This may be another case of the facts getting overwhelmed by what everybody knows:
What a chilling tale … and yet, I can’t help but wonder: Doesn’t every fast-moving, two-ton-weighing motor vehicle also create a certain amount of excess mortality?
Aren’t there modifications that would make your already acceptably safe car even safer? And so what if adding those features means a Chevy Malibu would sell for 40 or 60 thousand dollars?
If it upsets you that car companies are permitted to inflict this excess mortality on the world, then what you must also believe is that you want all cars off the road. (Or, more likely, you are in desperate need of an economics course.) Otherwise, I fail to see what really is so incinderiary about a car company refusing to install a safety measure whose cost is not justified by the expected injuries averted.
I didn’t find any handpuppets, but I did find this Summer’s Eve commercial – “Hail to the V” – which is kind of brilliant – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxW_ZCd64tg
It was alleged (I don’t know if it was true) that Ford was aware that the nearness of the gas tank to the exhaust pipe or something else hot was dangerous and would likely result in some deaths but that the resultant costs were lower than the cost of repairing the problem.
Just great! I bookmarked it.
Whatever the facts of the Ford Pinto case, $10 million dollars is probably more than she deserves to get but it is probably what Toyota deserves to pay to not do that idiotic shit again.
That’s pretty good 
Perhaps. But from what I’ve heard the original studies were presented in court in lawsuits in the seventies and eighties and were accepted then. The fact that ten years later somebody is putting forth a different version of what happened sounds like a possible spin campaign to me.
This is not a case of a theoretical Malibu and a design change that would cost tens of thousands of dollars and might not even save anyone’s life. This was a specific car with a specific design flaw that Ford recognized was a flaw - and then kept installing in cars it was making. And the documents show that Ford knew what the cost of fixing the flaw was - eleven dollars per car.
You made a ridiculous claim that I must want all cars taken off the road. So I guess now that I should include a ridiculous claim of my own. If you’re willing to accept the death of five hundred people, then what you must also believe that the death of twelve million people in the Holocaust was no big deal. (Or, more likely, you are in desperate need of an ethics course.) Otherwise, I just want to remind you of who else thought the Holocaust was okay - Hitler.
How was that? Did I do it right?
There is nothing “theoretical” about the potential safety improvements that could be made to any make and model of car on the road. The manufacturers all know the actual limitations–and expected excess mortality–associated with each kind of vehicle on the market. So your point about “this particular model of Ford” is not well-taken. Automotive engineers do this for every model of car and assess whether or not it is worth adding another safety feature. Such memos exist for any car that has been designed.
It doesn’t matter whether the per capita rate is only $11. Eleven dollars times 12.5 million Pinto owners means spending $138 million to install a safety feature that will eliminate only $50 million in injuries.
Or to put it another way: Everyone in America should give me one dollar. Then I will be $300 million happier and everyone else will be out just one measly dollar! Who could be so cold-hearted as to begrudge me $1 for my ecstatic joy?!?
What we understand is that when dealing with mass produced products, we have to look to the aggregate to get a sense of what’s rational.
But every car could be made safer, don’t you agree? So, you tell me: What rule shall we use to determine when an imperfect car (and remember, all cars are imperfect, all cars can be made safer) should be allowed to be sold?
Here’s the problem with that:
Nice! (But I think you meant incendiary).
Haha, I forgot that my work browser doesn’t have spellcheck and it lulls me into a false sense of security when I don’t see the tell-tale red lines!
What kind of reaction was Toyota hoping for?
“I’ve never been so friggin’ scared in my life! I’ve been sitting up nights with a baseball bat for almost a week! Even though I don’t need a new car, I’m running out and buying a new Matrix right away!”
So what you’re arguing is that a company can look at two proposals and make the following determination: “Option A would cost us $1000. Option B would cost us only $500 and a human life. Well, Option A is clearly cheaper so, economically, that’s what we pick.”
Now some of us would agree that while this logic makes sound economic sense, it also raises other non-economic issues. And perhaps this decision shouldn’t be made on just the economic issues alone. But we’re aware that other people might choose to ignore these non-economic issues and just focus on the economics in their decision making.
And that’s why - to bring it back to my original point - we have large punitive damage awards. It makes it economically rational for companies to eliminate known design flaws and not knowingly kill people. Most people will decide to avoid killing people for moral reasons. And economic rationalists will decide to avoid killing people for economic reasons.