[Yver]

For a long time, ABS and airbags were as extras as well. The difference is that a consumer shopping for a car can decide how much safety they want to pay for, while air travelers have no idea how safe the plane they are going to board is.

[matt4077]

The morality of such choices is complicated.

Airbags and, to a lesser degree, ABS definitely add substantial costs to cars. So it wasn't entirely unreasonable to ask customers for extra money. Yet subsequently, as they became cheaper and proved their potential to safe lives, they became mandatory. If I had been in a position to make decisions on this, I believe I would have argued for charging costs only for these features. Volvo's publicly announced decision not to enforce its patent on seat belts is example of a company with a mindset that goes beyond pure profit.

Judging Boeing's strategy here obviously requires a better idea of what they were charging and the actual costs of installing these features.

There may well be an argument that these systems are not comparable to airbags, but rather "pay us $X,XXX extra, and your car will not have a 10% chance of randomly blowing up".

[CaptainZapp]

Isn't Boeing's stance a bit akin to the thug, which threatens your restaurant?

"Nice plane you have here. Would be a shame if it crashes..."

[lm28469]

ABS, ESP aren't only for the safety of the person buying the vehicle.

You can have the latest, safest car money will buy and get plowed by a 30 years old land rover without any crumple zone and die because he couldn't stop in the snow/rain (bald tires, used break pads, &c.).

It's always a balance between regulations and ""freedom"".

In some US states you can drive anything as long as it has and engine and a plate. I lived in CA for a while, everyone drive with bald tire, I remember opening google maps on a rainy day, LA area was full of the red ! accident signs.

The world is a big kindergarden, you can't expect people/companies to do what's best for themselves/others so you have to enforce the rules through laws and regulations.

If companies were allowed to sell cars without safety features for a lower price people would buy them.

[carlmr]

>If companies were allowed to sell cars without safety features for a lower price people would buy them.

On the other hand it costs money to develop these systems. The people developing them deserve to get paid. The government needs to decide at what points it becomes mandatory to have these systems.

If companies can't charge for new safety features, the result will be every company getting out of the safety feature (non-)business.

If the newest safety features make cars unaffordable for most, people will complain also.

[imtringued]

That 30 year old land rover will most likely be obliterated by any modern car. When comparing old vs new cars the size difference is completely irrelevant. Modern compact cars are much safer than old large cars.

[lm28469]

Yeah but we're not in a car crash benchmark here. If you end up paraplegic and the other guy is dead you still lose.

> When comparing old vs new cars the size difference is completely irrelevant.

impact force = mass * speed² / (2 * distance)

The crumple zone of modern car improves your _distance_ here, mass (size) still plays a huge role.

[75dvtwin]

>consumer shopping for a car can decide how much safety they want to pay for

I have seen this argument before, by a Nobel Memorial prize in economics, Milton Friedman. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I

Overall he said, that it is not possible, as a principle, to put 'infinite' economic value into individual life.

--

Perhaps the argument can be made, that in a different situation the 'other data' pilots were to use, would increase safety.

--

Either way, I think there is something wrong with Friedman's argument.

'Optionality' -- when related to safety features, should be treated very different, than optionality in, say, comfort features.

Passengers themselves should not be expected to make choices which optional safety features, on a car, a bus, or plane should be purchased by the drivers/operators.

Drivers, should not be expected to make these choices, either.

My thinking here, is that An optionality in safety device, should change the whole major (not minor) vehicle model number designation, for example.

This would drive different visible profiles: different training, cost, marketing and so on.

[heavenlyblue]

Look: ABS and airbags cost a considerable percentage of the car's total price.

An AOA difference indicator price is negligible compared to the total cost of an aircraft.

[blakesterz]

I don't disagree with you on the point here, but how much do the breaks and bags cost? I did a quick search and it seems like the total for all the parts that make up a car is about just over 1/2 of the cost of buying a car. I know replacing an airbag is super expensive. Do the manufacturers pay that much for a new one when they're building the vehicles? I'm more curious than anything.

[VLM]

Air bags are extremely cheap, like the cost of a (typical, not extreme) car stereo.

The designers generally don't care what happens to the rest of the car after deployment, so expect a broken windshield, various broken dashboard components, destroyed steering wheel components, HVAC system cracked (ducts, freon lines, vacuum lines, and water lines), broken wires of various kinds...

Even if the air conditioner evaporator coil wasn't cracked, for example, the sheer labor cost of having to disassemble and inspect the entire interior of the car is very expensive for labor. Technically yes you can replace an airbag in about an hour, then you discover there's no turn signals and at next inspection/registration you discover there's no working horn, etc etc it adds up.

[xvf22]

And even if you think you know and airline can always sub out a plane on you and you have no recourse.

[nerdponx]

Also, ABS and airbags actually cost money to deliver to the buyer.

In software upgrades, the marginal cost is near zero.