Lol. It’s a funny picture- but dubious that any serious company used this as a protype in earnest. There aren’t any records I am aware of which speak to a seatbelt around one’s neck.
The three point automotive lap and shoulder belt as most know it was invented in 1959 by a Volvo engineer and the pattent was made free.
That said- the lap belt was already known to be unsafe. In automobile racing there were already designs for other restraint systems, and aerospace was well aware of the effects of G’s and “negative G’s” on the human body in pilots. In America, John Paul Stapp had already begun work on restraints and crash safety systems with the Aero Medical Laboratory of the Wright Air Development Center starting the project around 1945 with first human tests in December of 1947. In 1954 Stapp survived the most intentional G forces of any recorded human and became the worlds fastest man at the time- propelled on a rocket sled to well over 600pmh and experience around or above 45g’s
From the research of Stapp and the project, seats and restraints for aircraft were revised and independent research as well as that based on these findings would continue. To this day There is sharing between cars and ground vehicles, aircraft, space craft, military and civilian in occupant and crash safety. Recaro manufactures Seats and restraints for race cars, street cars, aircraft, space craft, heavy machines and more for example and is a top named in seating ergonomics, safety, and engineering. We do see many seemingly idiotic things from the past and generally often perceive people of the time as foolish- but even they knew holding a neck like that in a crash was dumb.
Plainly put Detroit sold death traps and fairly crappy cars. Being fair though- when you look at the standards and technology of the time and the vehicles of the early age of motor car- much of what is crappy or death trap like today was pretty good for the day.
That said/ especially as time progressed- Detroit fell behind in quality and technology and the post war default economic supremacy and faith in American technical ability based on World War Two victories began to fade- Detroit was eclipsed for volume and general market confidence by foreign brands in most of the world including the USA. There was at the time a strong sentiment towards American product, or in American “domestic” product. We still see this some in the modern day with some Americans steadfastly “buying American” but this is largely on tradition or politics and not data.
So in the 19060’s Detroit was still “on top” and could almost do no wrong. The big American automakers names were almost synonymous with quality and safety- unquestioned. So her enters a problem- if auto makers start including seat belts or three point belts on cars… that’s basically like saying their current and older model cars were unsafe. It makes people question that unquestioned faith that when Detroit sells them a car and says it is safe for the family that it is. Seems dumb? They just learned something new- the old stuff was as safe as they knew at the time, but they found new information and now this is safer. That’s reasonable and no one would be so silly as to question their credibility because they didn’t know everything from day one or they improved things with new data right? Oh sweet simple child. Where were you during the early Covid pandemic? You think people just shrug and say: “they were wrong before but they found new data so we should listen now…?” No harm done? ha
You’ll have to ask Fauci or the CDC about that. Or ask Donald Trump.
So the American car makers weren’t super keen to tell everyone they had been selling cars that weren’t perfect in safety in a fundamental way. Stapp- the rocket sled guy from earlier- was actually instrumental in getting laws passed that required seat belts at least be installed on all new cars sold. It would be some time in the USA before widespread law required people to use seat belts, and ala our covid example- many did, and some still do, contest seatbelts laws as unconstitutional attacks on individual rights. So getting car makers on board with seat belts at all, and then getting the public to use them were two different matters.
Early on, and to some degree persisting to this day- people claimed that not wearing seat belts was safer. That without a seatbelt you’d be “tossed free” from a wreck vs. trapped and killed or injured. Now- in very early cars there may be some truth there, these cars generally weren’t very fast and were HUGE death traps. So being outside the car may actually be safer. There are also some very specific situations or flukes where it is possible or has even occurred that people were “thrown free” of a wreck with few or no injuries. That said- overall that idea is stupid. Likewise the idea that seat belts cause more injuries or are likely to trap you in a burning car or such are pretty overall stupid. There is some truth that many 3 point belts DO have higher odds to cause next injuries- especially to women. It’s believed that a combination of women often being shorter and certain differences in anatomy and shape that causes the shoulder belt to dig in to the neck and cause potential…
.. lacerations. The risk isn’t exactly a common problem- and on older cars you can use various devices which pull the lap belt away from the neck, many or most newer cars have seat belt anchors that can adjust the anchor point of the shoulder belt. A person with a properly adjusted seat and belt in a proper seating position has almost no risk of such lacerations.
