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."
"It's how you drive that gets you into trouble"
I've found that those who drive with blood alcohol levels above 1.0 lead to lots of trouble. Far more than any recent engineering defect I've heard of.
The biggest safety related maintenance problem is usually the loose nut behind the wheel.
It's like upgrading a computer, for $10 more, you can get a better performing part. It''s nice you cheery pick one part on a car that had no more fires than any other car made at the time and look back and decide a change. At what point do you stop? For $15 they could have added disk brakes in the rear, for $11 they could have put bigger brakes in the front. For $5 they could have put in a thicker seat belt strap. For $10 they could have put pillars in the doors. For $200 they could have put air bags in it (were tested in the early 70's and in some cars. For $8 they could have put better tires on. For $20 they could have put a much better suspension on for better handling, for $6 they could have put a third brake light on it, for $50 they could have put a fire extinguishing system in, for $12 they could have put in a better head rest, for $20 they could have put more padding in the back seat. For $10 they could have upgraded the gauge steel in the pillars, for $15 they could have used better glass. for $10 they could have put in a collapsible steering wheel linkage system. Your example seems so obvious though.
And safety engineering is getting degraded by their need to not stick out with one failure that is far more pronounced than in other models/brands, even if they manage to reduce overall risk that way. Stupid.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Nope. Good brakes don't make crashes. Poor braking behavior does.
Learn to love Alaska
We look at the Pinto specifically as a case study in my engineering ethics class back in college, there was not excuse for what they did. All engineers do have to make trade-off decisions, but the fucking deluxe fix was $11, that is it.
I doubt very very much if the final decision was made by an engineer. It was far more likely made by either an accountant or a lawyer.
Nope. Good brakes don't make crashes. Poor braking behavior does.
Nope. Poor breaking behaviour doesn't cause crashes, people not keeping a safe distance causes crashes.
In most sane countries you are required to keep a distance long enough that the car in front can perform an emergency stop without you hitting it. If you do hit it, you've caused the accident (and in Oz, will get hit with a negligent/careless driving charge).
I cant control how badly the people around me drive, but I can control the way I drive and take steps to minimise and avoid accidents. Keeping a safe distance is one of the simplest things I can do.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
It is actually a pretty good example, because it was not "an engineering disaster". That is just what the incompetent public mistakenly concluded.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I remember a bit of design in a small aircraft. In order to address the problem of gear-up landings, Piper came up with a system that, when it detected the appropriate combination of airspeed and engine conditions, would automatically lower the gear. It had an override so the pilot could indicate that this was not accidental and to not deploy the gear.
The system was very popular and copied onto a variety of aircraft. Nobody knows how many gear-up accidents were prevented since nobody calls up after a fine landing to report that they had actually screwed up and were saved by the auto-extend system. But the one person who failed to override the system after an engine failure and had the gear deploy filed and won a lawsuit claiming that the auto-deploy system was what caused them to be unable to glide to the airport. As a result, the manufacturers ceased making them and directed their removal from existing aircraft.
How long will it be before someone sues claiming that the auto-braking system in their car caused whiplash?
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
> I doubt very very much if the final decision was made by an engineer. It was far more likely made by either an accountant or a lawyer.
This is the key. I remember taking a required ethical course in engineering because it was felt that engineers must learn the human factor of their decisions. All the cases we studied where unethical decisions was made was a result of business or political decisions, not engineering decisions.
Like a private gets blamed when a general messes up, engineers get blamed when a VP messes up. There is a reason why generals and VPs rarely write down orders or decisions.
If you're driving a monstrosity of a truck, you have a damned high duty of care to make sure that monstrosity is not putting others in harm's way.
Spoken like someone who's never driven anything with more than 4 wheels. Driving a semi (hell, even a body job) in the city is a massive pain in the ass. Try and keep that safe braking distance all you like - it's going to be nothing more than a massive gap that gets filled every six seconds by a little four wheeler darting in front of you. People think "Ooh, a space! I can save 30 seconds on my commute with that!" instead of "Ooh, that's the space that will be filled by 45,000 lbs of truck if shit goes sideways... I don't think I want to be there." Most drivers in North America have no respect for the physics of a large vehicle. People will cut off semis and then jump on the brakes without a second thought. Then they get all pissed off, horrified, and self righteous when it ends in an accident and some bonehead winds up with their trunk folded into their fucking glove box - "Oh! Those big trucks just need to keep their distance and this wouldn't happen!" But it's all a joke. People treat semis like they're just big cars that can stop and turn on a dime, same as any small passenger vehicle. They're not passenger vehicles. Fact is you don't ever want to tangle with one (because you will lose, not "might" lose) and the best way to ensure that it never happens is to give them the space they need. It's really not much different than boxing with wildlife - if you walked up to a bear and spit in its face, people would think you were an idiot (and they'd be right), but you can cut off a semi to within spitting distance and somehow HE'S the asshole at fault when you wind up smeared across the freeway. People need to be responsible for their own safety too.
As a former semi driver and still current CDL-A holder, I would like to say the parent was exactly right and your attitude is not helpful. Truck drivers do absolutely have a duty to drive responsibly and not put others in harms way. Too many drivers out there take what happens on the road personally. Take the emotion out of it. I know that can be hard to do, but it is necessary for your safety and sanity if you are going to be driving 8+ hours a day. I have seen plenty of shitty driving at every level from bicycles to motorcycles, to cars, to light trucks, and up to double and triple trailer semis. EVERYONE, you included, has a duty to drive in such a way as to minimize risk to those around them. You can't stop as fast as a passenger car? Leave more room. Someone cuts in front of you, back off and recover your margin. There will be times when that means you are driving slower than surrounding traffic because people keep cutting in while you try to maintain your margin. You will still be moving forward. You, as a (supposedly) professional driver are (and should be) held to a higher standard.
$300k in 1970's dollars was a reasonable number for safety calculations back then (about $2 million in today's dollars). The current number used by government regulators is about $5 million.
Engineers and the legal system constantly put a value on human life; modern societies couldn't function without it. Often, the value is a lot less than $2 million ($300k in 1970). Safety engineers use larger numbers because juries suffer from the same kind of self-righteous indignation you display. But make no mistake: paying too much for safety in some areas means that overall, there will be less safety.
The natural consequence of the Pinto decision is not for engineers to use a larger amount of money in their cost/benefit calculations, it is to avoid studying potential safety issues altogether that might get the company into trouble.