Prioritizing Design Improvements in Cars
The design improvements case raises questions about how engineers and regulators should make safety decisions when resources are limited. In the mid-1990s, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered several possible automobile safety requirements, including adhesive-bonded windshields, seat belt laws, airbags, and improved braking systems. Each improvement had the same general benefit—saving one statistical life—but the cost per life-year saved varied dramatically. A utilitarian approach would prioritize the improvements that save the most lives for the least money, since this would produce the greatest overall benefit. The main question of this case is whether public safety decisions should be made by maximizing total well-being, or whether other values, such as individual freedom and the right to accept personal risk, should also matter. This case highlights the tension between saving as many lives as possible and respecting individual autonomy.