Posted by
Doctor Demex on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:43:23 PM
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rates automobiles on their ability to protect drivers and passengers in crashes. What steams me up is the way the nanny-state news media buy into the idea that a car without a five-star crash rating should be avoided at all costs. Everyone has a neighbor who explains away why he bought an ugly, underperforming, inefficient, overpriced vehicle because it was the "safest in class." But the difference between a five-star crash rating and a three- or four-star rating is probably negligible even if it were intelligible. Amoral trial lawyers ensure that manufacturers do not bring unreasonably unsafe cars to market.
The Institute does not care about people's safety for any moral reason, but only to the extent that saving lives saves money for the Institute's sponsoring insurance companies. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but the consumer should be aware that the crash ratings are not intended to benefit the consumer and that the Institute is essentially anti-automobile and anti-capitalist. Nevertheless, if a consumer wants to shell out a lot of money for a car he dislikes simply because it drives itself and pretends to offer the safety of a living room, then that's his right.
I paid over $700 for antilock brakes on a new car because I was assured that it would save money on my insurance premiums. It did. My premium was reduced by a whopping $12 per year. Now all I have to do to make the expense worthwhile is drive the car for 50 years, long past the time it becomes an otherwise unsafe rust bucket. Besides, anti-lock brakes were invented to protect the world against poor drivers who stand on the brake pedal when they panic. Bad braking technique is rewarded and reinforced because insurers want to remove the responsibility of the driver from the act of driving.
The primary purpose of a car is to move people efficiently from point A to point B, not to ensure the health of its occupants. If one fears death on the highway so much, he should either take the bus or simply stay home.
Here's an idea: Why not remove all antilock brakes, airbags, baby seats, and tire-pressure sensors from cars to reduce the feeling of invincibility some drivers have when they get behind the wheel? Maybe if drivers were more aware of the proper risks of driving they would drive more carefully.
This is the same argument I apply to health insurance, by the way. Abolishing health insurance would create two beneficial trends: people would have a direct economic incentive to take better care of their health, and doctors would have a direct economic incentive to lower the price of health care. There is no incentive to keep costs down when someone else is paying the bill.