[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.