Q&A: What are some negative effects of increasing automobile safety during a crash?
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Q&A: What are some negative effects of increasing automobile safety during a crash?”.
From an economist’s point of view, but not only:
1 – the same type of car is heavier than before, so it gets lower mpg and/or inferior performance;
2 – the same car costs more than before;
3 – drivers and passengers are more constrained during driving (belts, headrests, baby seats), so the ride is less appealing;
4 – cars are longer than before due to crumple zones, energy-absorbing bumpers, less aggressive front ends.
There are probably several more items that don’t come to my mind right now.
hth
Look up “Risk compensation” — a human trait that basically says the safer you feel, the greater the risks you are willing to take.
From the Statistic Abstract of the United States
year, M accidents,K deaths, Deaths per K Accidents
1960 10.4 38.1 3.7
1970 16.0 54.8 3.4
1980 17.9 53.2 3.0
2005 10.7 45.3 4.2
2007 10.6 43.1 4.1
On a per mile or per vehicle basis, we are involved in a lot fewer collisions than in the past — mostly due to improved driver training. On a per crash basis today’s “safer” cars are far deadlier — because of risk compensation and people traveling at higher speeds. Increasing automotive “safety” increases the severity of the crash to the point of overriding the benefits of the safety design.
After I read this article I was very impressed. I enjoyed every paragraph very much. This content is well-planned and written. This is great work.
You’ve gone to a lot of effort doing your homework with this article and it shows. More writers should take the time to get their point across in a clear and concise way. Thank you.
I know what a task it can be to keep writing interesting, so I appreciate this article. It’s engaging and written very well. Thank you.