Somebody backed into the front corner of my pickup truck at about 2 mph. Put a little crack into the plastic bumper, that continues into the front quarter panel. I'm glad I don't care about my vehicles looking 100% perfect, as I've no doubt that it'd be in the shop for a week, torn completely apart, and would cost a couple grand. It's ridiculous.
It just seems like it shouldn't have to be either/or. Is material science not advanced enough to find some combination of parts that can sustain a low speed impact with no damage but crumple safely in a higher-speed impact?
For collisions, it's safe for the cabin to be fairly rigid to protect the occupants while crumpling the zones further away to absorb as much of the energy as possible before the impact reaches the soft, mushy humans.
It's a combination of physics and costs. Material science might be advanced enough, but the solution might not make economic sense; but if anyone has it, it would likely be Volvo.
Meanwhile, I'm gonna stick to buying used for less than the cost of your accident :P
The cost here wasn't to the Tesla driver, but to one of the people sharing the road with them without any say in the matter. :)
Part of the cost of an expensive to repair car is an externality on all the other drivers.
That's pretty clearly a consumer hostile position. Given the extreme competition in the automotive sector and the nation-state interest in their continued success, I'm a long term bear on Tesla.
Wouldn't his liability insurance have paid for damage to another vehicle? I'd expect that the only cost to the driver might be an increase on his insurance premium for having been at fault in a collision.
For comparison, the average "newer used" (1-3 years old) car in 2017 sold for $15374, so a low speed car park ding cost almost as much as destroying a nearly-new car.
1: http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2016/12/5_things_to_...