YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,699
I say that i draw the line when something regularly causing issues. If there is something that is causing issues then measures should be taken to prevent there being any more of those issues such as helmets and leathers on motorbikes. If you want to bring the number of incidents per year for a given activity down to 0 then the only way to do this is to ban it out right. Or you can do what it think people should do and deal with the fact that there are dangers involved and there is always a risk of an accident.
I think you miss the point here, this incident on the SDR is not a danger that should be involved? Do you think a child falling through the floor being crushed by a wheelset is a danger that should just be accepted when riding a heritage train? Yes there are dangers involved there always will be, but why should that stop us from trying to prevent those we can easily control!
Take the 2015 Alton Towers incident, does that accident mean that the park should close forever, or does it mean we can all accept the danger and then decide if you still with to participate.
I don't think anyone suggested the SDR should have just closed after this incident. The Alton Towers incident is actually a perfect example of what should happen after an incident so thanks for bringing it up. The incident happened, the immediate aftermath was dealt with. The park was then shut for several weeks I believe with smiler and other similar coasters shut for longer. Smiler was shut for 9 months while improvements were made. There was a full and transparent investigation into the incident and measures were taken to ensure it did not happen again. All this despite nobody dying. This is the perfect example of a response to a preventable accident so again thank you for bringing it up. And while no one said it should close forever if Alton Towers had not been so proactive the HSE would have shut it down. No doubt about that.
Also I would be careful about naming your potential employers as having a relaxed approach to HSE on a public forum.... Not convinced they would see it the same way!
And yet, Grenfell Tower still happened years after your other examples. Countless people were involved in the renovation but seemingly no-one noticed the blatantly obvious risk - perhaps they were all too busy preening themselves in their dayglo jackets and hard hats? The fire service didn't know how to deal with something they didn't expect. So, in fact, those examples have actually taught us nothing as people are still concentrating on hazards/events that are history and still not looking towards how to avoid and deal with the next "unforseen" event.
I don't think the point of the post was to say that unforeseen events no longer occur. It was several bad examples. I think to suggest they were all too busy with dayglo jackets and hard hats is a gross over simplification. What was at work here was bodged approvals and testing, which I sense will now be added to the list of lessons learnt over the years. Boeing is an example where self-certification may potentially have gone too far. So actually two recent major disasters could potentially be categorized as foreseen but negligent!