Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed," while focusing on the Corvair, fundamentally argued that car manufacturers, not drivers, were responsible for safety. The AI industry is now mirroring Detroit's historical defense, shifting blame to users for errors. This mirrors the past where car manufacturers blamed drivers, or the "nut behind the wheel," to avoid product redesigns. Similarly, AI companies attribute failures to "AI literacy" or prompt engineering rather than addressing inherent product flaws. The argument that the user should be more informed echoes the outdated "driver error" defense used by the auto industry. This strategy, akin to a warning label, has historically been used to contain liability without fundamental product changes. The core issue is that AI's susceptibility to error, like a car's mechanical failure, requires design solutions, not just user education. The "second collision" concept, where the car's interior design mitigates crash impact, highlights the importance of interface design in AI to manage errors. Interface design, which includes explainability and user control, is crucial for mitigating the harm of AI's incorrect outputs. Just as crash testing became standard for car safety, interfaces need rigorous testing to quantify and address "wrong-answer survival rates." The AI industry, like the auto industry before it, often possesses internal data on failures that is not transparent to regulators or the public. Ultimately, the responsibility for safety, whether in cars or AI, lies with the creators to engineer robust systems and interfaces.