4 ms·
The difference is that there are engineering standards that define what is acceptably "safe". From the article: >"The standard requires that by 1972 all new ca
by bumby 4y ago
The difference is that there are engineering standards that define what is acceptably "safe". From the article:
>"The standard requires that by 1972 all new cars can withstand a 20 mph rear-end collision without fuel loss, and by 1973 they can withstand a 30 mph collision. None of the prototype cars passed the 20 mph test."
They knew they had a design that didn't pass the industry-accepted safety standard.
- SilasX 4y agoExcept that overall the car had the same safety, and normally HN is totally on board the argument that it's not an atrocity to neglect ossified standards if doing so finds an alternate way to accomplish the ostensible goal (here, safety).
- bumby 4y agoHow are the standards ossified if they are literally updated that year? Also, I think you're confusing two things. Meeting a explicit safety standards by other means is not the same as being equivalent to other vehicle safety. Ignoring regulations on the basis that your product is overall better is just not how engineering regulations work. You seem to be confusing attribution; we can't say the Pinto is safer because Ford turned a blind eye to regulation. Therefore, they are no off the hook for not ensuring regulations are met. The standard is considered the minimum safety threshold. Consider a surgeon who, on average, has better patient outcomes. Does this absolve them from malpractice lawsuits if they are shown to ignore standards of care like washing their hands in a particular case? It's a weird logic to apply fault when there are clear standards not being met.