But rumors persist. When airbags came out people claimed up and down air bags killed more people than not having them or were inherently dangerous. It is also true people have been injured by air bags. It is possible for people to sustain more serious injuries in a car with airbags than in the same crash without- but this is usually a very specific set of circumstances and the injuries caused by the airbag are usually mild.
It is true that early generation airbags, expired airbags, faulty airbags can be problematic. It is also true that certain persons or seating positions can be unsafe to sit next to airbags. That said..
Much or most of the hype and arm chair science on airbag safety is just that- rumor and ignorance. So yes, the American public and the auto industry- ESPECIALLY the American auto industry- has a very poor history when it comes to adopting safety technology and improvements. Old timers still moan about how older cars were so much more “solid” and didn’t get as damaged in crashes- ignorant to the physics involved in how modern cars are built to break on impact to absorb energy so it is not transferred to the occupants or to the other vehicle/object in a collision.
So yes. Most likely not any actual “prototype” unless perhaps a prototype created by a “home tinkerer” or such.
1Reply
deleted
· 1 year ago
If that was mandatory, there would probably be a lot less accidents cause drivers would take extra care of what's going on in front of and behind them. A total ban of safety belts and a mandatory 10'' spearhead in the middle of the driving wheel pointed at the drivers chest would probably even work better.
Lol. I’ve had similar thoughts- or keep airbags but remove the bag and replace the “shotgun shell like charge” the propelled the bag with… a shotgun shell.
Of course while it may be fun to think about the truth is accidents happen to even the most careful of drivers and in reality safer cars for crashes aren’t a bad thing and I don’t actually want people getting hurt. It would be much easier for me to support less people driving- because honestly many drivers do have no business operating a vehicle but have a need- if we had better designed and supported infrastructure and zoning etc. such as eliminating sprawling suburbs that often are miles from essential services and employment and instead built integrated communities where walking, public transit, or other means than car allowed viable and full living.
In the end though even if cars were made to be deadly to discourage accidents… cars are already extremely deadly and by and large people- especially the most dangerous in the road- don’t really care. We are talking about an average of 4500lbs of steel moving at speeds of 30-60mph legally average and upwards of 80mph routinely on freeways and such illegally. No less than around 2000lbs for 99% of cars on the road. A machine with a tremendous kinetic force capable of more death and destruction than any fire arm the average American can get their hands on, but all around us and kids at schools and malls and parks and neighborhoods all over- causing more deaths in almost any country in the world than any other machine including guns- but people like cars, at least as appliances. They find them convenient.
But everyday almost I see some kid on a motorcycle in a tshirt, maybe shorts, maybe flip flops even. The ones that aren’t weaving traffic and basically breaking every rule of road let alone every rule for trying to stay alive on a motorcycle- are still often out with no gear and unsafe clothing like sandals. So the worst idiots and self destructive a wont care. I’ve ridden motorcycles/motorbikes since I was maybe 12 years old and seen or experienced drivers literally try to kill people. Not just through ignorance or carelessness but actively. Opening doors on bikes, trying to ram them or cut them off with clear malice. I’ve been chased for miles. That and any number of “road rage” incidents between cars tells us that even people who care about their own lives may care little or nothing for others.
So it’s sad that people can’t be trusted to take driving seriously. Unfortunately it just isn’t practical in America to move to a system where those wanting to drive need to be vetted similar to parts of Europe or other countries where licenses can take years to achieve full status and require demonstrated skills and knowledge and are easily revoked.
That said- as time moves forward it may become a dead issue.
Smog laws serve a dual purpose- they do help clean the air but they drive the economy. Cars that can’t pass smog get junked most often. On newer vehicles converters alone can be over $2500 a piece with up to or over 4 per vehicle. Many times the cost of smog repair exceeds the vehicle value. Except credit cards or personal loans the costs are generally “up front” compared to buying a new vehicle.
New vehicles, brand new or used newer vehicles, often mean loans- business for banking, and sales for the car lots and manufacturers. Those without cash on hand and without credit to make a new vehicle purchase are general lower income status. Newer laws mandating EV take this even further. The average EV costs or the cheapest EV’s with any useful range outside “city trips” are much more expensive than basic ICE vehicles to purchase. This means lower income persons living where EV mandates exist will only be able to buy new EV and can’t afford them. There will still be used ICE vehicles, but without new ICE vehicle sales the majority of ICE vehicles in the used market are bound to increase in value and become prohibitive- worn out without costly maintenance and replacement parts like converters- within a decade or so.
