Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

jalopnik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: 'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

#51

Post by tzs »

analog31 wrote: post #5

On the other hand, newer cars have gotten more dangerous for pedestrians. Safety is indeed a luxury.

Are we sure about this? In the US the pedestrian death rate from cars in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 was 3.6, 2.6, 1.7, 1.4, and 2.0 per 100k.

Some cursory research turns up some interesting characteristics of the increase from 2010 to 2020.

• It was almost entirely in urban areas.

• Over 2/3 was on non-freeway arterials. Only about 1.4% was at intersections. (The percent of pedestrian deaths at intersections is around 16%)

• 90% was in darkness.

• It was adults. The rates for children continued to go down. For the years given above they were 2.7, 1.6, 0.8, 0.4, and 0.3 per 100k.

Cars did get heavier from 2010 to 2020 by about 4%. That would mean 4% more momentum at a given speed and 8% more kinetic energy but when dealing with getting hit by things that weigh a lot more than you do velocity is more important than momentum or kinetic energy [1], so I doubt that this was a significant factor.

Cars with shapes that are less safe did get more common, so that could be a part of it, but from where and when most of the increases were it seems there is a good chance that it is not so much that cars themselves but the behavior of drivers (and to a lesser extent) pedestrians that is mostly responsible.

Distracted driving due to phones, speeding, and reckless driving are all way up.

[1] Would you rather be hit by a Fiat 500x at 60 km/hr or the largest freight train ever constructed at 0.2 km/hr (since we usually don't talk about speeds that low to help visualize it at that speed it takes 18 seconds to go 1 meter)? The train would have 500 times the Fiat's momentum and 1.7 times the kinetic energy, but I'll definitely choose to be hit by the train. I'd even pick the train at 1 km/hr, where it has 2500 times the momentum and 42 times the kinetic energy. (Going the other way, a typical 9 mm bullet has 1/1500000th the momentum of that 0.2 km/hr train, and 1/87th the kinetic energy, but I'll the the train over the bullet).

Re: 'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

#52

Post by vhcr »

tzs wrote: post #51
analog31 wrote: post #5

On the other hand, newer cars have gotten more dangerous for pedestrians. Safety is indeed a luxury.

Are we sure about this? In the US the pedestrian death rate from cars in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 was 3.6, 2.6, 1.7, 1.4, and 2.0 per 100k. Some cursory research turns up some interesting characteristics of the increase from 2010 to 2020. • It was almost entirely in urban areas. • Over 2/3 was on non-freeway arterials. Only about 1.4% was at intersections. (The percent of pedestrian deaths at intersections is…

In the late 1970s children younger than 15 represented 18% of all pedestrian fatality victims. By 2021 they represented just 2.4% of all pedestrian fatalities (NCSA, 2023c; Schneider, 2020). These decreases correspond with declining rates of walking by children as measured by national surveys of household travel (Buehler et al., 2020; Kontou et al., 2020).

https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/pedestr...

Re: 'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

#53

Post by throwawaylaptop »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #43
throwawaylaptop wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, those features were available to people buying S classes 15 years ago. So not only were rich people safer for those 15 years, there's still a huge subset of people that even today drive old cheaper cars instead of buying the Hyundai that has it today. There's probably a 30 year safety difference between rich and poor.

So what? Seems like a good thing safety is improving.

Idk so what. We can go from there once we at least are talking about the same thing correctly, so I tried to correct the misconception by OP.

One random idea... Instead of giving well off people $7500 to buy huge luxury electric cars that are safe, we give poor people trading in old unsafe cars (that they've owned for over 12 months) $7500 to buy a car with side airbags so they don't die as easily in accidents.

Re: 'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

#54

Post by vincekerrazzi »

mikestew wrote: post #36
byw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a shame that we can't add new safety features into older cars. I feel like there's very little engineering reasons why we can't, and it's mostly regulatory hurdles, that removes any economic incentives to do so. I've recently read an article about what constitutes the right balance of regulations when it comes to aviation safety, and that while regulations have made modern planes extremely safe, overly s…

I feel like there's very little engineering reasons why we can't... It's not an engineering problem. One could cut new holes in the front bumper of an old car, add forward-facing radar, tack on a display and a computer to drive it all, et voila! Now you have collision avoidance! Except even in volume, you've probably spent more than the car is worth (labor will be the killer, not hardware), or enough that the person…

I understand your premise, but I think the missing part of the cost function here, especially when it comes to safety, is the price of a human life. The US government has actually quantified it, and I think when we account for that it’s probably worth it. Though where exactly that money would come from is a problem.

Similarly, we know certain preventative medical treatments are costly but save money for the system as a whole when universally applied, yet we still don’t do it.

Re: 'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

#55

Post by s1artibartfast »

throwawaylaptop wrote: post #53
s1artibartfast wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Seems like a good thing safety is improving.

Idk so what. We can go from there once we at least are talking about the same thing correctly, so I tried to correct the misconception by OP. One random idea... Instead of giving well off people $7500 to buy huge luxury electric cars that are safe, we give poor people trading in old unsafe cars (that they've owned for over 12 months) $7500 to buy a car with side airbags so they don't die as easily in accidents.

