![\"Pinto_v_Tesla\"](\"https:\/\/commoncents.blogwyrm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/Pinto_v_Tesla.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAnd yet, there is one very disturbing commonality between them that transcends the mere similarity that both are four-wheeled motor vehicles.\u00a0 Both cars will go down in history as object lessons on the danger of withholding safety information from the marketplace.\u00a0 Before exploring this topic, I want to make it clear that I am not implying that the Tesla is unsafe, nor am I asserting that the Pinto was, either.\u00a0 As I hope to make clear below, it isn\u2019t even clear how to define what unsafe means.\u00a0 Rather, the central point is whether each manufacturer, Ford and Tesla, worrying about how the safety of their vehicles would be perceived, actually hid relevant information from the marketplace.<\/p>\n
Each of us can relate to the concept of concealing embarrassing or unflattering information from the world around us.\u00a0 When it comes to our personal lives, each of us is entitled to a degree of privacy.\u00a0 But even this cherished concept has limits.\u00a0 Is it reasonable to be able to hide every fact of our private lives from an employer?\u00a0 Doesn\u2019t the employer, who is buying our labor, have a right to know if there are any outside issues that will compromise our ability to deliver?\u00a0 Likewise, don\u2019t we have a right to know certain facts about the people for whom we will work?\u00a0 Wouldn\u2019t you like to know if your boss has had a history of embezzlement or sexual harassment?<\/p>\n
The situation is even more pronounced when talking about a product or good.\u00a0 When contemplating buying a product, the consumer should be able to make an informed decision about what the product can do for the price required to procure it versus the risk; what it can\u2019t do, what its limitations are, how reliable it is, how soon it will break, and so on.\u00a0 In economic terms, what we are talking about is the need to have relevant information in order to be able to adequately judge cost versus benefit risk.\u00a0 The need to mitigate risk with limited information is a major driver in economics decision making, even if the abstract theory is not well understood.<\/p>\n
It is the idea of being well-informed, of having all the relevant information, that goes to the heart of both the Pinto and Tesla in their presentation to the public.<\/p>\n
The Pinto<\/h2>\n
The Ford Pinto<\/a> was a subcompact car that was sold for model years 1971-1980.\u00a0 While comparable in design and safety to its contemporaries in its class (in fact having a better safety record than most), the Pinto achieved a distinction in automotive history that the others failed to capture \u2013 it became known, ever after, as an \u2018evil car\u2019 that was a \u2018fire trap\u2019, and Ford, at the time, was perceived as a callous car company that put profit over human life.\u00a0 These verdicts resulted from the confluence of three factors (taken from the Wikipedia article and the factual summary provided in The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case<\/a><\/em>, by Gary T. Schwartz).<\/p>\n First, during their design of the Pinto, Ford Engineers decided to put the fuel tank behind the rear axel rather than on top of it.\u00a0 This was a conscious decision made to afford the consumer more trunk space.\u00a0 The trade-off was that the fuel tank was prone to rupture in the event of a rear-end collision, causing a fire hazard to the occupants.\u00a0 The risk of tank rupture was increased by other design decisions that limited the size of the \u2018crush space\u2019 and significantly reduced mechanical structure that would have provided reinforcement to the space surrounding the gas tank.<\/p>\n Second, a tragic case occurred in May 1972 when Lily Gray gave a ride in her Pinto to her teenage neighbor Richard Grimshaw.\u00a0 The car stalled in a highway lane and was rear-ended.\u00a0 Gray died due to the crash and subsequent fire, and Grimshaw suffered horrible injuries.\u00a0 The Grimshaw family subsequently sued Ford, and the resulting discovery revealed documents that put Ford into a bad light.<\/p>\n Third, public opinion was significantly molded and shaped by an article that appeared in the September\/October 1977 issue of Mother Jones<\/em> entitled Pinto Madness<\/a><\/em> by Mark Dowie.\u00a0 The article starts with the inflammatory accusation<\/p>\n This article turned public opinion very strongly against the Pinto and led to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) demanding Ford recall the Pinto despite the fact that years earlier NHTSA had concluded that there was not enough information to warrant even opening an investigation.