It is already the case that driving older vehicles legally often requires one to have a relatively comfortable financial situation or be essentially dedicated to their car as a primary expense. As myself or most people who tend to drive classic vehicles can tell anyone- parts can become difficult or impossible to find and when found can often cost alot of money- especially emissions parts, especially in states with strict emissions controls and certifications for sale of parts. California bans the sale of many used emissions parts for example- and new parts often don’t exist. Coupled with California laws freezing the date that vehicles become old enough to be “smog exempt” under presumption of parts being prohibitive- there is a clear recipe for getting old cars off the road. State buy backs and “cash for clunkers” are another example of attempts to rid the market of support for older cars and lower income drivers.
Many such programs either entirely prohibit the resale of scrap parts off such cars, or they make mechanical components useless through practices like pouring “liquid glass” through the running engine- ruining the engine and components and making them essentially unsalvagable but also creating a risk that any accessories in communication with the engine airflow or fuel system may be contaminated with particles that could damage or accelerate wear on any vehicle those parts might next be used on. This eliminates a key source of used parts for older vehicles as well as a low cost source of parts for those on tight budgets who might only be able to afford to keep a car running because they do they own work and procure parts cheaply.
A few decades seems long but it isn’t- and one could argue that after. Market manufacturers would see the demand and respond- but will they? Outside of certain enthusiast models or long service vehicles like overland trucks etc- support for aged vehicles tends to be sparse.
In that few decades, the current trend points towards a rapid rise of self driving vehicle technology- a trend which on the consumer side will likely push many people to buy self driving as many, probably most drivers are driving as a chore, few drivers delight at your regular commute or sitting in traffic even if they enjoy the open road or a Sunday cruise, and the average consumer is more concerned with amenities and features than the “pure driving experience,” Toyota and such made themselves giants largely by selling appliances- cars that were affordable and required little attention, efficient and low cost of operation with practicality- not cars that excite.
So largely the consumer wants an office or lounge chair that they can sleep or work or watch movies etc. and show up at their destination with as little effort or attention as possible.
On the legal side it probably won’t take long once the technology is viable to start to see arguments that congestion, accidents, travel times, emissions etc. can all be decreased if all the cars are self driving and coordinated through traffic control protocols. Cars that don’t break the law, don’t get drunk, don’t drive with emotions but in the most practical and efficient way to get all drivers to where they are going safely and quickly. Cars that pull over for emergency vehicles without bafoonery, that don’t drive where cars aren’t allowed and likely have fewer accidents. Cars that in theory can safety drive at higher speeds and closer distances etc. which could improve travel times and decrease congestion.
Now- self driving cars at present are dumb. Their greatest flaw is that they can’t predict erratic things like how people will drive. Another reason that mass conversion to self driving cars is more likely- they work best or only at all when they know how all the other cars are going to behave. When they know a car won’t plow across 3 lanes of traffic to reach an exit etc. of course current self driving cars still do things like this- like the Tesla that decided to stop on the SF bay bridge the other day… but eventually if they work it all out- that’s likely what consumers and later on probably the law will want to incentivize- even if non self driving isn’t banned outright- a prohibition on sales of new cars that aren’t self driving, taxes, other measures like what have already been seen can be used to shuffle most people to self driving.
The thing is that the array of sensors and such these cars need to function is complex and precise generally. It’s common in America to see cars, even newer cars, with missing bumpers or panels, huge dents etc. even when someone has insurance- they may decide they can live with the ugly car if it works and they’d rather keep the check for the repairs and use that money for other things. That doesn’t work well on cars with self driving systems where a sensor can be damaged or out of alignment. “Auto braking” “auto cruise control” etc. are common enough and old enough now that we have seen and start to see more malfunctions with these systems due to damage and the fact that generally these systems can require periodic adjustment or repair and most drivers do the bare minimum on their cars and often skip factory recommended service or go with out of spec repairs for cost reasons. This becomes more true the older a car tends to be, second owners rarely get dealer grade service and onwards
So this creates a recipe where driving becomes far more costly and favors wealthier drivers. That’s before you factor in things like that EV’s favor home owners and those in affluent neighborhoods or jobs due to charging requirements and other issues that tend to be impractical for lower income people, many renters and apartment or condo dwellers etc.
those who own older homes may not have on property parking at all- or the electrical systems to facilitate charger installation without electrical work costing thousands or more dollars. Charging stations can cost thousands of dollars on their own, and anyone with street parking faces hurdles to charging while parked unless they have street side charges or outlets where they live.
