[akshatrathi]

I don't for certain. In my trip to China, I couldn't meet makers of LSEVs. What I do know is that there are no subsidies in that market, which means carmakers won't survive if they don't make a profit. But it's a good question whether they are making that profit at the cost of human lives (no crash protection) or the environment (lead-acid batteries).

[Digit-Al]

I have just had a look on Wikipedi for the list of road deaths by country [1].

The figures are from 2013, so very out of date, but for the UK (where I live) it is 5.1 road fatalaties per 100,000 motor vehicles. For the US it is 12.9, and for China 104.5. I think that shows pretty starkly that the reason we are paying so much more for our cars is for a massively higher chance of surviving an accident.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

[idoubtit]

China has twice the rate of fatalities per vehicle of Argentina, which has twice that of the USA, which is four times worth than Switzerland. It means the cars sold in Switzerland are much better than in America and everywhere else?

Modern American and European cars may have a positive impact on the fatality rate, but the numbers above don't prove it in any way. I suspect the local culture of driving and the legal policy explain most of the differences between these rates.

BTW, when walking or riding a bicycle, I'd rather get hit by a 20 year old average car than a modern SUV.

[kalleboo]

> I suspect the local culture of driving and the legal policy explain most of the differences between these rates.

Local culture has a huge impact. Adherence to seatbelt laws, tolerance of drunk driving etc vary massively.

> BTW, when walking or riding a bicycle, I'd rather get hit by a 20 year old average car than a modern SUV

I'm not 100% sold on that - modern safety ratings like Euro NCAP also rate injuries to pedestrians so the hoods of modern vehicles are designed to give way. Some cars (e.g. Volvo) even go as far as to have active hoods - "Sensors in the bumper detect when a pedestrian has been struck and actuators lift the bonnet to provide greater clearance to stiff structures in the engine compartment"

You might also not even get hit in the first place thanks to AEB systems.

[UncleEntity]

> ...or riding a bicycle, I'd rather get hit by a 20 year old average car than a modern SUV.

Been there, done that and it still hurts.

Though...it does turn out that learning how to do a proper parachute landing fall in the army is directly applicable to civilian life and distracted drivers.

[nordsieck]

> But it's a good question whether they are making that profit at the cost of human lives (no crash protection)

To the extent that the cars are replacing scooters, they are an unmitigated benefit, safety wise.

[TulliusCicero]

Not true. Going from cars to scooters is safety-positive for those passengers, and safety-negative for everyone outside that car, particularly those who are not themselves in a car.

[rmcpherson]

Exactly. This just happened to me when I was struck by a moped in a near-fatal crash. Because it is not a motor vehicle by insurance and Legal standards in the USA it does not require a license or insurance to operate. If you are hit by one of these, you’ll find there’s no insurance to cover you other than your health insurance. Underinsured coverage on your auto policy will not apply either, as it would if you were hit by a motor vehicle.

[justtopost]

There is honestly little/no question there as to production methods and their human and environmental impact.