|
Post by dougsanders on Sept 22, 2014 16:39:35 GMT -8
The Accident Triangle shown on page 488 should be revised.
The bottom tier 'unsafe acts' reflects 'cause' while the remainder of the triangle reflects an incomplete stratification of 'outcomes.' It would be more accurate to replace the bottom tier 'unsafe acts' with something like 'deceptive safety' to reflect the missing outcomes, delineate between the bottom and other tiers or to use another type of graph to illustrate the point.
The triangle's numeric ratios are bogus. There is no evidence to back them up.
If one takes the ratios literally then one concludes there is little risk for any unsafe act (i .e. for every 200,000 unsafe acts there are only 20 major injuries, so why not take this 'little' chance.) In fact the outcome of the next exposure is unpredictable (assuming the hazard is recognized as a fatality generater. )
Personally, I believe it may make sense to dump the Triangle all together and draw attention toward the unpredictable outcome of the next exposure, and therefore, the need to avoid exposure, select the least risky option and mitigate hazard.
|
|