EVs & guardrails

One of the loudest advocates for car safety features is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, (IIHS). If the insurance industry did not profit from safer cars, why would they be performing their own crash tests? A couple years ago, the IIHS noted there was little difference in their crash tests between smaller cars and larger trucks. Instead of congratulating the engineers for designing smaller cars that are as safe as big trucks, they defined it as a problem. The IIHS switched to a heavier ram, traveling at a higher speed, with the stated intent of making smaller cars look bad.

If the insurance industry did not profit from “safety”, why do they spend what they do on testing, to generate the data to demand enormous sums be spent, by others, to build “safer” cars?

Steve

I find these stats a bit suspect. If one insurance company (with a well diversified customer base) has $100B in claims and another (equally diverse) company has $50B in claims it is probably because the company with fewer claims has about half as many customers. Correct?

Mike

You know the answer to this question! You’ve mentioned it at least a hundred times here. The insurance industry would much rather insure $50,000 vehicles than $25,000 vehicles … because they make more money from the more expensive ones because the premiums are higher. And the profits are higher.

1 Like

Correct. But it helps to read the WHOLE comment before replying (I’m also guilty of doing it sometimes!)

I’ll repeat the relevant part here -

If an insurance company has 100B in claims, and new safety features reduce their claims to 50B, their profit will follow (once the regulators set their new rate guidelines).

If an insurance company has 100B in claims, and new safety features reduce their claims to 50B, their profit will follow (once the regulators set their new rate guidelines).

So the goal of every insurance company is to become smaller and smaller?

Mike

What is the point of these nonsense EV bashing articles in mainstream flame-baiting “journalism”, and what is the point of posting them here? Is it to highlight the ongoing incompetence and politicized / lobbyist-driven agenda of the NTSB?

1 Like

That’s just my point. That is clearly NOT their goal.

The thing that I am most surprised about is that our resident expert on JCs, who never gets bamboozled by them, is suddenly bamboozled by insurance JCs. Of all the JCs out there, I would have expected those to be the last ones @steve203 would take at their word. Maybe they have some other motive in funding “safety” organizations? Could be that the motive is to move to bigger and more expensive vehicles. Those have more expensive parts and repairs, and thus the insurance companies earn more from them.

The auto industry wants to increase ATP and GP to infinity. The oil industry is OK with that, as a 5000lb ICE SUV will burn a lot more gas than a 3,000lb car with much less frontal area.

Steve