Now, there are other reasons I wouldn't want to buy a Volvo but if this system works it might be installed in other cars as well :-)
If you're a psychopath maybe.
> and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it.
Can only be true if you value the lives of others very low. There are plenty of people who do not value the lives of others very low, so there is most likely a market for this. Besides, even if you are purely selfish there are good reasons why you don't want to kill somebody in an accident.
Plenty of people value the lives of others very lowly - or, really, they just don't think about it. How often do you see people speed, run red lights, tailgate, etc? I don't think that I've ever taken a journey without seeing at least some of these behaviours. That doesn't make those drivers psychopaths! Just distracted, pressed for time or worrying about something else. In the same way, not fitting this system doesn't make you a bad person...maybe you just don't have the $500 (or however much it costs) to fit it as an optional extra.
Just to be clear - I don't think this is a bad system. I'm curious how to go about marketing it to the average driver who is economically-minded. Does it have to be regulation, can it be insurance premiums, or is there some other mechanism to encourage uptake?
Yes, that's what I'm saying: empathy. There are plenty of ladies and gentlemen who do have it. I know a lot of people besides myself who would like an external airbag, if it is shown to be effective at reducing the severity of injuries and preventing death. If you really want to have a purely Randian viewpoint, consider this: empathy is something that people have evolved to have because it benefits them, and we're stuck with it even if not having it would be a benefit to themself in a particular situation, just like we're stuck with the tendency to become fat even though it may not be the best for you nowadays (not that I'm saying that empathy has become less evolutionarily useful over time -- just that humans do not make optimal selfish decisions all the time).
But on top of that, the reason this is on the frontpage of HN isn't because the system is installed in a Volvo V40. It's that this system is now a reality and might soon become part of standard safety systems. I personally had never heard of this system and think it's a fantastic idea. And news coverage and consumer interest/awareness could result in this system being installed in more and more cars.
And if we don't want to limit this option to a tiny segment of the population, how do we encourage its uptake for the millions of vehicles that are marketed on the basis of economy and not on protecting the psyches of teenage drivers who are being given, and not choosing, their own cars?
A hybrid is immediately obvious from the outside: a Prius is obviously recognisable. This feature is completely concealed, which takes a lot of the social cachet and signalling away from it.
Musk recognised that, to really sell electric cars, you can't rely on the altruistic goodwill of a purchaser who wants to help reduce dependence on oil and reduce emissions. You have to make the absolute best car. So, how do you sell this without relying on altruism (which some do have, but not all)? I think reduced car tax and reduced insurance rates may be good guesses.
If a system like this is widely available, and it proves effective, then there will it will provide the benefit of reduced injury. Reduced injury means lower medical bills for the injured and lower settlement payouts.
Insurance premiums are tightly modeled. Lower risk and incident costs mean lower rates. That's one potential benefit to the purchaser.
You also have to consider regulation. Humans are poor judges of risk. There was a time not too long ago when consumers would choose "cheap" over "safe" if given a choice. I don't mean to say that consumers would walk in to a dealership and say, "Give me the cheapest car you have, safety be damned!" I mean to say that car manufacturers would say, "Oh yeah, of course it's safe," and consumers would take their claims at face value. That proved to be a poor choice.
Enter government regulation. At some point, it became clear that automakers and consumers weren't going to make cars sufficiently safe on their own. The first steps in safety were things like mandatory fitment of seat belts, then compulsory wearing. Airbags followed, then ABS.
Now we're seeing an increase in regulations related to pedestrian safety. There are already some pretty significant laws on the books in the EU related to pedestrian safety. Car and Driver, of course, takes the perspective of how this effects automobile design:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/taking-the-hit-how-pede...
Volvo has a pretty long history of pioneering safety systems that are later made compulsory by legislation. I suspect we may be seeing the same thing here.
I don't fully understand the thinking behind your question.
This system doesn't increase the safety of someone dear to the purchaser and therefore seems to be less attractive, unless there is some other compensation, e.g reduced insurance rates.
I understand that it is nice to drive a car that is more safe for other people in the case of an accident, but you can do that cheaper by driving more slowly and more carefully, surely? I would think that if you are the type of driver who cares enough about potentially injuring others to pay several hundred dollars for this safety system, you're not the kind of driver who is recklessly endangering other people's lives and thus requiring it.
EDIT: I don't understand this being downvoted at all. I'm not saying it is a bad or pointless system. I'm saying that the people most likely to need it are not likely to pay for it! Is the solution to enforce usage by regulation, to reduce insurance premiums for cars that have this system fitted or something else?