> The government enforces some minimum safety standards
I think this understates the safety regulations for automobiles by quite a bit. Maybe there's an example of an industry which makes lightly regulated, dangerous products, but I don't think cars are it.
True - the government's automobile safety standards are far from trivial, but there's no denying that the difference in safety between the cheapest smart car on the road and the safest car on the road is huge. In a head-on collision between the two, there's absolutely no contest.
Asking why the government should allow an EpiPen competitor with a 0.1% higher failure rate is akin to asking why the government should allow people to purchase small, cheap cars.
As a road user (walker, cyclist, occasional runner) I consider small vehicles that are easy to see around and above far safer than heavy, bulky vehicles.
Cars aren't designed for the safety of anyone but their occupants, though.
> Cars aren't designed for the safety of anyone but their occupants, though.
This is not the case. Part of the reason that all new cars from large manufacturers are as bulky looking as they are is to conform with US pedestrian collision regulations.
While I applaud this initiative, I'd like to be able to buy a smaller, nimbler car and simply avoid hitting pedestrians.
> there's no denying that the difference in safety between the cheapest smart car on the road and the safest car on the road is huge. In a head-on collision between the two, there's absolutely no contest.
I don't think that's true. Certainly expensive cars have new safety features, but ...
I read a study of empirical data on what, in practice, made cars more survivable in accidents. It was awhile ago but here is my vague memory:
The data was hard to analyze - they were trying to untangle cause and effect from wrecks - but the conclusion was that the most important factor was the relative location of hard points: If their hard point (e.g., bumper) lines up with your soft spot (e.g., driver-side door/window), it's bad for you. That's something that doesn't depend on cost.
Otherwise, I would assume safety depends heavily on weight and structural integrity, and certainly some cheaper vehicles, such as pickup trucks, would be much safer by those measures than much more expensive sedans.
It also might depend on center of gravity, roll-over potential, breaking ability, etc.
I once read someone stating that "The safest car on the road is the one with a ten-inch razor-sharp metal spike fixed to the centre of the steering wheel.".
Yes, but that's mostly because the safest car is more like a suburban tank while the smart car is more like an urban mobility device. If there were no suburban tanks around, the smart car would instantly be much safer.
I think this understates the safety regulations for automobiles by quite a bit. Maybe there's an example of an industry which makes lightly regulated, dangerous products, but I don't think cars are it.