How do we build a safer car? (New Yorker article)

[Ian Curtis]

How do we build a safer car?

Originally Posted by Malcolm Gladwell

The public saw things very differently. They didn’t think about the necessary compromises inherent in the design process. They didn’t understand that a car was engineered to be tolerant of things like sticky pedals. They looked at the part in isolation, saw that it did not work as they expected it to work—and foresaw the worst. What if an inexperienced driver found his car behaving unexpectedly and panicked? To the engineer, a car sits somewhere on the gradient of acceptability. To the public, a car’s status is binary: it is either broken or working, flawed or functional.

As we in FIRST strive to change culture, I think this cultural difference between "engineer thought" and "public life thought" is something we ought to focus on.

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

How do we build a safer car?



As we in FIRST strive to change culture, I think this cultural difference between "engineer thought" and "public life thought" is something we ought to focus on.

I was engrossed by this article, having lived in Indiana when the Pinto case went to trial.
Gladwell does a good job explaining "engineer thought" vs. public perception.
I don't think it's a problem, but then again, I'm an engineer.

[MrForbes]

It's a thought provoking article.

I had a few discussions with some of our students on our plane rides to/from Champs, about probabilities, mechanical design, etc. I pointed out that if you survived your trip to the airport, you sure don't need to worry about the airplane.