EdDekker
Silver Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2000
- Messages
- 192
- Location
- New Ipswich, New Hampshire
- Tractor
- Kubota B2400, Bobcat 331 Mini-Excavator
The fuel tank of any car or truck can be made 'safer' with more metal or less fuel capacity. There is no design which is perfectly safe. The memos in question (like the Ford memos on the Pinto fuel tank) attempted to find a balance of cost and safety, a level of safety which exceeded the Federal safety standards.
Cost benefit analysis is the only way to handle the design tradeoffs both in the regulatory agencies and within the auto companies.
Show me a fuel tank design. I can make it safer, in this example safer is less likely to rupture in an accident, by making the metal of the tank thicker and by adding (more, thicker) baffles outside the tank protecting the tank from damage and separating the tank from the passenger compartment. Would you really want your gas tank made out of 2 inch steel plate if it 'would save one life' (after all a 1 inch plate tank might rupture if hit by a railroad locomotive running at 80 MPH...)? Would you like the size of gas tanks limited to 1/2 gallon (the less fuel present in an accident the safer)?
Remember that when a TV show (Dateline NBC) wanted to show the danger of the side-saddle fuel tank pick up trucks they needed to fake the report. The only way they could make dramatic footage to show danger for the cameras was to mount a burning rocket engine below the fuel tank at the time of the accident. Without this 'artificial' ignition source there was no dramatic explosion or fire to give the report impact. (With rocket engines and other pyrotechnic devices I can't think of a vehicle I couldn't make look bad.). The rocket engines were not installed and ignited by the network producers but by the experts who were helping with the report. The experts worked for the lawyers in the class action suit over the fuel tanks.
This new triumvirate is interesting: class action plaintiffs lawyers, their paid experts, and the TV magazine shows. The lawyers want to inflame the public over the greatest risk of the day (after the initial clients are signed up). The more publicity the more additional clients join the class and the more potential jurors who already 'know the facts' The lawyers hire 'experts' who come up with the excuse to sue (fuel tank placement, should have had baffles, car all by itself jumps out of park into drive and floors the accelerator by itself because the car was made on a Thursday with a full moon...). One can find a paid expert to say almost anything. I know of one case where an 'expert' asserted that his client had a valid copyright on the list of two letter state abbreviations used by the Post Office. The 'experts' than feed the story to the TV magazine shows, appearing on camera 'free' or for little money (free to the TV network but paid by the lawyers). The publicity forces a settlement since many of the potential jurors now 'know' about the danger with the authority of CBS, NBC ABC or CNN. The lawyers cut a deal with Millions in cash for the lawyers and little if anything for the class members. (In the class action suit for the side saddle fuel tanks the lawyers agreed to a $1000 dollar off coupon (off sticker price) for a new truck for each owner of a side saddle pickup.)
The GM dual tank pickup and the Ford Pinto were no more dangerous than other comparable vehicles made at the same time (as shown by the overall accident and injury statistics). Both these vehicles exceeded the Federal Fuel tank standards. However there were memos which sounded bad when read to a jury of people unfamiliar with tradeoffs. Additionally a former engineer was hired in each case as a paid expert to testify how bad the auto company was. What is used by the plaintiffs lawyers is that any car or truck is a series of tradeoffs. Adding more metal to the fuel tank adds weight and cost to the vehicle but will add to the cost and either require more metal elsewhere or reduce the cargo/passenger capacity of the car. Adding the weight to the fuel tank may effect the handling and make the car 'less safe' in another way (e.g move the center of gravity of the vehicle). Look at air-bags, the trade off is clear, they improve safety for average sized adults (not using a shoulder harness) but are deadly for small adults and children in the front seat.
The key for the plaintiffs lawyers here is to make an emotional argument about the suffering of the victim, and avoid discussion of the real-world alternatives and trade offs. I have seen reports that Air-bag deployments have killed more people (children and short adults) than have been killed by fire in all the Pinto and GM pickup fires since 1970. If true (I have not checked the numbers) this does not mean much. I could still use it as the core of an emotional argument against the air bag. But the argument would say nothing about the success or failure of the air-bag since the number of people saved by the air-bag is not mentioned. A risk benefit analysis is needed to determine if the air bag improves safety overall or reduces safety overall.
In yesterday's news it was clear that an Anti-SUV group issued a press release. I heard the story over two radio stations. The story played up the 'news' that an SUV is more likely to roll over than ordinary passenger cars. This is well known just from the fact that the SUV has a higher center of gravity. The spin was just what the plaintiffs lawyers will soon use in court to sue the SUV makers. It was spun as if rollover was the ONLY risk. When in reality rollover is only one of many accident risks. Both radio reports ignored that the large SUV is safer in many other accident situations and safer overall.
