Comment 37505

By z jones (registered) | Posted January 27, 2010 at 22:56:35

Reading comprehension fail. Let's try again.

I'm particularly disappointed that this rules-based approach is being pushed when it is explicitly avoided in workplace safety and safety engineering.

I received workplace safety training last year, and one point kept being hammered home: Inattention, daydreaming or distraction are not acceptable explanations for an accident. The workplace must be safe when used by real people, not robots who always obey rules and are never distracted.

See what's happening here? You can talk about what people ought to do, but if we're interested in safety we have to talk about what people actually do.

Nicholas again...

The disturbing subtext to this debate is that while we have engineered our cars to be much safer, with all sorts of passive safety devices from multiple air bags to crumple zones, we refuse to consider incorporating similar passive safety standards for pedestrians in road design.

Starting to sink in yet? We can't just tell people to act safer. We need to engineer our roads (the way we already engineer our cars) to make them inherently safer.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools