So far, at least, we’re still free to choose whether to exercise
— or not. We can also decide for ourselves whether to engage in
“risky” sports — for example, skiing (or motorcycle riding).
But we’re not allowed to decide for ourselves when it comes to
our cars — which must, by law, come equipped with a multitude of
features designed to make them “safer” — even if the risks are
(increasingly) remote and theoretical while the cost of protecting
against them very real.
And very high.
Since the mid-1990s, when driver and passenger air bags became
mandatory, the “add-on” cost of government-required safety features
amounted to at least $1,000 per car in direct manufacturing costs
— plus “lifetime” costs (servicing, repairing and replacing these
components) that are double or triple the initial costs. As an
example, when an air bag-equipped car is involved in an accident
and the bag(s) deploy, the repair costs (both bags and all related
components have to be replaced, including the steering wheel and
dashpad, etc.) for these products alone can amount to several
thousand dollars. That’s before even considering any actual body
damage to the vehicle.
It’s not uncommon for an otherwise repairable vehicle to be
“totaled” by the insurance company — because the cost of replacing
the air bags, along with the body damage, exceeds 50 percent of the
retail value of the vehicle. Older, modestly priced cars are
especially vulnerable on this score. It doesn’t take much to incur
$3,000 in damage to a car these days — and if the car itself is
only worth $5,000 or so, it’s doomed. And the owner left with a
check that might buy a down payment on a replacement — but not a
replacement vehicle.
Higher repair costs have thus increased the cost to insure
late-model vehicles equipped with air bags — and these costs will
only go up as vehicles are fitted with even more complex/expensive
technology that may be damaged and need replacement in the event of
an accident.
If an air bag saves your life — or prevents a major injury —
you won’t be worried much about the costs involved. However, most
of us do not have unlimited means — and at some point, cost has to
be taken into account — “reduced risk” notwithstanding. All the
technology in the world does you absolutely no good if it’s so
expensive you can’t afford to buy it.
And things are headed in that direction.
In addition to driver and passenger frontal airbags, many new
cars also come equipped with side-impact and curtain air bags —
even knee airbags — for as many as six to eight air bags, all
told. Side-impact and curtain air bags aren’t mandatory — yet —
but odds are good they will be made so within the next few years.
The same is true of technologies such as electronic stability
control — the mandating of which is already under discussion in
Congress. As are remote camera back-up monitors (the Cameron
Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act).
The problem is that the quest for the perfectly safe car is a
quest of diminishing returns. Seat belts, padded dashboards, and
safety glass didn’t cost much to put into a car — but provided a
dramatic increase in occupant protection during a crash. As we move
down the line to things like a baker’s dozen air bags and multiple
electronic countermeasures (stability control, lane departure
warning systems, etc.) we see much more up-front cost (and down the
road “peripheral” costs) with an ever-diminishing real-world return
in terms of lives saved and injuries prevented.
For example, proponents of the proposal to require all new cars
to be fitted with closed-circuit back-up cameras point to fewer
than 200 injuries (and even fewer deaths) that could have been (in
theory) prevented by back-up cameras. An argument could be made
that had the drivers involved in these tragedies simply taken the
time to make sure no small children were in the path of the vehicle
before they moved the shifter lever into Reverse, the injuries and
deaths could have been avoided — without the need for complicated
and expensive technology. And is it reasonable to impose a cost of
several hundred dollars per car (for this one bit of technology
alone) to address a “risk” that, at most, might affect a few
hundred people out of a nation of 300 million? If it is, then at
what point do we call a halt? If it can be shown that a single life
might (in theory) be saved by the mandating of “technology x” —
will that be enough to make it so? Irrespective of the cost
involved?
It’s hard to nail the figure down precisely, but there’s little
doubt the average 2007 model car or truck is carrying at least
$2,500 in additional “up front” costs for recently-mandated safety
equipment — as well as ever-higher “lifetime” costs (insurance
premiums, repair and maintenance, etc.). Add side-impact/curtain
air bags, back-up cameras, lane departure warning, intelligent
cruise control and stability control to the equation and it’s
probably low-balling it to say $4,000 per vehicle in
government-mandated (or potentially soon-to-be-mandated) safety
gear.
The irony of it is that as new cars become ever-safer (in
theory), the more costly they become (in fact) and, accordingly,
the stronger the incentive to keep “old faithful” — even if she
hasn’t got half a dozen air bags and multiple electronic fail-safes
mandated by cost-no-object legislators.
At least she’s paid-for.