The legal system is now requiring Lake Woebegone engineering (the town where all the students are above average), to avoid a lawsuit all vehicles must be below avarage in overall risk, below average in fuel tank rupture risk, below average in rollover risk...
Cost benefit analysis is the only way to handle the design tradeoffs both in the regulatory agencies and within the auto companies.
Show me a fuel tank design. I can make it safer, in this example safer is less likely to rupture in an accident, by making the metal of the tank thicker and by adding (more, thicker) baffles outside the tank protecting the tank from damage and separating the tank from the passenger compartment. Would you really want your gas tank made out of 2 inch steel plate if it 'would save one life' (after all a 1 inch plate tank might rupture if hit by a railroad locomotive running at 80 MPH...)? Would you like the size of gas tanks limited to 1/2 gallon (the less fuel present in an accident the safer)?
Remember that when a TV show (Dateline NBC) wanted to show the danger of the side-saddle fuel tank pick up trucks they needed to fake the report. The only way they could make dramatic footage to show danger for the cameras was to mount a burning rocket engine below the fuel tank at the time of the accident. Without this 'artificial' ignition source there was no dramatic explosion or fire to give the report impact. (With rocket engines and other pyrotechnic devices I can't think of a vehicle I couldn't make look bad.). The rocket engines were not installed and ignited by the network producers but by the experts who were helping with the report. The experts worked for the lawyers in the class action suit over the fuel tanks.
This new triumvirate is interesting: class action plaintiffs lawyers, their paid experts, and the TV magazine shows. The lawyers want to inflame the public over the greatest risk of the day (after the initial clients are signed up). The more publicity the more additional clients join the class and the more potential jurors who already 'know the facts' The lawyers hire 'experts' who come up with the excuse to sue (fuel tank placement, should have had baffles, car all by itself jumps out of park into drive and floors the accelerator by itself because the car was made on a Thursday with a full moon...). One can find a paid expert to say almost anything. I know of one case where an 'expert' asserted that his client had a valid copyright on the list of two letter state abbreviations used by the Post Office. The 'experts' than feed the story to the TV magazine shows, appearing on camera 'free' or for little money (free to the TV network but paid by the lawyers). The publicity forces a settlement since many of the potential jurors now 'know' about the danger with the authority of CBS, NBC ABC or CNN. The lawyers cut a deal with Millions in cash for the lawyers and little if anything for the class members. (In the class action suit for the side saddle fuel tanks the lawyers agreed to a $1000 dollar off coupon (off sticker price) for a new truck for each owner of a side saddle pickup.)
The GM dual tank pickup and the Ford Pinto were no more dangerous than other comparable vehicles made at the same time (as shown by the overall accident and injury statistics). Both these vehicles exceeded the Federal Fuel tank standards. However there were memos which sounded bad when read to a jury of people unfamiliar with tradeoffs. Additionally a former engineer was hired in each case as a paid expert to testify how bad the auto company was. What is used by the plaintiffs lawyers is that any car or truck is a series of tradeoffs. Adding more metal to the fuel tank adds weight and cost to the vehicle but will add to the cost and either require more metal elsewhere or reduce the cargo/passenger capacity of the car. Adding the weight to the fuel tank may effect the handling and make the car 'less safe' in another way (e.g move the center of gravity of the vehicle). Look at air-bags, the trade off is clear, they improve safety for average sized adults (not using a shoulder harness) but are deadly for small adults and children in the front seat.
The key for the plaintiffs lawyers here is to make an emotional argument about the suffering of the victim, and avoid discussion of the real-world alternatives and trade offs. I have seen reports that Air-bag deployments have killed more people (children and short adults) than have been killed by fire in all the Pinto and GM pickup fires since 1970. If true (I have not checked the numbers) this does not mean much. I could still use it as the core of an emotional argument against the air bag. But the argument would say nothing about the success or failure of the air-bag since the number of people saved by the air-bag is not mentioned. A risk benefit analysis is needed to determine if the air bag improves safety overall or reduces safety overall.
In yesterday's news it was clear that an Anti-SUV group issued a press release. I heard the story over two radio stations. The story played up the 'news' that an SUV is more likely to roll over than ordinary passenger cars. This is well known just from the fact that the SUV has a higher center of gravity. The spin was just what the plaintiffs lawyers will soon use in court to sue the SUV makers. It was spun as if rollover was the ONLY risk. When in reality rollover is only one of many accident risks. Both radio reports ignored that the large SUV is safer in many other accident situations and safer overall.
The legal system is now requiring Lake Woebegone engineering (the town where all the students are above average), to avoid a lawsuit all vehicles must be below avarage in overall risk, below average in fuel tank rupture risk, below average in rollover risk...
