> Why is there not legislation for this already?

Cars that dont kill their drivers are more likely to have repeat customers; i.e. other factors besides legislation will force car manufacterers to shift their designs back to this approach. My 2024 CRV has exactly what you describe.

The fraction of car owners who die every year is relatively tiny. The fraction of car owners who die due to their own mistakes, where those mistakes were caused by the car, is even smaller. It's a segment of the market that is safe to ignore, financially speaking.

Survivorship bias, information asymmetry and product design is at play here.

100% rational and 100% informed consumers do not exist. There's both information asymmetry between manufacturers and consumers. I'm sure there's man fatal accidents that can be traced back to faulty components and improper design that gets covered up by manufacturers. The Volkswagen emissions scandal was just easily measurable.

Everyone likes it that way. Consumers are attracted to features, gimmicks and marketing because that's what works for marketing and sells. No one wants to buy a "900% less accidents than others" car. But everyone wants a bluetooth and wifi enabled car with seat subscriptions. Besides, what's a rational consumer gotta do? They gotta get up at 06:30 and make breakfast for little Timmy and take him to daycare. They need a new car by the end of the month so they better choose between big touch screen or little touch screen with a control knob.

If I can't get a dumb TV, I just don't buy a dumb TV or watch any TV at all. But you can't not travel by car.

Cars don't kill their drivers typically, they kill people outside of the vehicle.

If that were the case they'd be no need for seatbelt laws

People buy a new car generally every 5-7 years.

furthermore there does not seem to be any great brand loyalty in the market

https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/automotive-consumers-more-di...

maybe because of being afraid of dying but probably not, but given how often people buy new cars (not that often) and the lack of loyalty, I think it would not make any sense from a business perspective to give a damn if the customers die (disregarding moral perspective which I'm sure is a primary concern for automotive manufacturers)

Being so ideologically rigid that you suggest survival of the fittest over legislation...

The other factors being that enough people get killed so that a shrinking market share forces their management decide to change their car designs?

I have a libertarian streak when it comes to drugs, porn/prostitution, free speech, patent law, etc. but in this case I’m perfectly fine with governments “getting involved” to ensure that I can shop for a vehicle without becoming a random sample in a statistical study of car safety. Especially if a possible outcome is my preventable death.

Cars kill more than only their customers. Can we at least have legislation to prevent cars from killing the people in front of them, who were never customers to begin with? Somehow we have laws requiring passenger airbags, but not pedestrian airbags...