Many do. 1000's of lives.
Thousands total? Perhaps over the years.
But that only shows the seen/direct effects. Imposing one safety feature, can mean that some other feature is left out (or is including in the more expensive car that would have been bought, but people move to the next level down, or fail to move up to that level, because of the additional costs). And studies show that with safer vehicles people put somewhat less effort in to driving safer.
Parts of SOME cars. And they would be a smaller market so more expensive options.
Seat belts and more crash resistant bodies would be the norm anyway. Companies have competed on doing better than the minimum standard, even for below average priced cars. Airbags? Perhaps not, but maybe so (at least for upmarket cars, and such features tend to migrate downwards over time even if there are no requirements for them), also they save less lives (and take a few in the bargain).
Still probably the net effect, even including the extra costs, and their negative impact on safety, and the slightly less safe driving habits when cars are perceived to be safer, they still probably save lives, probably enough to make some of the safety requirements worthwhile.
But that doesn't apply to all the safety requirements, let alone to all of the regulation. The best regulation doesn't justify the average regulation, let alone the worst. If the argument is "less regulation would be good" we have to consider the worst, not the best, because the worst is what should be cut. |
