Way too extreme. Seeing the world in such manicheanist terms is not healthy.
All companies care about safety, to varying degrees and for a mix of reasons ranging from PR to regulatory burden to the fact the CEO uses the product.
Many don’t care enough by my subjective standards, but it’s silly and childish to say no company cares even the tiniest bit about safety in any context.
yes, all companies care about safety...after profits
we've structured corporations that this is the main driver, full stop.
as an example, earlier in my career i worked in aviation test equipment. for commercial and govt't agencies. let's just say i avoid flying anywhere at all costs now if i can. why? because, as always, safety is secondary to profits (and most of the time, you hope it is secondary and not ternary or worse). and this was in a 'highly regulated' industry.
Everything a company does must be "after profits" if you lose money on everything you do then you aren't running a company you are running (poorly I might add) a charity.
First it has to be profitable, then it has to be useful to the customer.
Meh — you’re getting into mind reading. Safety and profits are related. If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain, have at it. That hasn’t been my experience.
Except the relationship is not strong enough to compel companies to always do the right thing (or even to do so adequately often). Especially when they perceive that the market will let them get away with it. For example when negative impacts are scheduled to occur far into the future (or in the present but affecting non-customers, or the environment).
Or when they occur in the present, but (as with seatbelts before they were mandatory) the customers just don't perceive the risks.
If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain
The comment you initially chimed in on was definitely quite hyperbolic. But this take is also.
Of course not "every" person working at a company needs to be ethically challenged for bad things to happen. All that's need are a few bad apples (whom we know are in no short supply) at approrpriate levels of responsibility. The rest will simply go along, to keep their jobs.
> In 1949, Wisconsin-based Nash Motors became the first car company to offer them as an additional feature. Almost no one asked for them. In 1968, when seat belts became standard equipment, some drivers responded by cutting them out of their vehicles. In 1982, when Michigan State Rep. David Hollister introduced a state seat belt law, he received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. The reception to such laws in other states was similarly cool. In the 1980s, only 14% of all Americans used seat belts.
Volvo is a (mostly) made in China brand of a large Chinese automotive company. If in the past safety conscious swedish engineers cared about it, they surely have very little say right now.
Lucid has a sample size too small to evaluate.
What matters for safety is precisely one thing. Does the company culture, meaning the engineers on the ground, view it as a goal by itself or a list of checkboxes you need to tick.
> If in the past safety conscious swedish engineers cared about it, they surely have very little say right now
Subsidiaries can have a different culture from their parent organizations. Volvo still has engineers and designers in Sweden, and Tata owns Land Rover and Jaguar, which seem to be doing okay safety wise and don't appear to be obviously cutting corners like the Vinfast project. I have seen no evidence of a decline in Volvo's safety record, the "but surely Geely doesn't care." argument is a reverse appeal-to-authority, in the absence of evidence. It is entirely possible that Geely (and Tata) may have poor safety cultures, but their foreign subsidiaries do a much better job.
Companies like Stellantis are very keen on brands using standardized platforms. I would be very surprised if in the future Volvos weren't using engineered in China Platforms, which are localized for Europe (same for Land Rover with engineered in India).
If Swedish engineers are just developing hats, their influence on crash safety is significantly reduced. Right now Volvo still uses an inhouse platform, where they do actually have control, but it is obviously inefficient to develop numerous similar platforms for different brands.
Sure, but we should be clear that it's speculation on future behavior (sound as it may be). That has not happened (yet). Some MNC's succeed in not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs (I'm also speculating)
Volvo is an interesting case. Being acquired, becoming a subsidiary, is famous last words for the past culture and focus. If the acquirer really cared to retain that safety focus, I would have expected doubling down on related advertising and PR work.
But from where I sit, Volvo advertising and safety PR has entirely disappeared. That does not bode well for that "safety focus". Anyone has current info?
As pointed out elsewhere their cars still perform well on crash tests and they still use their own platform.
I think what will or won't break the whole thing os whether their next generation of cars will still use a self developed platform. If they do, then I would consider it quite likely that management at Volvo has the independence needed to keep their own vision. If Geely forces a platform onto them, then I think it is a pretty clear statement that they see Volvo as nothing but brand recognition.
I agree, except that Lucid’s small sample size has achieved the only complete 5-star rating on every test on their one vehicle; this can’t happen unless, as you say, the engineers on the ground view it as a goal by itself.
The only other company that has done this, to my knowledge, is Volvo.
>this can’t happen unless, as you say, the engineers on the ground view it as a goal by itself.
Obviously it can. Cars are engineered to satisfy specific test, which are well known in advance. You can always engineer cars to satisfy them.
Crash tests aren't everything though and I mention sample size because issues might only reveal themselves after a prolonged period in a few cars. E.g. a defect on a very important component, which only occurs after some years in a few circumstances is an obvious safety issue which Lucids could not have proven themselves against.
I say this not as particular slight against Lucid, but because safety is more than satisfying tests. Often safety is where you are doing things which aren't tested at all.
>The only other company that has done this, to my knowledge, is Volvo.
Looking at the Euro NCAP is the VW ID.7 Tourer is also getting pretty decent marks.
I think Volvo is a good example for why most companies don't care about safety any more than the law and basic PR requires: the market does not reward companies that try to use safety as a selling point. Volvo is the only major car company that consistently manufactures cars that widely exceed legal safety requirements, but have a global market share of less than half a percent.
That's probably about the number of people who take safety into consideration as a major factor when making purchasing decisions.
Counterpoint: safety can be a market differentiator. Volvo had seatbelts as standards before regulators mandated them. To this day, and leans heavily into safety. I can confidently say Volvo cares more about safety than Vinfast.
You are wrong about cars. There are many automakers who absolutely care about safety, particularly in Germany, where even the slightest possibility of safety concerns can end an initiative.
Consumers and victims care about safety. Regulation is the only reason safety exists.