• darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m not in any way trying to downplay how bad the cyber-dumpster is, but is that an adequate sample size to extrapolate the fiery-death rate? The article says 17 times the rate of the Pinto, but it was only 5 total fires.

            • cecilkorik@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              ·
              1 day ago

              The biggest issue with the Pinto was not the Pinto itself, it was how Ford discussed the potential issues with it internally. It was their very well documented preference for money over protecting human life that caused the controversy.

              We know this really happens all the time, at all companies and in all industries, but Ford was punished for saying the quiet part out loud (amongst themselves) and getting caught doing it. We are all supposed to at least put on a show of human lives being more important than money, and Ford failed to put on the show, and for that they were punished.

              We still don’t care about human life, but at least we all felt better about it afterwards.

              • CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                There’s an episode of Swindled all about how Ford knew this was a flaw and allowed it to happen so that they could compete in the lower end market.

            • Rimu@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              huh, TIL. Thanks!

              So it’s just 17 times more likely to burn you to death than average cars.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      But maybe they have the lowest crash rate?
      So like, crashes cost money right? Someone is responsible. Someone has to pay.
      But if everyone dies in an inferno, then nobody is responsible. Who can pay? They’re all dead! What medical bills? What repairs? It’s all a write off.
      Sounds like a high mortality rate with low accident rate is an absolute profitable win! Free market baby!

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 day ago

        According to the article they have higher crash rates and fatalities because the drivers are worse. The cars themselves actually rate fairly high in safety standards.

        That being said, I think the safety evaluations are flawed and don’t consider things like electronic locks.