By now you're all aware of the GM ignition switch controversy. If you haven't been watching, here's a quick recap: In certain GM models, notably the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion, the installed ignition switches are prone to failure when too much weight is applied to them (read:too many keys hanging from the keyring). This failure results in engine shutdown, loss of power steering, and failure of the airbags to deploy.
I am cognizant of the grief that the families of the victims are feeling (13 deaths reported to this point), but when you think about it, it's not a number of any significance. About 1.4 million cars have been subjected to the recall, a large number of which have already been wrecked or scrapped. As the Cobalt, Ion, HHR, and Pontiac G5s are all inexpensive compact cars, they have all put on a ton of mileage. When the incidents are calculated as a function of miles driven, they are statistically insignificant. Additionally, around 45,000 people die on US highways every year. 13 deaths isn't even a blip on the radar.
Except it is. The reason why is easy to see: since Ralph Nader made a name for himself taking a run at GM in 1966 with his book Unsafe At Any Speed, it's almost become a sport to attack automobile manufacturers. You could say that it was well-earned, what with Detroit's long-ago reluctance to engineer any sort of safety into the cars (seat belts were once an option in cars) and their focus on power and styling at the expense of the passenger. That said, we have had some famous incidents that didn't merit the level of anger they received. Some examples:
Chevrolet Corvair: The first and perhaps most famous thanks to the aforementioned Nader book. It was an air-cooled rear-engined car, which naturally increases the weight bias to the rear of the car. With the original swing-axle independent suspension, it had a tendency to oversteer, much like the original Beetle and Porsche 911. Nader's book took aim at the design, declaring it to be unsafe. Later testing determined that it was no more unsafe than any other car of its era, but the damage had already been done.
Ford Pinto: The old joke was that the Pinto was "the barbecue that seats four". A few incidents of the sort happened, but they were high-impact events. That said, Ford made the mistake of committing a cost/benefit analysis to paper in cold, corporate language. Mother Jones magazine came into possession of a copy and printed it. Just like that, the Pinto got a reputation as an unsafe car, which it really wasn't.
Chevrolet C/K Pickup Trucks: Dateline NBC did a straight-arm piece in 1993 where they rigged Chevrolet trucks to blow up on demand, set up by a for-hire witness against GM. The apology was loud and public, but GM still had to offer $1000 toward the purchase of a new truck to any C/K owner to stem the bleeding.
Audi 5000: Audi was an up-and-coming luxury marque in the US when 60 Minutes did a piece on unintended acceleration issues. The report caused Audi's business to decline by about 80%, which took Audi 15 years to regain. It also destroyed the resale value of the cars. As a result, Audis were about as welcome to US consumers as plague rats. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a report that vindicated Audi, declaring that almost every case of unintended acceleration was user error.
Ford Explorer: The Explorer was the best-selling SUV in America for a long time. All of that changed when they started to roll with alarming frequency. The Firestone tires that came with the vehicle were delaminating and/or rupturing, resulting in loss of control of the vehicle and potential rollover. In the end the blame was placed on the tire's construction combined with the natural tendency of an SUV (with a high center of gravity) to roll to a greater degree than a car. There was nothing inherently wrong with the vehicle, just bad tires and people ill-equipped to deal with the characteristics of an SUV at critical times.
Toyota Prius: Again, unintended acceleration. The blame was placed on Toyota's "fly-by-wire" program and shifting floormats. Again, vindication, though the damage had once more been done. Toyota went from being the number one automaker by sales to number three, and has yet to regain the top spot.
All of these things had one thing in common: a hostile press. Reporters have long had a mantra: if it bleeds, it leads. What could be more bloody than people dying in accidents that could be attributed to a greedy, penurious automobile company that only thought about profits? It doesn't matter if it's true or not. With few exceptions the retraction has been a few column inches buried in the middle of the paper or a few muttered words at the end of a broadcast. Everybody remembers the accusation, few remember the retraction.
As for the recent GM "crisis", my mother and my Driver's Education teacher taught me long ago not to put a ton of keys on the keyring. Why? Because it would damage the ignition switch. This advice came more than 20 years ago. Who would have thought that people could be so insightful? Furthermore, there are still many thousands of these vehicles on the roads, and until now they were deemed perfectly safe. Yet almost daily there are people coming out of the woodwork wringing their hands about their now-unsafe cars. Nothing has changed but the attitudes of the people, and the press has been aggravating the situation.
Is that the function of a free press, to act as rabblerousers? I thought the function of a free press was to act as informers, not inciters. The car companies didn't do anything wrong, but you'd never know that, because the people you trust to inform you have been negligent in deference to sensationalism for, well, ever. Even when it's important, like with Watergate, Vietnam, 9/11, whatever, it has been sensationalist in nature. I suppose it's to be expected that the people they "serve" would take their cues from that and act the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment