Like I get what you're saying that it isn't sexy to market a vehicle that's safe for pedestrians. And automotive manufacturers would not want to compromise their vision of giving everyone vehicles that kill people who aren't in cars (aka not paying customers)
I know that’s what regulation for. I’m not sure what you think I’m arguing? It’s not “fuck pedestrians, it’s fine and natural for companies to endanger them in pursuit of marginal profit gains” or whatever. :P
Of course it’s not a zero sum game on the level of *designing a car*, but on the level of how capitalism warps incentives, safety of driver gets drastically prioritized over safety of others, and the proof is in the pudding.
Comments
Like the ideal should not be a car that makes the driver invulnerable to damage, but would kill anyone it hits.
But that seems to be what every giant truck is trying to do.
Like studies (and common sense) have shown that a car hitting a pedestrian in the legs won't do as much damage as an f-150 hitting them in the head.
Yet a car can get a better safety rating than an F-150.
But that's what regulation is for.