Level 4-Day 19.The Ford Pinto Case
高效磨耳朵 | 最好的英语听力资源
词汇提示
1.ample 充足的
2.smashed 撞上
3.iceberg 冰山
4.accommodate 容纳
5.guilt 有罪
6.homicide 谋杀罪
7.prosecution 检方
8.acquitted 无罪释放
9.tarnished 败坏
10.idly 无目的地
11.warehouse 仓库
12.hangar 飞机库
13.justification 正当理由
原文
The Ford Pinto Case
Businessmen often complain that their profits are negatively affected by government regulations.
On the other hand, history has proven that it is necessary to regulate business in at least one area - public safety.
There is ample evidence that consideration for the safety of the public is not always a priority in business decisions.
Back in 1912, the Titanic smashed into an iceberg, killing hundreds of people.
It was going too fast through a large collection of icebergs, while attempting to set a speed record.
Unfortunately, there were not enough lifeboats to accommodate the passengers.
Usually when such a tragedy occurs, the company is not found guilty.
Instead, safety regulations are enacted for future cases.
In the future, ships were ordered to carry a sufficient supply of lifeboats.
In 1978, the Ford Motor Company was indicted on the charge of homicide.
This was the first time such a charge had been brought against an American corporation.
It related to the deaths of three teenage girls who were burned up when their Ford Pinto was hit from behind.
The prosecution charged that the Ford Company knowingly manufactured a dangerous car.
Behind this story is the pressure on Ford to produce a small car to compete with imported vehicles.
The Pinto was rushed into production in spite of warnings that the gas tank was in a dangerous position.
It would have cost Ford an additional $11.00 per car to fix the problem.
Ford decided not to.
Later, Ford produced a cost-benefit analysis to justify their position.
Estimating that the faulty design would cause 180 additional deaths, Ford valued these at $200,000 per person.
This cost was far less than equipping 12.5 million vehicles with $11.00 protectors.
So Ford felt that they had made the right decision.
Ford executives were acquitted on the charge of homicide.
Nonetheless, Ford had to pay out millions of dollars in out-of-court settlements.
These were paid to families who had lost relatives in Pinto accidents.
This case shows how far a company will go to protect its profits.
For more than eight years, Ford lobbied the government not to tighten safety standards on cars
As long as the Pinto was profitable, Ford did not want to change the design.
Although Ford made a lot of money on the Pinto, their reputation was tarnished.
The Fort Pinto case is one of many which point to the need for governments to set safety standards.
No business wants to recall its products, or leave them sitting idly in a warehouse,or expend large sums of money for upgrading and repairs.
No airplane company wants to have its planes in the hangar when they could be in the air making money for the corporation.
As a result, commercial companies are seldom motivated to look closely at product or service safety.
This is especially true today when the "bottom line" in business is seen as a justification for every decision.
For this reason, governments have to oversee issues of public safety.
Most businesses are too busy working on profits to have much time or concern for doing so.
翻译
福特平托案
商人经常抱怨他们的利润受到政府法规的负面影响。
另一方面，历史证明，有必要至少在一个领域——公共安全——对企业进行监管。
有充分的证据表明，在商业决策中，考虑公众安全并不总是一个优先事项。
早在1912年，泰坦尼克号撞上冰山，造成数百人死亡。
它在试图创下速度纪录的同时，在一大堆冰山中移动得太快了。
不幸的是，没有足够的救生艇容纳乘客。
通常，当此类悲剧发生时，该公司不会被判有罪。
取而代之的是，为未来的案例制定安全法规。
未来，船只被要求携带足够的救生艇。
1978年，福特汽车公司被控谋杀罪。
这是第一次对美国公司提起这样的指控。
这与三名十几岁的女孩的死亡有关，她们的福特平托车在后面被击中时被烧毁。
检方指控福特公司故意制造了一辆危险汽车。
这个故事的背后是福特生产小型汽车以与进口汽车竞争的压力。
尽管有警告称煤气罐处于危险位置，平托车还是被紧急投入生产。
为了解决这个问题，福特每辆车将额外花费11.00美元。
福特决定不这么做。
后来，福特进行了成本效益分析，以证明他们的立场。
据估计，该错误设计将导致180人额外死亡，福特估计这些死亡人数为每人20万美元。
这一成本远低于为1250万辆汽车配备11.00美元的保护装置。
所以福特觉得他们做出了正确的决定。
福特汽车高管被判谋杀罪无罪。
尽管如此，福特不得不支付数百万美元的庭外和解。
这些钱是付给在平托事故中失去亲人的家庭的。
这个案例表明了一家公司将在多大程度上保护其利润。
八年多来，福特一直游说政府不要收紧汽车安全标准
只要平托车能盈利，福特就不想改变设计。
虽然福特在平托车上赚了很多钱，但他们的声誉受损。
福特平托车事件是众多表明政府需要制定安全标准的案件之一。
没有企业愿意召回其产品，或将其闲置在仓库中，或花费大量资金进行升级和维修。
当飞机可以在空中为公司赚钱时，没有一家飞机公司愿意将其飞机停放在机库中。
因此，商业公司很少有动机密切关注产品或服务安全。
今天，当商业中的“底线”被视为每一个决策的理由时，这一点尤其正确。
因此，政府必须监督公共安全问题。
大多数企业都忙于赚取利润，没有太多时间或精力这样做。
