NIP arrived. 984David Taylor Using the term "dangerous" to describe a device or situation allows people to shift the blame whereas if the...
OK, getting off the subject of misuse of language and back to the point.
I actually disagree with your standpoint. I agree instead with that espoused by the AAIB (Air Accidents Investigation Branch). They are not in the blame game. When it has all gone pear shaped, it is already too late and the courts can argue about blame. None of this arguing will have the slightest effect on safety.
The important issue as far as safety is concerned is working out what went wrong with the system. Simply blaming humans for the sort of mistakes that humans make and will always make (poor attention, planning, observation, judgement) will not lead to a more reliable and safe system.
NIP arrived. 986I think we are essentially in agreement. Except that because you don't want people to be able to weasel out of things you're saying the use of the road is the danger, rather than the...
What is needed is a blame free analysis of what went wrong and then an attempt to improve the system so that it is tolerant of such mistakes and that people don't get injured. Such improvements include a balanced and across the board improvement in road layout improvements, driver training and awareness, car design etc.
NIP arrived. uU|G*dfHK8Zr48 985No. Those are your words not mine. I am in favour of making the danger of using the road less. Only in their use. No. The road...
If people stopped blaming each other and started working out how to make a safe transport system that did not buttume that every person can be made superhuman, it is more likely to produce effective results. This is helped when people DO think about dangerous roads, dangerous junctions and dangerous car designs and realise that they DO cause injury and that improving them is likely MORE effective in reducing rest and injury than a round of "it's all your fault", which changes nothing.
Christian.