@ Peakcrew a very rational and reasoned post with which i fully concur.
It seems that the current ethos makes absolute safety a secondary consideration. The beancounters calculate the compensation-cost of failure and compare it with the cost of eliminating / mitigating that potential failure.
Still, we get the old saw, "if you think safety's expensive, try having an accident" Yet that's exactly how the insurance industry makes a profit and how big business has altered it's ethical and moral stance.......or has it?
Ralph Nader is the man who started the whole consumer protection movement, His book, "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED" gives a real insight into Corporate greed and cynicism. Chevrolet knowingly built a fundamentally unsafe and flawed design purely because the buying public would (they thought! ) not uncover the accident statistics. They had calculated that "hush-money" and compensation would be cheaper than building something safer.
We, as paying punters, have a right to distrust businesses who have been less than honest and transparent.
We have a choice, take our coin elsewhere until the customer-provider balance is restored.