Sadistisch verhaaltje over FORD (owja euri = dollar)
Ford had een engineering foutje gemaakt met de gastank, bij aanrijding van achter harder dan 45 km/u gebeurd het volgende (zie filmpje).
Ford had 2 opties
1) 11 euro per auto uitgeven en het probleem oplossen
2) schade afkopen als mensen verongelukken met de auto./ Ford schatte 2.100 uitgebrande auto's, 180 zwaar verbrandde mensen en 180 doden. Een dooie kosten aan schade 200.000 euri, 67.000 euri voor een zwaar verbrandde en 700 per uitgebrande auto, omdat ze er zoveel maakte bleek dus dat het de helft goedkoper was om toch maar mensen dood te laten gaan en in de hens te laten vliegen.
Dus je raad het al... Ford liet die mensen gewoon doodgaan door hun crappy ge-engineerde auto.
Bron:
The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit. These figures, which describe the fatalities and injuries, are false. All independent experts estimate that for each person who dies by an auto fire, many more are left with charred hands, faces and limbs. This means that Ford’s 1:1 death to injury ratio is inaccurate and the costs for Ford’s settlements would have been much closer to the cost of implementing a solution to the problem. However, Ford’s "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make any changes to the car.
Is veel over te vinden op internet... Echt te schandalig voor woorden eigenlijk.
filmpje
Ford had een engineering foutje gemaakt met de gastank, bij aanrijding van achter harder dan 45 km/u gebeurd het volgende (zie filmpje).
Ford had 2 opties
1) 11 euro per auto uitgeven en het probleem oplossen
2) schade afkopen als mensen verongelukken met de auto./ Ford schatte 2.100 uitgebrande auto's, 180 zwaar verbrandde mensen en 180 doden. Een dooie kosten aan schade 200.000 euri, 67.000 euri voor een zwaar verbrandde en 700 per uitgebrande auto, omdat ze er zoveel maakte bleek dus dat het de helft goedkoper was om toch maar mensen dood te laten gaan en in de hens te laten vliegen.
Dus je raad het al... Ford liet die mensen gewoon doodgaan door hun crappy ge-engineerde auto.
Bron:
The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit. These figures, which describe the fatalities and injuries, are false. All independent experts estimate that for each person who dies by an auto fire, many more are left with charred hands, faces and limbs. This means that Ford’s 1:1 death to injury ratio is inaccurate and the costs for Ford’s settlements would have been much closer to the cost of implementing a solution to the problem. However, Ford’s "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make any changes to the car.
Is veel over te vinden op internet... Echt te schandalig voor woorden eigenlijk.
filmpje
