The biggest influence on the decision to implement the baffle comes from a human element that seems to be missing from Ford’s decision. Human life is priceless, but Ford did manage to place a number on it. The loss of life is enough external pressure to influence the recall of the Pinto and add a part that cost less than a trip to the movies. “One Ford engineer, when asked about the dangerous gas tank said, “Safety isn’t the issue; trunk space is” (De George, 2005, p. 116). The Ford Company did not operate with a concern for the people. Instead of placing the safety of consumers at the top of the list, Lee Iacocca placed profit and competition above all. “As Lee Iacocca was fond of saying, “Safety does not sell” (Newton & Ford, 2008, p. 297). Recalling the cars did not seem to be of any concern and losing money is not an option. The company was not short on resources. They had the information, the materials, and the know-how to produce a safe vehicle. The consumers deserve to have a product that is safe and affordable. Unfortunately, the powers at the top did not take into account what the consumer thinks.
The risk/benefit analysis was a large part of the decision to avoid the recall. This would place a dollar amount on human life. It would cost the company more to fix the problem than to save a number of lives. “When someone dies as a result of a dangerous product, unsafe treatment or negligent corporate behavior, we can't measure how much the deceased person meant to his family and friends” (Miller, 2003, p. 7). The loss of three young lives did not motivate this company to make any immediate change. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s investigation shows rear-end collisions are almost eight times more likely to cause fuel spills when lobbyists for Ford said they are rare (Newton & Ford, 2008). Publicity from the Center