Slashdot Mirror
The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues
An anonymous reader writes: Malcolm Gladwell has an article in The New Yorker about how automotive engineers handle issues of safety. There have been tons of car-related recalls lately, and even before that, we'd often hear about how some piece of engineering on a car was leading to a bunch of deaths. Sometimes it was a mistake, and sometimes it was an intentional design. But we hear about these issues through the lens of sensationalized media and public outrage — the engineers working on these problems understand better that it's how you drive that gets you into trouble far more than what you drive.
For example, the Ford Pinto became infamous for catching fire in crashes back in the 1970s. Gladwell says, "That's a rare event—it happens once in every hundred crashes. In 1975-76, 1.9 per cent of all cars on the road were Pintos, and Pintos were involved in 1.9 per cent of all fatal fires. Let's try again. About fifteen per cent of fatal fires resulted from rear collisions. If we look just at that subset of the subset, Schwartz shows, we finally see a pattern. Pintos were involved in 4.1 per cent of all rear-collision fire fatalities—which is to say that they may have been as safe as or safer than other cars in most respects but less safe in this one. ... You and I would feel safer in a car that met the 301 standard. But the engineer, whose aim is to maximize safety within a series of material constraints, cannot be distracted by how you and I feel."
For example, the Ford Pinto became infamous for catching fire in crashes back in the 1970s. Gladwell says, "That's a rare event—it happens once in every hundred crashes. In 1975-76, 1.9 per cent of all cars on the road were Pintos, and Pintos were involved in 1.9 per cent of all fatal fires. Let's try again. About fifteen per cent of fatal fires resulted from rear collisions. If we look just at that subset of the subset, Schwartz shows, we finally see a pattern. Pintos were involved in 4.1 per cent of all rear-collision fire fatalities—which is to say that they may have been as safe as or safer than other cars in most respects but less safe in this one. ... You and I would feel safer in a car that met the 301 standard. But the engineer, whose aim is to maximize safety within a series of material constraints, cannot be distracted by how you and I feel."
I believe Ford lost the Pinto case because internal tests discovered the problem and also found an inexpensive fix: a $5 plastic wall between the gas tank and the impact zone of the tank.
In other words, the jury decided the company consciously bypassed a cheap and easy fix to shave a few bucks from manufacturing cost. It was a pretty simple tradeoff. I have to agree with Jury in that case. The car's statistical risk compared to other brands is moot (unless the other brands also discovered and skipped the easy fix, in which case, they may also be liable).
Table-ized A.I.
If someone has a BAC of 1.0, they're probably dead, so I'd be very surprised to see them driving...
On the other hand, I would agree with your argument for .10 BAC
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
While I have successfully avoided being rear-ended by inching up into an intersection before, rear-end collisions typically have a lot more to do with how others drive than how you drive.
We had this happen to us. Driving along the pacific highway south from Brisbane we had to brake hard because of debris on the road causing the cars in front to emergency stop. Because of my following distance I didn't have to ABS level brake. Unfortunately the 18 wheeler truck behind me didn't have enough space on me. He hit me still travelling at close to 70kph. The only reason my family and I are alive today is the fact he was unloaded and we were in a very safe car (E Class Mercedes).
The truck driver has been charged with Driving without due care and attention.
Yes, but I live in the San Francisco Bay area and, were I to try to keep this minimum safe braking distance, I would end up a traffic hazard as I continually brake hard to reestablish my minimum safe braking distance to the idiot who has just switched into the lane in front of me since they can get ahead one car length.