3 ms·

Yeah it's exactly this mentality that resulted in the Ford Pinto scandal of the 70s. How does that 1:4M probability change when you commute over the bridge twi

by beAbU 2y ago

Yeah it's exactly this mentality that resulted in the Ford Pinto scandal of the 70s. How does that 1:4M probability change when you commute over the bridge twice a day? Humans are notorious for being bad gauging risk, and we very often make the mistake that past success means lower risk of future failure, which for a deteriorating bridge is exactly the opposite of what's going to happen. In my opinion bridges shouldn't collapse, like ever. Annual inspections for years prior pointed to a severely deteriorating structure, even after the temporary cable stays were put in place. The tweet with a picture of a completely detached member a couple of years before the collapse makes this even more egregious. This is a textbook example of where bureaucracy prevails over common sense. Heads should roll. Thankfully nobody died, but the lack of maintenance and upkeep resulted in a total failure, wasting lots of taxpayer money to replace.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> How does that 1:4M probability change when you commute over the bridge twice a day? You can get a good sense of this from the equivalence listed immediately after the odds: >> That's still around a one in 4 million chance any given trip kills you, about the same as 30 miles of driving So it'd be closely analogous to driving a 30-mile commute twice a day. How much risk do you feel that involves?
- Panzer04 2y ago
  2x daily 30 mile commute sounds like a (relatively) substantial risk to me? Driving is already more or less the most dangerous activity most people engage in nowadays, tolerated by long acclimatization and sheer utility. Moreover, people generally perceive things in which they (theoretically) have more control over as safer - You can control/mitigate the risk you undertake as a driver to some extent (drive slower, bigger gaps, etc), not so for a random bridge collapse.
EricE 2y ago
The Pinto thing was dramatically overblown. And seriously set back the acceptance of small cars in the US. For a supposed environmentalist and consumer advocate, Ralph Nadar did FAR more harm than good by grifting off a bunch of sensationalist poppycock. That he's still looked upon as some sort of folk hero is beyond disgusting and just shows how gullible people continue to be paying attention only to the sensationalistic superficial propaganda and not looking deeper.
- quesera 2y ago
  Ralph Nader's direct harm to the US continued into at least the year 2000, the legacy of which is even more pronounced today. :(

by beAbU 2y ago

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> How does that 1:4M probability change when you commute over the bridge twice a day? You can get a good sense of this from the equivalence listed immediately after the odds: >> That's still around a one in 4 million chance any given trip kills you, about the same as 30 miles of driving So it'd be closely analogous to driving a 30-mile commute twice a day. How much risk do you feel that involves?

Panzer04 2y ago
2x daily 30 mile commute sounds like a (relatively) substantial risk to me? Driving is already more or less the most dangerous activity most people engage in nowadays, tolerated by long acclimatization and sheer utility. Moreover, people generally perceive things in which they (theoretically) have more control over as safer - You can control/mitigate the risk you undertake as a driver to some extent (drive slower, bigger gaps, etc), not so for a random bridge collapse.

EricE 2y ago

The Pinto thing was dramatically overblown. And seriously set back the acceptance of small cars in the US. For a supposed environmentalist and consumer advocate, Ralph Nadar did FAR more harm than good by grifting off a bunch of sensationalist poppycock. That he's still looked upon as some sort of folk hero is beyond disgusting and just shows how gullible people continue to be paying attention only to the sensationalistic superficial propaganda and not looking deeper.

quesera 2y ago
Ralph Nader's direct harm to the US continued into at least the year 2000, the legacy of which is even more pronounced today. :(