From mid-November 1992 through mid-February 1993, media coverage of the 1973-1987 Chevrolet and GMC pickup trucks was intense. In mid-November, two New York Times articles discussed a controversy about the fuel tank systems of 1973-1987 Chevrolet and GMC pickup trucks. These models place a gas tank on each side of the vehicle, both of which are outside the truck frame. The articles raised several important ethical questions about safety and responsibility. Although much that is contained in the articles is basically informational, the headlines of the two articles make it clear that the primary intent of the articles is to help readers address these ethical questions: “Data Show G.M. Knew for Years of Risk in Pickup Trucks’ Design;” “Despite Report that U.S. Standard Wasn’t Cutting Fatal Car Fires, Little Was Done.” Although the articles are by-lined (with Barry Meier listed as author), they are not offered as editorial opinions. Readers can expect primarily informative pieces–but perhaps with “slantings” in one direction or another. The question here is whether these articles provide readers with the sorts of relevant information they need to adequately address the ethical questions. The first headline suggests to readers that GM may have been negligent. Why, readers, may ask, did GM delay changing the location of the fuel tanks? Internal memos indicate that G.M. was trying to improve fuel tank safety as early as 1982. Yet, commenting on the change made in 1988, GM officials are credited with saying it was made for reasons of design rather than safety. Although the articles indicate that the issues are very complex, several matters are not in dispute. It is clear to all that the GM vehicles are in compliance with existing safety regulations. It is also clear to all that the redesigned models (beginning in 1988) render the gas tanks less vulnerable to damage in collisions. Various internal documents mentioned in the articles reveal that GM considered plans to relocate the gas tanks as early as 1982, but it was noted that any significant change would require a “long lead time.” The November 17 article cites a December 1983 internal GM document indicating GM’s intention to change the fuel tank’s position in 1987: “The fuel tank will be relocated inside the fram rails, ahead of the rear axle–a much less vulnerable location than today’s tanks.” According to the articles, one of GM’s aims was to come up with a plan that would enable the vehicles to withstand collisions from the side without significant fuel leakage at speeds up to 50mph–thus, far exceeding the 20mph regulation in force since 1977. In 1984 a plastic shield for the tanks was introduced, successfully, according to GM director of engineering analysis, Robert A. Sinke, Jr.–but unsuccessfully, according to Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, who refers to this as a “Band-Aid fix.” Despite introducing a redesign in 1988 that does seem to fulfill GM’s aim to withstand 50mph collisions, G.M. countered that the relocation of the gas tank was made for reasons of design than safety. Aside from questions about whether GM bore any special responsibility for past harms or deaths associated with the 1973-87 model fuel tanks, at issue were two related questions about the present. First there was the question of whether GM pickups during this period should be recalled. Second, there was the question consumers had about how safe or unsafe these vehicles are. It was reported that the National Highway Safety and Traffic Administration (NHSTA) was contemplating ordering a recall of the vehicles. One problem with this is that the vehicles were in compliance with existing regulations. So, NHSTA would be questioning the adequacy of its own regulations. GM indicated it would resist any such recall as illegal. Further, a GM attorney, Chilton Varner, was cited as saying in an interview that she believed the existing 20mph standard is adequate to protect public safety. NHSTA, however, indicated that it might consider the question of whether the 20mph standard is adequate. It might also consider whether the testing procedure itself should be changed. [The fuel tanks were presently tested by being struck with wide barriers at a 90 degree angle rather than with a narrower barrier at an oblique angle.]
Identify the ethical issues surrounding the controversy over the GM side-saddle tanks. What are the relevant facts? What factual, conceptual, and application issues are there? Some more specific issues you might address are: Given that motor vehicles will always place us at some risk, how are we to understand ‘safe’? If NHSTA is questioning its own standards, what kinds of criteria do (and should) they use? Can a product be unacceptably risky even though it satisfies current safety regulations? What does it mean to say that a design is changed that improves safety but it made for reasons of design rather than reasons of safety? Is this acceptable engineering practice? If a vehicle has an overall safety rating as good as its competitors, does it follow that it should not be required to improve any particular safety features?
