3 ms·

The famous Fort Pinto story comes to mind. The car with the fuel thank in a bad spot, making the car a 'fire trap'. A risk analysis made by Ford was misinterpr

The famous Fort Pinto story comes to mind. The car with the fuel thank in a bad spot, making the car a 'fire trap'. A risk analysis made by Ford was misinterpreted and seen as a calculated risk of recall vs settlements for injuries/death. But It turns out it was mostly a hoax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safety_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safet...

XorNot 6y ago
Intent tends to matter with the law. Ford knew there was a problem, knew they could fix it, and elected not to because "it's a small number of deaths". You can replace things, not people. That retrospective analysis utterly misses the point: for the area they were responsible for, if the company knew they could do better and elected not to, then they got treated exactly as they should have.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Intent tends to matter with the law. Ford knew there was a problem, knew they could fix it, and elected not to because "it's a small number of deaths". You can replace things, not people. Per the link posted by the GP the Pinto did not have any problems relative to other cars of the same type and era. Ford's "intent" (if you can call it that since they didn't know the future at the time) was to say "err, we don't really think there's a problem here so we'll pay out money when this happens but it's not recall worth" and the investigation bore that out which is why they were not found guilty. I don't really want to defend BigCo (or any other large group with diffuse responsibility) but it's 2020 and here I am. >That retrospective analysis utterly misses the point: for the area they were responsible for, if the company knew they could do better and elected not to, then they got treated exactly as they should have. Everyone could always do better on any given metric but the question is at what cost and with what tradeoffs. People buy compacts and subcompacts because they are cheap and fuel efficient. You could build a subcompact that just bounces when rear-ended by a freight train but nobody would buy that because it would cost a ton and weigh a ton (several tons actually) defeating the value proposition of a compact car.
  - droopyEyelids 6y ago
    Seems like you're failing to address the 'knew they were going to kill people' part. Everyone can always do better, but everyone doesn't know exactly which of their decisions will end up killing another person. If you DO know that, then you're obligated to change things.
    - Xylakant 6y ago
      Everyone entering a car today knows that given the wrong combination of events, they may kill someone, maybe even a toddler chasing a ball. Yet, millions of people still drive daily. Even cyclists are not free from that risk - when I leave later and take my cargo bike to pick up my kid, I might be distracted in the wrong instant and run over someone else’s child. I try hard not to, but the safest way to reduce that risk would be to walk. Still, I don’t. We all balance risks, even deadly ones, to us and others, all of the time.
      - XorNot 6y ago
        We balance risks which have uncontrollable inputs. Not controllable ones for which we now have an answer. That's the difference. You note it right in your comment - that you in fact do take measures to be safe, and try to be specifically aware of elements of the dynamic situation which require attention. That's very different to say, if you planned on reversing a car and decided it took too much effort to look behind you before you do. Sure - chances are most of the time you won't run over a child doing this...
        throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        >Not controllable ones for which we now have an answer. We do it all the time? How far are you from the nearest fire extinguisher? Can't that number be reduced? That is but one example.
        XorNot 6y ago
        Has my present distance to a fire extinguisher been implicated in a spate of house fires which have killed or injured other people? I as an individual can take the risks I choose to take with my life. I have no right to apply that to others though. In fact the building I'm currently in was built to local standards which mandated all sorts of things in relation to providing adequate control of known risks related to the spread of fire, and has smoke detectors fitted for that purpose. Because the builder of the house might have been okay accepting that risk for themselves, but we don't let them just pass it on to others.

XorNot 6y ago

Intent tends to matter with the law. Ford knew there was a problem, knew they could fix it, and elected not to because "it's a small number of deaths". You can replace things, not people. That retrospective analysis utterly misses the point: for the area they were responsible for, if the company knew they could do better and elected not to, then they got treated exactly as they should have.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Intent tends to matter with the law. Ford knew there was a problem, knew they could fix it, and elected not to because "it's a small number of deaths". You can replace things, not people. Per the link posted by the GP the Pinto did not have any problems relative to other cars of the same type and era. Ford's "intent" (if you can call it that since they didn't know the future at the time) was to say "err, we don't really think there's a problem here so we'll pay out money when this happens but it's not recall worth" and the investigation bore that out which is why they were not found guilty. I don't really want to defend BigCo (or any other large group with diffuse responsibility) but it's 2020 and here I am. >That retrospective analysis utterly misses the point: for the area they were responsible for, if the company knew they could do better and elected not to, then they got treated exactly as they should have. Everyone could always do better on any given metric but the question is at what cost and with what tradeoffs. People buy compacts and subcompacts because they are cheap and fuel efficient. You could build a subcompact that just bounces when rear-ended by a freight train but nobody would buy that because it would cost a ton and weigh a ton (several tons actually) defeating the value proposition of a compact car.
- droopyEyelids 6y ago
  Seems like you're failing to address the 'knew they were going to kill people' part. Everyone can always do better, but everyone doesn't know exactly which of their decisions will end up killing another person. If you DO know that, then you're obligated to change things.
  - Xylakant 6y ago
    Everyone entering a car today knows that given the wrong combination of events, they may kill someone, maybe even a toddler chasing a ball. Yet, millions of people still drive daily. Even cyclists are not free from that risk - when I leave later and take my cargo bike to pick up my kid, I might be distracted in the wrong instant and run over someone else’s child. I try hard not to, but the safest way to reduce that risk would be to walk. Still, I don’t. We all balance risks, even deadly ones, to us and others, all of the time.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      We balance risks which have uncontrollable inputs. Not controllable ones for which we now have an answer. That's the difference. You note it right in your comment - that you in fact do take measures to be safe, and try to be specifically aware of elements of the dynamic situation which require attention. That's very different to say, if you planned on reversing a car and decided it took too much effort to look behind you before you do. Sure - chances are most of the time you won't run over a child doing this...
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        >Not controllable ones for which we now have an answer. We do it all the time? How far are you from the nearest fire extinguisher? Can't that number be reduced? That is but one example.
        XorNot 6y ago
        Has my present distance to a fire extinguisher been implicated in a spate of house fires which have killed or injured other people? I as an individual can take the risks I choose to take with my life. I have no right to apply that to others though. In fact the building I'm currently in was built to local standards which mandated all sorts of things in relation to providing adequate control of known risks related to the spread of fire, and has smoke detectors fitted for that purpose. Because the builder of the house might have been okay accepting that risk for themselves, but we don't let them just pass it on to others.