When we get to the used market- EV generally have shelf lives that ICE cars do not. Over time the batteries degrade if used or not. Rage decreases and eventually the car will not run at all- even if it doesn’t reach the lower limits of battery to be unable to move the car- safety systems will generally “lock out” users when the battery health reaches a certain point to prevent things like fires.
So the used EV market is one where 20 year old cars aren’t likely cheap- even if the car costs $500- the replacement battery- if available- may cost $20,000 or more. At present EV generally aren’t self serviceable for most. Modern ICE cars are difficult to self service often due to complex systems and construction- but asides special tools and warranty protections etc. EV will easily kill you or start fires if handled by shade tree mechanics- even many simple tasks. There is little after market support for parts and components. This may change with time but big EV are fighting it to maintain
Control- and are having great success due to citing safety and other concerns coupled with a general lack of interest or ability to work on or modify the cars for the average user reducing public outcry compared to the drive in the 70’s for right to repair ICE cars. That brings up the next issue- the corporate tactics and so far largely the legal system of the EV industry have fallen closer to software companies than cad companies. This isn’t a great thing for consumers. Most consumers don’t really “own” their EV and that probably will get more pronounced- especially with self driving cars. By forming a sort of “lease” the manufacturer retains rights to control the vehicle. This allows them to protect their IP and maintain the safety and integrity of the vehicle it it also means even if you “own” the car, you can’t just do whatever you like.
In that same vein, modern EV and more likely self driving cars are highly reliant on server links, real time data transfer, software updates etc. as these vehicles age, if these servers and services are discontinued, without modification these vehicles become essentially paper weights or lose much or all their functionality. As cars age the tools and knowledge to perform tasks is often lost. On older ICE cars it can be difficult or impossible to find a person or shop with the know how or tools to do certain things like interface the vehicle security system such as in a “lock out” or where a new key is needed. Programming radios with security features or other “code prompts” or in some cases- programming the ECU or replacement parts to communicate and allow the car to function. Long ago only the most exotic cars had these issues-
One particular exotic car requires a specific late 90’s early 2000’s lap top to initiate the start up sequence. If you own this car and do not own said ancient functioning laptop- you can’t start it. Period. The manufacturer ran a program where they’d pay big money to anyone with said laptop to sell it in so the dealers and manufacturer could stock pile computers and parts to ensure that them and their customer would have access to the essential lap top long term or until engineers could devise a way to defeat the system and design one that allowed newer more modern computers to be used. Many modified cars with older aftermarket programmable ECU have similar issues where you need old operating systems or palm pilot devices etc. to interface them.
It isn’t even uncommon with late 90’s and early 2000’s cars for dealerships from that manufacturer to lack the tools or know how to do certain things with the electronics. Often manufacturers themselves shut down databases or servers that cars or certain features or services need to run, making it impossible to run them unless someone has the knowledge and drive to figure out another way such as designing or recreating the system. So think of an EV like an Apple cell phone- where at a certain age you are basically forced to buy another one, it may lose all but the most basic features as it ages, no longer able to download apps or interface your other hardware etc, or as was the case with the 4g conversion- it may not even function as a phone if it ages out. But that’s a $70-100k+ car not a phone.
So in the medium term a combination of legislation and consumer drive is pushing us towards a largely EV future that is likely to see the cost of car ownership go up for everyone even if you don’t drive an EV, and over time attrition coupled with bans on new sales of non EV will likely kill off ICE passenger vehicles except with the most stubborn or dedicated owners who can afford to keep up the increasing a costs to operate and own or flaunt the law.
When and if self driving cars become the norm- expect the costs to own cars to rise once more. It is most likely in my opinion that self driving cars will follow closer to a “subscription” model which may make them affordable to a wider range but still possibly out of reach of the lowest wealth their drivers. That said- by the time we get to self driving cars the issues of idiot drivers is largely solved. First a decrease in overall drivers by economic pressure and then a conversion to self driving cars that in theory would be safer.
