THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING

Comparison of Answers to Safety Questions (Ethical Issues in the Design of Ultra-Lightweight Vehicles)

Author(s): Missy Cummings, Anke Von Gorp

Are the fundamental responsibilities of safety engineers compromised in the design of this lightweight car?

University of Virginia

Delft University of Technology

The fundamental responsibility of a safety engineer is compromised by the design of this lightweight car. If you specify that a case should be designed so that it is light as possible regardless of safety concerns, then a safety engineer has to essentially dream up reasons why the car he is designing is safe, i.e. risk homeostasis theory, instead of actually implementing safety devices. The fundamental responsibilities of safety engineers are not compromised in the design of this car. By merely designing this car, a safety engineer has not compromised him/herself because there is still no conclusive evidence that the car is unsafe. The design of this lightweight car without the standard passive and active safety systems is a definite compromise of the fundamental responsibilities of safety engineers. The general public relies upon these individuals to make sure that a safe reliable product is put on the market, yet for this car that is not the case. I do not believe the fundamental responsibilities of safety engineers are necessarily compromised by this project. The safety criteria applied to the design of the car are merely different, or non-conventional. If this car design were to be implemented in the United States, this may pose more of a problem. Since the car is to be applied to Europe, where car designs in general are smaller, more compact vehicles, the lack of active safety features is not as big of a concern.

Yes. The fundamental responsibility of a safety engineer is to provide a safe car. This safety does not depend only on the driver's abilities and risk homeostasis, nut on other drivers as well. Thus, a safe car not only protects a driver from his/her own mistakes but also from other driver's mistakes. It depends on what is meant by "the responsibilities of the safety engineer". In my opinion this responsibility consists of two parts: 1) try to design a car in a way that prevents accidents from happening, 2) try to protect passengers and drivers when accidents do occur. By designing a car in which people feel vulnerable the designers have taken 1) into account. By emphasizing energy use, 2) will probably get less attention. Yes because drivers of lightweight cars might drive more safely but other drivers will not do that. Whether or not the responsibilities of the safety engineer are compromised depends on the consequences. When the total amount of accidents decreases because people indeed feel vulnerable and drive more safely, then the engineer's responsibility is not compromised. The government should formulate the safety requirements, not the engineers themselves.

• Return to Ethical Issues in the Design of Ultra-Lightweight Vehicles

• Safety Questions (Ethical Issues in the Design of Ultra-Lightweight Vehicles)

• Sustainability Issues in the Design of Ultra-Lightweight Vehicles

National Academy of Engineering

500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001T. 202.334.3200F. 202.334.2290