<\/p>\n What swayed public opinion and cemented the legacy of the Pinto were internal memos from Ford that seemed to paint the picture that Ford thought it would be cheaper to pay settlements to those killed and injured than it would be to retool the factories to make the car safer.\u00a0 This led Dowie to say<\/p>\n In contrast to Dowie\u2019s outrage over cost-benefit analysis, Gary T. Schwartz, in his article, entitled The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case<\/a><\/em>, remarks that<\/p>\n Schwartz also goes on to note that<\/p>\n In short, the Ford Pinto was done-in more by the perception that Ford withheld vital information than by the actual risk the car posed to its occupants.<\/p>\n Fast forward nearly forty years.\u00a0 While the technology may have changed, the human equation has not.\u00a0 This time the issue of withholding vital information from the marketplace falls squarely on the Tesla Motor Company.\u00a0 At issue is again a perception of safety and what responsibilities the manufacturer has to warn its customers.<\/p>\n To set the stage, we need to step back a bit to the fall of 2014.\u00a0 In an article dated October 9, CNET\u2019s Wayne Cunningham gushes over the new features of the Model S<\/a>, in particular, the set of advanced driver assistance features that enable adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assist.\u00a0 Cunningham notes that each Model S bears a forward-looking radar and camera and panoramic ultra-sonic sensors that enable the vehicle to \u2018see\u2019 speed limit signs and follow \u2018curvy\u2019 lane lines.\u00a0 Tesla Motors branded this new feature Autopilot<\/a>, which, according to their website,<\/p>\n All this advertising sounds great but the fly in the ointment came about 18 months later, when on June 30, 2016, Tesla revealed that someone had lost their life in a traffic accident on May 7th<\/sup> with Autopilot enabled<\/a>.<\/p>\n The news reaction, while so far more measured than the Mother Jones piece on the Pinto, still sought for the sensational angle.\u00a0 For example, consider the opening paragraphs in the article What Tesla Autopilot crash means for self-driving cars<\/a><\/em> by Greg Gardener<\/p>\n All those sensors and cameras and spinning cylinders of laser beams don't know as much as we thought they did. At least not yet.<\/p><\/div>\n And like the Pinto case, there are competing explanations for the accident.\u00a0 According to a report by the Associated Press, the fault in the crash lies with the car\u2019s cameras<\/a> being unable to distinguish the white tractor trailer with which it collided from the brightly lit sky behind.\u00a0 Another report suggests that the radar system on the Autopilot is tuned to disregard overhead signs<\/a> and that, as a result, its input to the autonomous decision-making was disregarded even if it had sensed the truck.\u00a0 When questions of liability are involved, there is likely to be no end of speculation and controversy.<\/p>\n As a result of the accident, Tesla Motors is being investigated by three government agencies: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the Security and Exchanges Commission (SEC).\u00a0 NHTSA\u2019s involvement is natural.\u00a0 NTSB\u2019s involvement, while a bit out of the ordinary, is reasonable since NTSB seems to be keeping its eye on autonomous driving features being developed.\u00a0 The reason for the SEC being involved smacks of the \u2018profit before people\u2019 angle that reared its head in the Pinto case.\u00a0 Tesla and Musk are being investigated for insider trading<\/a> because they failed to report the fatality on May 7th<\/sup> before they sold $2 billion in stock on May 18th<\/sup>.<\/p>\n As these various threads weave together to form a tapestry, it will be interesting to see just where the line is drawn on what Tesla should have told its investors and its customers and when.\u00a0 Their advertising copy certainly makes Autopilot sound bulletproof.\u00a0 They don\u2019t warn the consumer of its limitations; and not just the ones being attributed as the core causes to the May 7th<\/sup> accident.\u00a0 As far as I can tell, Tesla does not point out that Autopilot can\u2019t keep the vehicle in a lane on a road with no lane markings.\u00a0 Many of the back roads and small highways in the nation don\u2019t have clear markings, and how Autopilot will respond in these cases is unknown. \u00a0Of course, the more Tesla points out these limitations, the less appealing Autopilot will seem. \u00a0So where is the balance between too much and too little information to be struck? Only time will tell.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Tesla<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n