Because the world isn’t predictable, short of enclosed roadways that kept animals and pedestrians and debris and such off the road- there will still likely be accidents even with self driving cars. Even if all roads were sealed you can still have things like road failures, tunnel collapses, unlikely intrusion, mechanical breakdown or software malfunction that could lead to situations where accidents occur. Excessive speed accidents, DUI accidents, many accidents caused by driver error are probably going to be decreased by self driving cars, but to the original point- operating a 2000-4500lbs and up vehicle at speeds the human body was never intended in nature to achieve is never completely safe. The crumple zone required for near total safety at common freeway speeds for the mass of a vehicle and occupants would be something like 16 feet- meaning that the car would need not just 16 feet of nose in front of the occupants, but 16 feet of nose specifically designed to collapse and absorb
impact. To protect occupants from collisions or roll overs etc. in all directions the vehicle would need about that same amount of crumple zone on every side- doors that are 10-16 feet thick, a floor and roof the same etc. this is obviously not feasible for many reasons. There are other technologies that can be employed along with structural engineering to allow for reasonable passenger protection without such extreme designs- but there is almost always compromise in design.
So driving just isn’t safe. For many or most it is so common- we likely drive/ride daily or see others doing so without incident and it is a mundane thing that we assume because it is so common and most of the time most people are fine that it is “safe.” There is nothing inherently safe about it. It is inherently dangerous- but it isn’t statistically so risky that it is suicidal or anything- but that sense of security tends to distract us from the physics involved and what is actually happening.
Unequivocally cars are more dangerous, more deadly, and carry more kinetic energy than most any small arm (gun) projectile (bullet).
Few people take the risks and responsibilities of driving seriously or can even fathom or understand the statistical break downs let alone the human tendency to dissociate our mortality.
So that’s the issue- no matter how safe or how dangerous you force cars to be, drivers are the ones who make cars dangerous. Computer drivers are still dangerous but a road system full of well designed and implemented computer drivers is probably safer than one full of human drivers of average skill and respect level. I suspect that if you passed a law that anyone pulled over by the police would get shot instead of a warning or ticket you would still see lots of bad driving because people are bad at risk assessment. People that already drive like they don’t give a shit about their life or anyone else aren’t likely to be discouraged by any measures to make cars deadlier
in wrecks because they already don’t care if they die or are too ignorant to understand the risks. Most people think they are the exception. “That won’t happen to me..” “that only happens if you’re a bad driver and I’m a good driver…” who’s ever driven drunk or after a few drinks? If you aren’t someone who has you almost 100% know someone who has. Despite the overwhelming odds and literally no guarantee that THIS TIME no one dies- people will drive drunk or after drinking or drugs.
People who have driven drunk “plenty of times” will do it again- they’ll say “I’ve done this before and been fine so I’ll be fine this time,” and there is no basis in fact for that belief- it’s basically superstition. Yet… the simplest most fundamental thing that is entirely controllable on most cases- and most people have broken it. So that’s the world we live in. That’s humanity.
The three point automotive lap and shoulder belt as most know it was invented in 1959 by a Volvo engineer and the pattent was made free.
That said- the lap belt was already known to be unsafe. In automobile racing there were already designs for other restraint systems, and aerospace was well aware of the effects of G’s and “negative G’s” on the human body in pilots. In America, John Paul Stapp had already begun work on restraints and crash safety systems with the Aero Medical Laboratory of the Wright Air Development Center starting the project around 1945 with first human tests in December of 1947. In 1954 Stapp survived the most intentional G forces of any recorded human and became the worlds fastest man at the time- propelled on a rocket sled to well over 600pmh and experience around or above 45g’s
That said/ especially as time progressed- Detroit fell behind in quality and technology and the post war default economic supremacy and faith in American technical ability based on World War Two victories began to fade- Detroit was eclipsed for volume and general market confidence by foreign brands in most of the world including the USA. There was at the time a strong sentiment towards American product, or in American “domestic” product. We still see this some in the modern day with some Americans steadfastly “buying American” but this is largely on tradition or politics and not data.
So the American car makers weren’t super keen to tell everyone they had been selling cars that weren’t perfect in safety in a fundamental way. Stapp- the rocket sled guy from earlier- was actually instrumental in getting laws passed that required seat belts at least be installed on all new cars sold. It would be some time in the USA before widespread law required people to use seat belts, and ala our covid example- many did, and some still do, contest seatbelts laws as unconstitutional attacks on individual rights. So getting car makers on board with seat belts at all, and then getting the public to use them were two different matters.
But rumors persist. When airbags came out people claimed up and down air bags killed more people than not having them or were inherently dangerous. It is also true people have been injured by air bags. It is possible for people to sustain more serious injuries in a car with airbags than in the same crash without- but this is usually a very specific set of circumstances and the injuries caused by the airbag are usually mild.
It is true that early generation airbags, expired airbags, faulty airbags can be problematic. It is also true that certain persons or seating positions can be unsafe to sit next to airbags. That said..
