Milton Friedman justifies not recalling the ford pinto

There is an entertaining video of Milton Friedman discussing the same issues with an audience member: [VIDEO]

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one. The example reminds me of this discussion[0] between Milton Friedman and a student. [0]: [VIDEO]

Reminds me of this video from the 70s/80s about Ford knowingly distributing an unsafe car - "Milton Friedman on Ford not recalling the ford pinto" [VIDEO]

>consumer shopping for a car can decide how much safety they want to pay for I have seen this argument before, by a Nobel Memorial prize in economics, Milton Friedman. [1] [VIDEO] Overall he said, that it is not possible, as a principle, to put 'infinite' economic value into individual life. -- Perhaps the argument can be made, that in a different situation the 'other data' pilots were to use, would increase safety. -- Either way, I think there is something wrong with Friedman's argument. 'Optionality' -- when related to safety features, should be treated very different, than optionality in, say, comfort features. Passengers themselves should not be expected to make choices which optional safety features, on a car, a bus, or plane should be purchased by the drivers/operators. Drivers, should not be expected to make these choices, either. My thinking here, is that An optionality in safety device, should change the whole major (not minor) vehicle model number designation, for example. This would drive different visible profiles: different training, cost, marketing and so on.