TL;DR: The CyberTruck is 17 times more likely to have a fire fatality than a Ford Pinto

    • jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 days ago

      To be more specific, the fuel tank was placed between the rear bumper and rear differential. In a rear end collision, the tank would get sandwiched by the bumper and differential, which had bolts protruding out the back and would pierce the tank, spilling fuel onto the road.

      Additionally, rear end collisions would bend the frame in a way that jammed the doors so you couldnt get out.

      They figured that people would die and their cost benefit analysis assumed a certain number of deaths and lawsuits. The resulting recall and larger than expected number of deaths and lawsuits made it a huge loss for them.

      • AtariDump@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 days ago

        Wherever I’m going, I’ll be there to apply the formula. I’ll keep the secret intact.
        It’s simple arithmetic.
        It’s a story problem.
        If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
        You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement ©.
        A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don’t initiate a recall.
        If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.
        If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don’t recall.

        Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

    • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 days ago

      That’s only half the story and not really the part that makes it so significant. The recall was only done after a report sent to NHTSA was released to the public detailing the cost benefit analysis that safer fuel systems was considered more expensive to society than just allowing some people to die due to less safe cars and therefore the car industry shouldn’t have to meet the safety standards the NHTSA was proposing. This was a landmark moment in legal ethics and while it was pretty standard stuff in the corporate and regulatory world of the time (and today) and the dollar values assigned to human lives were based on NHTSAs own figures, not Fords it enraged enough people and a recall was done.