of air bags in its cars. The company offered to install the bags on the driver's side of a majority of its cars by the 1990 model year if the department would drop its requirement that the front seats of all cars be equipped by then with automatic or so-called passive belts, designed to restrain the passenger as the car door closes.
> A Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard proposes that all vehicles made after January 1, 1973, include an automatic restraint system, i.e., air bags or automatic belts. The auto industry, knowing that it would have to increase production costs to meet the new standard, balks, leading to a decade of argument and delay.
The automatic belt systems also had the disadvantage of being fiddly, unreliable and complex. While the airbag is not as effective without belts, its much more reliable, and much less complex mechanically than automatic seatbelts.
That's hardly the only piece of tech the car companies have fought. Air bags and shoulder seat belts, among other things. The National Highway Traffic Safety Act of 1966 appears to be pretty universally cited as the turning point from a rapidly increasing rate of automative deaths to a dramatic, sustained drop over the next few decades.
I am painfully aware of what totalitarianism is... Should I not talk about it and warn against it until it's undeniably here? Sometimes it is very hard to figure where you would draw the line on political influence.
Telling a car manufacturer to design a vehicle that doesn't kill it's occupants ishardly totalitarianism. Calling it such does a disservice do everyone by conflating helpful laws with actually totalitarian things the government does.
Basically. Humans are horrible at cost/benefit calculations on an abstract level that may not directly affect them for years or even ever on an individual scale. I've known people who won't wear seatbelts because someone they know got trapped by one in a freak accident, despite overwhelming statistical evidence that's a dumb approach. The industry also has a long history of fighting regulations that require safety features but make cars more expensive.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/20/weekinreview/the-give-and-...
> Last month, Ford proposed weakening the transportation department's 1984 rule in exchange for faster introduction of air bags in its cars. The company offered to install the bags on the driver's side of a majority of its cars by the 1990 model year if the department would drop its requirement that the front seats of all cars be equipped by then with automatic or so-called passive belts, designed to restrain the passenger as the car door closes.
http://blog.esurance.com/seat-belt-history/
> A Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard proposes that all vehicles made after January 1, 1973, include an automatic restraint system, i.e., air bags or automatic belts. The auto industry, knowing that it would have to increase production costs to meet the new standard, balks, leading to a decade of argument and delay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
etc.