Unsafe at Any Speed
What Tech Can Learn from the Automobile Industry, Or Why It Feels Like We’re in a 1966 Kind of Moment
I ‘ve been thinking a lot about the current state of the tech industry and where we find ourselves at this unique moment in time. It feels like a liminal space that’s pure primordial soup — incredible things about to emerge from the sludge, but still unformed and shapeless. There are an increasing number of conversations, convenings, articles and musings about ethics and societal responsibility in design, business practice, code and product. But there also seems to be a resounding chorus in the background, shouting “Well, so what are we supposed to do about it?” It’s an understandable question. There’s not yet a clear path foward.
And here’s where I find a useful analogy. In 1966, Ralph Nader wrote his seminal book Unsafe at any Speed (however you feel about Nader the man, it’s hard to argue with the impact of his work). Today, few drivers can imagine owning a car that doesn’t come with airbags, antilock brakes and seatbelts. But 50 years ago, none of those features were standard. Society — and the automotive industry — just sort of assumed that an accident was the driver’s fault, full stop, and there was nothing else to be done about it.
Nader’s book accused automakers of failing to make cars as safe as possible. From there, a movement crystallized to change the basic calculus of cars+drivers=safety. And so, less than a year later, the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) was formed to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce crashes. But it was another 3 years before seatbelts became mandatory in cars and until 1983 for it to become law for drivers and passengers to wear them. It wasn’t until 1979 that NHTSA began crash-testing popular cars and publishing the results to inform consumers and encourage manufacturers to improve the safety of their vehicles. And Chrysler didn’t introduce driver front and side airbags until 1988. The change wasn’t immediate, but it came.
In parallel, there emerged a consumer education campaign to convince drivers to take their safety seriously and into their own hands. In 1983, the Ad Council released it’s first PSA on “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk.” In 1988, the US Designated Driver campaign launched.
1966…to 1988. It took 22 years, but by the late-1980s, we all had jointly realized a very simple fact: 1) Automobile manufacturers could do a better job securing the safety, health and wellbeing of their drivers and passengers through adherence to basic safety protocols and 2) Drivers could exercise better judgment and learn to be better stewards of their own safety, health and well-being. The car was just the interface — the point at which the industry and the users’ interests came together.
It feels like we’re in a 1966 kind of moment for tech. We’ve all realized we have a problem, but we’re just at the beginning of a 10–20 year journey of figuring out what we’re going to do about it, how we’re going to better protect society and users and make sure tech products aren’t out on the road causing indiscrimate harm. As Nader wrote in his introductory sentence to Unsafe: “For over half a century the automobile has brought death, injury and the most inestimable sorrow and deprivation to millions of people.” Are we at the point where we might say the same thing about the tech industry over the last 10 years?
In 1965, there were about 5 deaths for every 100 million miles. In 2014, there was only 1 death for every 100 million miles — an 80% decrease in traffic fatalities. Can’t we do the same for tech? What’s the new crash test dummy, the ubiquitous and unequivocal symbol of responsibility? We are presented a unique moment in time, a real 1966 kind of moment, to reflect on where we are as a society and decide to change the standard operating procedures and assumptions about what the industry can and should do to better prevent catastrophic harm.
When all of these changes had come to pass in the automobile industry, Volvo created a competitive advantage for itself by being known as the safest car on the road. Parents would buy their teenage drivers a new Volvo because they knew their accident-inclined teens would be safer behind the wheel of a sturdy, safety-tested vehicle than, say, a Suzuki Samurai (which, you know, ceased to be sold in the US for many reasons, but among them the fact that the car was universally known to be unsafe).
Who in the tech industry is going to be the next Volvo? Who is going to step up and differentiate themselves on how well they do ethics, how well they protect their users, how much trust they build in their brand, how well they embrace this 1966 moment and get moving toward 1988? Think we’re all kind of waiting.
P.S. If you’re interested in figuring out what to do or how to prevent being blindsided by a future you helped create, check out the toolkit available at EthicalOS.org. It’s a co-creation of my team at Omidyar Network and the Institue for the Future and is a good start.
