939
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
939 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
58520 readers
4204 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why are insurance companies the ones making the rational decision about saying it's a dangerous piece of shit and not our transportation regulators? It needs to be banned.
because it aligns with their financial incentives.
I don't think insurance companies care of the trucks are dangerous per se. They care if they are expensive to repair, or prone to accidents which could attach liability to the policy holder and thereby the insurance company.
I keep telling conservatives this. It makes sense to have some form of suspicion around a message when some corporation has a profit motive behind it. For instance, climate change and companies selling solar panels (although I wish they wouldn't put SO much effort into that faint connection).
However, that also applies for the inverse - that when insurance drops coverage for Florida homes, it's because climate change is real and they know it will hurt their bottom line.
Funny enough, that's exactly what the article says.
Go try to get insurance for a Lambo or a nice exotic.
Good luck giving that free market talk to the insurance sales guy.
Because automobile regulation in the US is an absolute joke.
Because insurance companies are filled with bean-counters (not intended as an insult, I'm a bean-counter in a different field) who want to come out ahead. That's why the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) exists. You'd think organization that does crash tests and promotes new technology would be a government organization, but nope, it's insurance providers that want to minimize payouts.
I don't see anything in the article suggesting it's particularly dangerous, only that it's very expensive to fix, and in a collision will probably cause significant damage to the other vehicle (though that doesn't mean it'll necessarily cause injury).
The US doesn't exactly approve or deny vehicles in general; any vehicle that conforms to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards can be sold, as far as I know. And I don't see any section that covers safety of the other party in a collision, unfortunately. Maybe write your reps and suggest they add one.
Sorry, I'm not getting the distinction here. Isn't a vehicle that conforms to the FMVSS the same as one that is approved?
Or is the check against FMVSS is not done ahead of time, but only later in any lawsuits?