4 ms·

No, that comment sounds like the insurance job described in Fight Club[1] > Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The r

No, that comment sounds like the insurance job described in Fight Club[1] > Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one. [1] Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE

jaclaz 6y ago
Or that actually happened, in the known Ford Pinto Memo "affair": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analysis,_the_Pinto_Memo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analys...
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  And a little further down the same page you linked.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safety_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safet... Turns out the Pinto was within the realm of normal for a car of that type and era and if you're building something normal it's hard to justify recalling it at great expense unless everyone else is recalling it to (in which case that would be normal).
  - droopyEyelids 6y ago
    This thread has been a bit of a roller coaster.
  - jaclaz 6y ago
    Yep, but that is an analysis from a Legal viewpoint. What - I believe - made the Pinto case memorable was not that in a given subset of accidents it was (or was not) slightly more dangerous, it is the fact that the matter was looked into by the manufacturers and that it was waved off on a mere cost/benefit basis (with a supposed cost for increased security per car of US$ 11). Mind you this is all in all normal, any safety norm or related technical specifications is (or should be) based on the "reasonable costs for society to obtain a reasonable increase in safety".
- imglorp 6y ago
  AND in the Suzuki Samuri rollover deaths (I knew one victim): where they knew there was an issue very early and had a "crisis plan". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Motor_Corp._v._Consumers_Union_of_the_U.S.,_Inc.#Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Motor_Corp._v._Consumer...
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    And meanwhile something like 20% of Bronco IIs got rolled and nobody cared. But as soon as someone puts an Explorer on it's roof or a Samurai barrel rolls through an intersection and there's a problem. Pretty much that whole generation of midsize SUVs rolled easily. That's just one of the engineering trade-offs all those vehicles made and anyone can tell you that. If Consumer Reports was picking my SUV as the one to target I'd assemble a "get these people off our back" team too. The media has made more than a few scandals out of pure normalcy over the years. The Frontline(?) gas cap thing comes to mind as a good example. Reality doesn't seem to matter nearly as much as the marketing team and lawyers you use to shape the public's perception is what matters. It's no wonder that corporations reaction to reported problems seems to always be to try to steamroll whomever is complaining and/or keep things on the down low.
    - imglorp 6y ago
      I think GP's point was that they did the fight club math ahead of time, knowing they'd have a certain number of deaths and lawsuits, and proceeded to market with that plan. Spin/media/marketing/CR/NHTSA after it's all public is a bigger subject, yes.
F_J_H 6y ago
A farmer's donkey dies. His son gets an idea on how to make some money. Sometime later he turns up at dinner with $200. "Where did you get that money?" His father asks. "I sold raffle tickets for the donkey" his son replied. "What?!?" Shouts his father. "You can't sell raffle tickets for a donkey that you know has already died! Weren't people mad?" "Just the guy who won" said the son, "so I gave him his money back."
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Really, he'd want the value of a donkey - not his money back. But with a raffle, the 'take' can easily exceed the cost of the prizes. So I guess the son would still make out ok.
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
    He would want the value of the donkey. The son would offer the value of the tickets. Lawyers would make it somewhere in the middle. Then the lawyers would walk off with all the money.
    - abnercoimbre 6y ago
      This has been a valuable thought experiment for me.
tcgv 6y ago
He forgot to add up the cost of bad publicity due to car crashes. If not somehow thrown under the carpet it would harm the car's credibility reducing overall sales (and profits)

jaclaz 6y ago

Or that actually happened, in the known Ford Pinto Memo "affair": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analysis,_the_Pinto_Memo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analys...

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
And a little further down the same page you linked.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safety_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safet... Turns out the Pinto was within the realm of normal for a car of that type and era and if you're building something normal it's hard to justify recalling it at great expense unless everyone else is recalling it to (in which case that would be normal).
- droopyEyelids 6y ago
  This thread has been a bit of a roller coaster.
- jaclaz 6y ago
  Yep, but that is an analysis from a Legal viewpoint. What - I believe - made the Pinto case memorable was not that in a given subset of accidents it was (or was not) slightly more dangerous, it is the fact that the matter was looked into by the manufacturers and that it was waved off on a mere cost/benefit basis (with a supposed cost for increased security per car of US$ 11). Mind you this is all in all normal, any safety norm or related technical specifications is (or should be) based on the "reasonable costs for society to obtain a reasonable increase in safety".
imglorp 6y ago
AND in the Suzuki Samuri rollover deaths (I knew one victim): where they knew there was an issue very early and had a "crisis plan". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Motor_Corp._v._Consumers_Union_of_the_U.S.,_Inc.#Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Motor_Corp._v._Consumer...
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  And meanwhile something like 20% of Bronco IIs got rolled and nobody cared. But as soon as someone puts an Explorer on it's roof or a Samurai barrel rolls through an intersection and there's a problem. Pretty much that whole generation of midsize SUVs rolled easily. That's just one of the engineering trade-offs all those vehicles made and anyone can tell you that. If Consumer Reports was picking my SUV as the one to target I'd assemble a "get these people off our back" team too. The media has made more than a few scandals out of pure normalcy over the years. The Frontline(?) gas cap thing comes to mind as a good example. Reality doesn't seem to matter nearly as much as the marketing team and lawyers you use to shape the public's perception is what matters. It's no wonder that corporations reaction to reported problems seems to always be to try to steamroll whomever is complaining and/or keep things on the down low.
  - imglorp 6y ago
    I think GP's point was that they did the fight club math ahead of time, knowing they'd have a certain number of deaths and lawsuits, and proceeded to market with that plan. Spin/media/marketing/CR/NHTSA after it's all public is a bigger subject, yes.

F_J_H 6y ago

A farmer's donkey dies. His son gets an idea on how to make some money. Sometime later he turns up at dinner with $200. "Where did you get that money?" His father asks. "I sold raffle tickets for the donkey" his son replied. "What?!?" Shouts his father. "You can't sell raffle tickets for a donkey that you know has already died! Weren't people mad?" "Just the guy who won" said the son, "so I gave him his money back."

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Really, he'd want the value of a donkey - not his money back. But with a raffle, the 'take' can easily exceed the cost of the prizes. So I guess the son would still make out ok.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
  He would want the value of the donkey. The son would offer the value of the tickets. Lawyers would make it somewhere in the middle. Then the lawyers would walk off with all the money.
  - abnercoimbre 6y ago
    This has been a valuable thought experiment for me.

tcgv 6y ago

He forgot to add up the cost of bad publicity due to car crashes. If not somehow thrown under the carpet it would harm the car's credibility reducing overall sales (and profits)