Ever since the invention of the automobile, numerous efforts have been employed to try and improve its safety features. Judging by the current statistics, one could argue that driving has so far turned out to be a risky business. In actual fact, people of all ages and social status are considered to be in control of lethal weapons whenever they have to drive. According to the National Safety Council, it is estimated that more than 41,000 people lose their lives in road accidents annually and no less than 2 million more suffer from serious life threatening injuries (2009). Furthermore, it is estimated that at least 50% of the people killed in road accidents is as a result of their failure to adhere to safety measures such as wearing seatbelts while driving, driving under the influence, or careless driving (Ingalls, “Defensive Driving Strategies”). As an effect, huge losses occur with respect to life, injuries sustained, and damage to property.
According to “A Human Error Approach to Aviation Accident Analysis…”, both authors stated that HFACS was developed based off from the Swiss Cheese model to provide a tool to assist in the investigation process to identify the probable human cause (Wiegmann and Shappell, 2003). Moreover, the HFACS is broken down into four categories to identify the failure occur. In other words, leading up to adverse events the HFACS will identify the type error occur.
This report is based upon extensive library and internet research as well as an interview with Zaman Qamar, performance engineer at General Motors. He is one of the team members for crash and safety department which deals with accidental issues during severe crash.
"Preventing Trucking Accidents and Semi Truck Accidents." Working to Reduce Fatal Crashes Between Heavy Commercial Vehicles and Passenger Cars. Road Safe America, 2009. Web. 07 Feb. 2012. .
As the ambulance slowly pulls away from the accident, a police officer stops to ponder how different this crash was from all the others in which a Sport Utility Vehicle was involved. He realizes it is no different at all. SUVs are the leaders in rollover crashes in the United States which includes all vehicles of make and model. They have been around for an extremely long time but, so have their problems. However, there were no problems actually documented due to the incredible instability of the cars during the first time period in which SUVs were created. Although extremely popular and useful, Sport Utility Vehicles are extremely dangerous and highly susceptible to roll over in sharp turns and high speeds. Reasons for such crashes include things like high ranking executives ignoring engineers’ warnings about the potential hazard of the vehicles, and high speeds mixing with sharp turns. Also, over- and/or under- inflated tires on a top-heavy, high-centered vehicle. Sport Utility Vehicles are extremely popular. A few reasons are for their all-terrain capabilities, the feeling of safety people have while their driving them, and their seating capacity. However, it is also for these reasons they are unstable. The false feeling of safety leads people to be careless while driving them, and/or leads people to feel “in charge” of the road thereby creating a higher chance of an accident or rollover.
The paper recommends that in order to prevent such accident to happen, every party needs to get involved. Designers, developers, operators, and most importantly, regulators must know and understand the potential risks are real and how to conduct accordingly.
Almost everyone utilizes some form of transportation today to commute to work, school or vacationing (Vock, 2013). Unfortunately, every minute of the day a car crash occurs reported by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. In 2015, fatal car crashes were the ninth cause of death across the globe and nearly 1.3 million people die. This is an average of 3,287 fatalities per day. Not to mention that 20 to 50 million people injured or disabled. The report shows that more than half of all road traffic deaths occur between the ages of 15 to 44 (DPS, 2016).
Causal determinism is the concept that preceding causes give rise to everything which exists such that reality could be nothing but what it is. Science depends on this idea as it aims to find generalisations about the conjunction of certain causes and effects and thus hold some power of prediction about their future co-occurrence. However, in human interaction people assume each other to be responsible for their acts and not merely at the whim of causal laws. So the question which troubles philosophers is whether causation dictates entirely the course of human action or whether we as agents possess some free will. I will argue that free will is an inescapable illusion of the mind, something which never did nor ever could exist under causal determinism.
The Yale University sociologist Charles Perrow believes that some accidents are "normal accidents - accidents which are built into the system." He argues that modern technologies are so complex, that they "can never be made accident free, because safety devices and other components interact in ways too varied for designers and operators to predict" (Miller, 1999). Perrow concludes that by making technology safer, we are inherently more comfortable with it, and ignore the unpredictable failures that are built into the system. This leads to the belief that certain disasters, like the Deepwater Horizon incident, cannot happen, leaving us unprepared for safety system failures.
Below I will be analyzing the Responsibility for Accident case to find out the answer about the inquiry of who is responsible for a work accident – the employee or the company? First of all, I am going to look at every fact and different points of view of the case. I will also going to analyze the employee’s complains about the unsafe workplace. On the other hand, I will analyze what is the foreman’s defense to demonstrate that the employee is responsible for the accident and not the company.
To answer the first question one must see where we were, where they were, and what projections did they set for a 6 year projection goal. Abbott case study updated version 2012, or even now 2013 percentage rates. In 2013, Abbott global vehicle accidental rate had improved by 6 percent from the 2012 rate, to 4.8 accidents per million miles driven (Abbott, 2013). The long t...
Automobile accidents happen all around us. We see cars in the middle of the road after just rear ending each other. We see cars driving around town with big dents in them. Do you ever stop to wonder how car accidents happen? Physics; that’s how they happen. There are several aspects of physics that apply to automobile accidents.
In the past, the term "accident" was often used when referring to an unplanned, unwanted event. To many "accident" suggests an event that was random, and could not have been prevented. Since nearly all work site fatalities, injuries, and illnesses are preventable, OSHA suggests using the term "incident" investigation. An incident usually refers to an unexpected event that did not cause injury or damage this time but had the potential. "Near miss" or "dangerous occurrence" are also terms for an event that could have caused harm but did not.
The primary cause is of airplane accidents does at some stage contain an element of a person being unable to discharge his duties correctly and in an accurate manner. More than 53% accidents are the result of ignorance or faults by the pilot during flight. Other staff is responsible for about 8% accidents. The most obvious errors by pilot are made during the take off or landing on the runway. Additionally errors can occur during the maintenance of the airplane outside the plane, whereby a lack of thorough inspection and oversight can lead to complication during mid-flight. Fueling and loading of the plane also sometimes create problems (Shapiro, 2001).