Look at injurious car crashes as a fraction of the population rather than in raw numbers. Therein lies the answer.
(And the answer is not to screech about how people are stupid because they don't share your values, prioritization or risk assessment. I shouldn't have to say this, but I feel like I do considering the subject matter)
>Look at injurious car crashes as a fraction of the population rather than in raw numbers. Therein lies the answer.
Elaborate? Are you suggesting that car accidents are not that high to begin with relatively, so it is not worth as much to increase safety only in cars because it may not translate to overall safety to a person?
More or less. The average person isn't gonna get injured in a car crash in their life, let alone in the time they own a particular car. Hence why it's treated as a "nice to have" that people only consider for a purchasing decisions once their other criteria are met. Which is also why you see it most touted when people are buying something that's handily doing what they need and more (SUV for 1 kid, car car for A to B commuting where just about anything will do, etc). People aren't gonna compromise a key requirement for half a star on a rating for something they're unlikely to need.
that's what i have been trying to say!! so why is it so obvious that people should accept increase in car prices with regulations when they don't behave that way when buying cars?
This is made up out of thin air.