Well the government does both. Also, the 7500 is so the rich people buy electric instead of gas.

Also, 7500 seems too much for the risk reduction. How much is that per life, tens of millions? More?Seems terribly inefficient.

You can save a life for $150 and most people don't want to. The government is actively moving in the opposite direction, defunding that as a waste of money.

Re: 'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

#56

Post by mattmaroon »

schneems wrote: post #45
mattmaroon wrote: post #2

“ "Safety today is a luxury," writes Giugiaro. "Those who can afford a new car have a better chance of making it home alive." Well, on the plus side, today’s luxury car features are tomorrow’s standard ones. I remember getting my first Lexus in 2006 and being wowed by the backup camera, they were new and only in luxury cars. Now every car has one. It sounds deeply unfair that those with money are safer than those wit…

Not all auto makers just up and decided backup camera are now a standard feature. Rather: it’s a regulation put in place by Congress. To assume that cars will continue getting the same level of steady safety updates also assumes that the regulatory environment of the next 20 years looks like the last 20 years. As opposed to a regulatory environment that looks like the last 20 months.

It was becoming a standard on even low end cars before the mandate but you could pick any number of features that weren’t mandated that fit the same pattern.

Re: 'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

#57

Post by schneems »

mattmaroon wrote: post #56
schneems wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all auto makers just up and decided backup camera are now a standard feature. Rather: it’s a regulation put in place by Congress. To assume that cars will continue getting the same level of steady safety updates also assumes that the regulatory environment of the next 20 years looks like the last 20 years. As opposed to a regulatory environment that looks like the last 20 months.

It was becoming a standard on even low end cars before the mandate but you could pick any number of features that weren’t mandated that fit the same pattern.

It’s good that the industry does the right thing sometimes. It’s also good to have strong consumer protections when they don’t do the right thing.

The bill that required backup cameras came out in 2008 but didn’t fully go into effect until 2018 in order to give carmakers time. (At least) Some of what you’ve attributed to “becoming a standard” is due in part to automakers anticipating the regulation and another part of it being social norms as more and more cars have them so consumers ask for them.

I bought a car circa 2009-2010 as did a bunch of my friends (graduated college in 2008). We bought some of the most popular cars of the day, and zero of them had backup cameras.

I appreciate what you’re saying, that companies do things due to norms and markets (demand). I’m suggesting they also do things due to laws and architecture (Lessig, Code 2.0) and that we cannot rely on only one of the four to protect ourselves.

Re: 'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

#58

Post by mattmaroon »

schneems wrote: post #57
mattmaroon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was becoming a standard on even low end cars before the mandate but you could pick any number of features that weren’t mandated that fit the same pattern.

It’s good that the industry does the right thing sometimes. It’s also good to have strong consumer protections when they don’t do the right thing. The bill that required backup cameras came out in 2008 but didn’t fully go into effect until 2018 in order to give carmakers time. (At least) Some of what you’ve attributed to “becoming a standard” is due in part to automakers anticipating the regulation and another part o…

Sure but if a luxury car is safer than any other car it’s not because it was regulated to be. The laws don’t discriminate.

It’s because they have to sell higher priced cars by making appealing features and that includes safety. And then the features make their way to the lower end cars.

So having a market where rich people can buy greater safety in the end gives greater safety to everyone.

Re: 'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

#59

Post by decimalenough »

dfxm12 wrote: post #50
decimalenough wrote: post #14

The headline is misleading. Yes, a new luxury car is safer than one from 15 years ago, but both are infinitely safer than a car from the 1970s where seatbelts didn't exist and the crumple zone for the steering wheel column was your chest.

What do you mean misleading? It is a direct quote.

The headline implies the situation "today" is somehow worse than it used to be, when this is manifestly not the case.

Re: 'Safety Today Is a Luxury,' Giorgetto Giugiaro Says After His Crash

#60

Post by schneems »

mattmaroon wrote: post #58
schneems wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s good that the industry does the right thing sometimes. It’s also good to have strong consumer protections when they don’t do the right thing. The bill that required backup cameras came out in 2008 but didn’t fully go into effect until 2018 in order to give carmakers time. (At least) Some of what you’ve attributed to “becoming a standard” is due in part to automakers anticipating the regulation and another part o…

Sure but if a luxury car is safer than any other car it’s not because it was regulated to be. The laws don’t discriminate. It’s because they have to sell higher priced cars by making appealing features and that includes safety. And then the features make their way to the lower end cars. So having a market where rich people can buy greater safety in the end gives greater safety to everyone.

> Sure but if a luxury car is safer than any other car it’s not because it was regulated to be.

"Sure but" but what? I see zero people commenting on an article titled "Safety Today is a Luxury" arguing that the only reason luxury cars are safer is due to regulation.

>So having a market where rich people can buy greater safety in the end gives greater safety to everyone.

I think this is a great pipeline, and and it's worked really well when it's been coupled with a followup: strong consumer protection regulations that make sure the best features are in all the cars.

Post reply on HN