zlacker

>>heshie+(OP)
I've worked for a large OEM, dealing with a large Japanese megacorp that is not Mazda for about two years (actually Mazda was one of our customers too, but I didn't get to work with them directly). This does not amaze me anymore.

We spent months agonizing over an interior temperature sensor, which was only used to display the information to the user on a smartphone app. We built both the hardware and software, and it was offered as an add-on at the dealerships. After months of negotiations, after the hardware was already built and the packages assembles, they decided temperature sensors were too inaccurate (+/- 5 degrees F) to use, and that it could present a legal liability. Again, this was nothing else but displaying the information on the app - and the user could then make a decision whether to remote start the car to cool it or heat it (no automatic process took place either).

This was at the height of "unintended accelerator" issue in Toyotas, so everyone was walking on egg shells playing it ultra safe to not invite any more lawsuits.

What surprises me is that this culture of "playing it safe" remained to this day, some 10 years later (but maybe it shouldn't).

>>mirkul+Ek
Idk about everyone else but when it comes to anything running in my car, _anything_, there is no such thing as excessive "playing it safe". It's a 2 ton mass of steel barreling down the highway at 70+ mph next to other unpredictable 2 ton masses, please for the love of God, fight to maintain that culture of "playing it safe", regardless of what you're working on and for what purpose.

>>wutwut+Zx
Would you be willing to pay millions for your car to make it safer? The pope has bullet proof glass, different body materials can protect your life. How would you define excessive?

>>ipaddr+JD
Yeah, everything is a tradeoff that should have a coherent risk-benefit analysis attached to it. "X at all costs" isn't realistic.

>>gottor+CE
Never said "X at all costs" but thanks for trying to speak for me. Going forward, please note that my preference is to speak for myself, as should you.

>>wutwut+2K
I'm not sure why you took such offense; it's a reasonable interpretation of the words you spoke for yourself:

> there is no such thing as excessive "playing it safe"

As you noted in your other comment:

> I'm asking them to "play it safe" when developing components for the car so the car doesn't kill me while I'm in the car.

As in the old adage in computing ("the only unhackable computer is one that isn't connected to anything"), there's no way to ensure that the components of a car don't fail, even while in routine use. There is only more or less likely that they won't fail, and of course, less and less likely to fail is more and more expensive.

We might say that the only uncrashable car is one that sits in the garage and never goes anywhere. Obviously, that would be playing it safe excessively, since it would defeat the purpose of having a car to begin with. But what about less obvious cases? Toyota recalled millions of cars for their "unintended acceleration" issue. The merits of that particular case aside, how much more would someone pay for a Corolla that would be progressively less likely to have safety issues? At some point before infinity, it would be considered excessive.

I think the sliding scale of how safe is playing it too safe is a discussion very much worth having.