So yes. Most likely not any actual “prototype” unless perhaps a prototype created by a “home tinkerer” or such.
Of course while it may be fun to think about the truth is accidents happen to even the most careful of drivers and in reality safer cars for crashes aren’t a bad thing and I don’t actually want people getting hurt. It would be much easier for me to support less people driving- because honestly many drivers do have no business operating a vehicle but have a need- if we had better designed and supported infrastructure and zoning etc. such as eliminating sprawling suburbs that often are miles from essential services and employment and instead built integrated communities where walking, public transit, or other means than car allowed viable and full living.
That said- as time moves forward it may become a dead issue.
Smog laws serve a dual purpose- they do help clean the air but they drive the economy. Cars that can’t pass smog get junked most often. On newer vehicles converters alone can be over $2500 a piece with up to or over 4 per vehicle. Many times the cost of smog repair exceeds the vehicle value. Except credit cards or personal loans the costs are generally “up front” compared to buying a new vehicle.
In that few decades, the current trend points towards a rapid rise of self driving vehicle technology- a trend which on the consumer side will likely push many people to buy self driving as many, probably most drivers are driving as a chore, few drivers delight at your regular commute or sitting in traffic even if they enjoy the open road or a Sunday cruise, and the average consumer is more concerned with amenities and features than the “pure driving experience,” Toyota and such made themselves giants largely by selling appliances- cars that were affordable and required little attention, efficient and low cost of operation with practicality- not cars that excite.
On the legal side it probably won’t take long once the technology is viable to start to see arguments that congestion, accidents, travel times, emissions etc. can all be decreased if all the cars are self driving and coordinated through traffic control protocols. Cars that don’t break the law, don’t get drunk, don’t drive with emotions but in the most practical and efficient way to get all drivers to where they are going safely and quickly. Cars that pull over for emergency vehicles without bafoonery, that don’t drive where cars aren’t allowed and likely have fewer accidents. Cars that in theory can safety drive at higher speeds and closer distances etc. which could improve travel times and decrease congestion.
those who own older homes may not have on property parking at all- or the electrical systems to facilitate charger installation without electrical work costing thousands or more dollars. Charging stations can cost thousands of dollars on their own, and anyone with street parking faces hurdles to charging while parked unless they have street side charges or outlets where they live.
So the used EV market is one where 20 year old cars aren’t likely cheap- even if the car costs $500- the replacement battery- if available- may cost $20,000 or more. At present EV generally aren’t self serviceable for most. Modern ICE cars are difficult to self service often due to complex systems and construction- but asides special tools and warranty protections etc. EV will easily kill you or start fires if handled by shade tree mechanics- even many simple tasks. There is little after market support for parts and components. This may change with time but big EV are fighting it to maintain
When and if self driving cars become the norm- expect the costs to own cars to rise once more. It is most likely in my opinion that self driving cars will follow closer to a “subscription” model which may make them affordable to a wider range but still possibly out of reach of the lowest wealth their drivers. That said- by the time we get to self driving cars the issues of idiot drivers is largely solved. First a decrease in overall drivers by economic pressure and then a conversion to self driving cars that in theory would be safer.
So driving just isn’t safe. For many or most it is so common- we likely drive/ride daily or see others doing so without incident and it is a mundane thing that we assume because it is so common and most of the time most people are fine that it is “safe.” There is nothing inherently safe about it. It is inherently dangerous- but it isn’t statistically so risky that it is suicidal or anything- but that sense of security tends to distract us from the physics involved and what is actually happening.
Few people take the risks and responsibilities of driving seriously or can even fathom or understand the statistical break downs let alone the human tendency to dissociate our mortality.
So that’s the issue- no matter how safe or how dangerous you force cars to be, drivers are the ones who make cars dangerous. Computer drivers are still dangerous but a road system full of well designed and implemented computer drivers is probably safer than one full of human drivers of average skill and respect level. I suspect that if you passed a law that anyone pulled over by the police would get shot instead of a warning or ticket you would still see lots of bad driving because people are bad at risk assessment. People that already drive like they don’t give a shit about their life or anyone else aren’t likely to be discouraged by any measures to make cars deadlier
People who have driven drunk “plenty of times” will do it again- they’ll say “I’ve done this before and been fine so I’ll be fine this time,” and there is no basis in fact for that belief- it’s basically superstition. Yet… the simplest most fundamental thing that is entirely controllable on most cases- and most people have broken it. So that’s the world we live in. That’s humanity.