Go above and beyond on safety

Auto makers have a chance to capture market direction by championing more car security. I do not mean merely continuing present security efforts. Car companies should not do the minimal, but the upper limit. Maybe even lobby regulators to raise security conditions. Look, manufacturing companies already work difficult to make vehicles safer, usually exceeding legal demands. I recall the state of the art security functions on my first automobile, a '53 Buick Super: huge brakes, vivid headlights and laminated security glass. In addition , I recall no seatbelts, a metal dashboard as well as a stiff steering column going past the controls. So thanks for to-day belts, numerous air bags, crumple zones and the rest of the lifesaving apparatus that shield us. But I am advocating more than present attempts. Double down on security. Get out in the front of client and regulator demands and apply direction. Yes, I understand the expostulations. That is overly pricey. Do not auto makers already invest a great deal to to satisfy fuel economy and other laws? Do not they want capital reservations against an unsure future? Yes, they do. And auto-biz gross profits are usually thinner than in other sectors. However , I believe there is a way to foster long term profitability by snatching security direction. First, everyone must foster security in any case. Regulators will continue requiring more security functions. And internationally, watchdogs are increasing fines for violations and non-compliance. So spend now to include security and dependability? Or pay-later on recalls, fines, court cases and possibly reputational harm? Second, most sophisticated security functions exceed passive security to helping prevent crashes -- active-safety. And these attributes are essential measures resulting in autonomous vehicles, probably a money-making section for the first to make it happen. Why not request to make them needed gear? Third, customers progressively need safer vehicles. The great news: They Will pay additional for security products. The terrible news: Current Boston Consulting Group study reveals most customers will not spend the total cost charged on new security functions. Which delivers me to a possible breakthrough opportunity. It is there, simply, because vehicle security improvements catch on gradually. Itis a Catch 22 scenario: a fresh attribute costs a lot to produce, and industry attractiveness is unclear. So it debuts as a large-dollar alternative on several vehicles to cover prices. Reaching near-worldwide use with economies of scale pricing requires years, but unilaterally installing a fresh safety feature sets one automaker in a cost disadvantage to competitors. So what can shorten that cumbersome procedure? Well, a national requirement to put in it. Shifting U.S. vehicle rules additionally takes time, but an non-traditional bureaucrat such as National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chief Mark Rosekind could assist. At the moment, he is best-known for levying large fines for security lapses. But his take-over of the Takata air-bag inflator recalls reveals Rosekind cares greatly about public-safety. Car companies should contemplate openly requesting Rosekind to fast track one or 2 of the most effective advanced-security technologies. Getting safer automobiles on the street more rapidly would save lives. It may enhance U.S. public understanding of the automotive industry, which, after belated revelations of poor ignition switches and bursting air bags, could use some help.

It's possible for you to achieve Jesse Snyder at [email protected].

Tags:
Production
NHTSA
Vehicle Security
Mark Rosekind
Comments
Jesse Snyder

Marketing

Read Source

07.12.2015
ID:3354

More news from this source:

1. Tell us about retail high achievers under 40
2. Suits target price-fixing parts makers
3. Soaring on the wings of the snowbirds
4. Volvo recalls 59,000 cars over software fault
5. Hyundai Ioniq targets Prius, but not in sales