Redefining risks and redistributing responsibilities: Building networks to increase automobile safety

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article draws on the history of automobile safety in the United States to illustrate how technical design has been used to promote or maintain duties, values, and ethics. It examines two specific episodes: the debates over the "crash avoidance" and "crash-worthiness" approaches in the 1960s and the responses to the accusation that air bags were killing dozens of people in the mid-1990s. In each of these debates, certain auto safety advocates promoted the development of technologies designed to circumvent, replace, or compensate for "irresponsible" human actions because they believed that devices and techniques would be considerably more obedient and reliable than the American public. Other organizations, however, contested such reallocations because they also involved a shift in responsibilities throughout the rest of the sociotechnical network of auto safety. This article argues that those who controlled the precise definition of risk in auto safety had the upper hand in constructing both the solution to the problem and the distribution of responsibilities the solution entailed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)377-405
Number of pages29
JournalScience Technology and Human Values
Volume29
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Automobiles
motor vehicle
responsibility
moral philosophy
air
Crashworthiness
history
Values
Safety
Automobile
Responsibility

Keywords

  • Air bags
  • Automobile safety
  • Responsibility
  • Risk
  • Technological networks

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

@article{c7ef64e413e74ea084693db1683d84a0,
title = "Redefining risks and redistributing responsibilities: Building networks to increase automobile safety",
abstract = "This article draws on the history of automobile safety in the United States to illustrate how technical design has been used to promote or maintain duties, values, and ethics. It examines two specific episodes: the debates over the {"}crash avoidance{"} and {"}crash-worthiness{"} approaches in the 1960s and the responses to the accusation that air bags were killing dozens of people in the mid-1990s. In each of these debates, certain auto safety advocates promoted the development of technologies designed to circumvent, replace, or compensate for {"}irresponsible{"} human actions because they believed that devices and techniques would be considerably more obedient and reliable than the American public. Other organizations, however, contested such reallocations because they also involved a shift in responsibilities throughout the rest of the sociotechnical network of auto safety. This article argues that those who controlled the precise definition of risk in auto safety had the upper hand in constructing both the solution to the problem and the distribution of responsibilities the solution entailed.",
keywords = "Air bags, Automobile safety, Responsibility, Risk, Technological networks",
author = "Jameson Wetmore",
year = "2004",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1177/0162243904264486",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "377--405",
journal = "Science Technology and Human Values",
issn = "0162-2439",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Redefining risks and redistributing responsibilities

T2 - Building networks to increase automobile safety

AU - Wetmore, Jameson

PY - 2004/6

Y1 - 2004/6

N2 - This article draws on the history of automobile safety in the United States to illustrate how technical design has been used to promote or maintain duties, values, and ethics. It examines two specific episodes: the debates over the "crash avoidance" and "crash-worthiness" approaches in the 1960s and the responses to the accusation that air bags were killing dozens of people in the mid-1990s. In each of these debates, certain auto safety advocates promoted the development of technologies designed to circumvent, replace, or compensate for "irresponsible" human actions because they believed that devices and techniques would be considerably more obedient and reliable than the American public. Other organizations, however, contested such reallocations because they also involved a shift in responsibilities throughout the rest of the sociotechnical network of auto safety. This article argues that those who controlled the precise definition of risk in auto safety had the upper hand in constructing both the solution to the problem and the distribution of responsibilities the solution entailed.

AB - This article draws on the history of automobile safety in the United States to illustrate how technical design has been used to promote or maintain duties, values, and ethics. It examines two specific episodes: the debates over the "crash avoidance" and "crash-worthiness" approaches in the 1960s and the responses to the accusation that air bags were killing dozens of people in the mid-1990s. In each of these debates, certain auto safety advocates promoted the development of technologies designed to circumvent, replace, or compensate for "irresponsible" human actions because they believed that devices and techniques would be considerably more obedient and reliable than the American public. Other organizations, however, contested such reallocations because they also involved a shift in responsibilities throughout the rest of the sociotechnical network of auto safety. This article argues that those who controlled the precise definition of risk in auto safety had the upper hand in constructing both the solution to the problem and the distribution of responsibilities the solution entailed.

KW - Air bags

KW - Automobile safety

KW - Responsibility

KW - Risk

KW - Technological networks

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3042590107&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=3042590107&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0162243904264486

DO - 10.1177/0162243904264486

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:3042590107

VL - 29

SP - 377

EP - 405

JO - Science Technology and Human Values

JF - Science Technology and Human Values

SN - 0162-2439

IS - 3

ER -