Perhaps there should be some sort of process which would strip professional engineers of their accreditation if they decided to design something malignantly. For example, lets take the case of a power steering pump that's held in place with three bolts (safety in numbers?*), which are two different sizes: 2 of 5/8" and 1 of 14mm.

Seriously, imperial and metric on the same attachment? It might have been a badly manufactured or worn 9/16th, which might have made a bit more sense. Not much sense though, and the socket fit very nicely.
There are those who would call for ritual suicide for such a designer, but I think that is a little harsh.

Perhaps just a  public flogging, to underscore the foolishness of such a decision.

Because when I'm lying on my back underneath a rusting old machine, cursing the fact that I can't conceivably reach the pump from above, even if I was Reed Richards**, I don't like the thought that such a design choice went unpunished. Unless designing '90s midrange passenger vans was a punishment in its own right. In which case, across the inside of the hood should be stamped: WELCOME TO THE FIRST LEVEL OF HELL.



* It can't be a degrees of constraint thing, because they were all in the same plane.(If I was actually awake right now, I could work in a 'Snakes on a Plane' joke here.)

**Maybe that is why Dr. Richards got so damn much work done -- he could bend and contort to reach into any machinery on earth!

Whomsoever was responsible for the layout of the underside of the dashboard of the 2001 Caravan should be condemned to an eternity of changing the heater fans. I have engaged in some difficult teardowns in my time, but this one was ridiculous. Why should a simple job be made so purposefully complex?
The writers of the Haynes Manual covering that section should be made to assist as punishment for their blithe and uninformative instructions.

Which was surprising, considering how happy I've been with those guides to date.