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."
Listen to the engineers and not marketing or the media? You must be crazy!
Maybe the brakes were too good, resulting in all the rear-endings?
Seriously, our scientifically-illiterate society is rife with unintended consequences and cures that are worse than the disease.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
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.
"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.
had and probably still have more control over production than engineering. Ford figured it would add an $11 per car cost of manufacture to make safe and dead bodies were cheaper. I doubt it's changed..
http://www.cnbc.com/id/1025899...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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.
Why drag up a nearly fifty year old car as a reference? A known POS that was an engineering disaster.
"But the engineer, whose aim is to maximize safety within a series of material constraints, cannot be distracted by how you and I feel."
and that boys and girls is how American car manufacturers rationalize producing the crap that they produce.
This is not surprising. GM or Ford would have to be one fscked corporation to walk out of a meeting with the mandate "let's make crap cars". Instead they manage to convince that their junk "had to be done this way", even though most other foreign car manufactures have much lower design failure rates.
http://shameproject.com/report...
http://mikethemadbiologist.com...
Malcom Gladwell is the product of conservative institutes and think tanks; he has worked for racists, the tobacco industry, oil companies, big pharma, and more. His books popularize the kind of thinking that said industries have used to defend their practices.
Please help metamoderate.
The biggest danger to driving, drivers and pedestrians is the cell phone. Folks walk out into traffic staring at the samsung. Go 10 blocks in Manhattan, you will get at least a dozen of these folks. No spatial awareness at all. In public. I saw a guy holding a cell phone conversation on speaker while bicycling yesterday. The guy who doesn't move from the light when it goes green didn't stall his manual, he's texting. Left Lane blocker ? contractor or housewife in huge SUV/Pickup...62 in a 70...ON THE PHONE. Really, just close your eyes instead and go lalalalalalaaa
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
Driver: "Open the door, car."
Car: "I can't do that <insert name here>. You're too stupid to let behind the wheel."
Problem solved.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Ford Explorer roof pillars were initially spec'd with a fairly high-grade steel. Citing costs, management refused to use the high-grade steel and instead used a weaker steel.
Result? Lots of roof-cave-ins on a vehicle that was prone to roll over.
http://www.autosafety.org/memo...
Please help metamoderate.