DoT (and other departments) are required to take the cost of rules into account when writing them. So for example if the cost of putting in a safety rail on a curve exceeds the cost of the lives estimated to be saved at that curve over the lifetime of the rail, it won't be installed.
Different departments used to, and AFAIK still do (though I don't track this), value the price of a life differently. And it's not just the cost of the life; it's the cost of the cars damaged in a rear-end collision.
I can't link the graph directly because it doesn't display the text, ctrl-f "Change in U.S. road deaths since 1994" to see it
> A combination of factors creates this deadly situation for people walking on U.S. roadways. A steep drop in traffic enforcement across the country since 2020 has enabled dangerous driving behaviors – including speeding and driving impaired – to flourish. At the same time, roads are largely designed to prioritize fast-moving vehicle traffic instead of slower speeds that are safer for people walking. Many parts of the country lack infrastructure – such as sidewalks, crosswalks and lighting – that help protect people on foot. The U.S. vehicle fleet is increasingly dominated by larger, heavier vehicles that are more likely to injure or kill people walking.
I think the pause on enforcement a lot of police departments did after the George Floyd protests is a contributing factor to that first point: it’s not just that the worst drivers realized that they could do whatever they want after buying some fake plates on Facebook but that other drivers start feeling like suckers for still following the rules. I wouldn’t say the drivers here were ever great but they used to at least stop for the red light in front of the neighborhood elementary school.
Which is always a silly thing to read. George Floyd wasn't arrested because he flying 60 mph through red lights. It was over an alleged crime with maximum damages of $20; it's not even comparable to the violations being let slide.
I'm guessing patents and the like have already decided who the winner of this rule is and it probably isn't automobile buyers in the US.
Much of the other components are already present on modern vehicles.
This might not be expensive per se but is still a few hundred bucks.
For a small car this can easily be a few percent extra.
The cost to implement it or the cost to make it utterly bulletproof?
1. Add these safety feature mandates that increase the price of vehicles 2. Move towards banning larger and larger vehicles and create limits on height and clearance for non-commercial vehicles.
The latter doesn't seem politically popular, so the former is the only choice.
If I use public transport now, the travel time is 2 hours. To keep my public transport to 30 minutes, I have to ~2x my housing costs.
I think, realistically, people will just end up commuting further, to offset the cost, since that is the best financial, and time, choice.
[1] https://www.ppic.org/blog/multi-unit-housing-is-becoming-mor...
As opposed to travel cost?
(yes, it's a really stupid situation that renting a house is far more expensive than renting some money for thirty years)
If free electric charging is available where you work, you can save even more by buying a low range, used, electric that nobody wants. I picked one up for $8k. The savings will pay it off in a few more years.
Even so, the goal shouldn't be fewer cars but less miles driven.
The kind of antagonistic approach you prescribe rarely leads to good policy.
If we had walkable cities with good public transportation and people had actual options it'd be different.
There's an intersection of anti-car and social justice concerns where you have to ask where the financial burden is hitting.