Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Roundtuit  
#41 Posted : 09 September 2019 14:17:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

 Apparently (from other postings) manufacturers think we expect cars to warn we've left a mobile phone in it, but not that we've left a child!  Really?  What sense of priorities does that reveal?

Absolutely no priorities it is merely an extension to the existing technology where the car head unit blue tooth hands free function pairs to the phone, the warning is then a script for when a phone has been attached during the current driving cycle.

Most drivers will carry a mobile phone, not all drivers have children in the vehicle.


stevedm  
#42 Posted : 10 September 2019 06:36:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

I am really quiet surprised (or am I?) as to the rhetoric of this post....there has been a tragedy here and a young child died...yet people are being lambasted for trying to prevent that from happening again...that is just poor guys....

We deal with behaviours and attitudes daily, luckily some of you don't deal with tragedy like this sometimes it feels like daily…and you maybe don’t deal with different cultures and attitudes…human behaviour can be strange…I remember on of one my first roles which was investigating why parents left their children in the house fire while they escaped...

I expected better understanding from you all on differences in human behaviour and to have knowledge and understanding of its failings…how else are we going to prevent things like this happening…in the little worlds we can influence.

So for me I applaud them for trying something that could just prevent one death…

thanks 2 users thanked stevedm for this useful post.
andybz on 10/09/2019(UTC), ttxela on 10/09/2019(UTC)
mihai_qa  
#43 Posted : 10 September 2019 07:50:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't discrediting the efforts or the need for it. I wasn't even trying to place blame on the parents.

My concern was with regards to the effectivness of such a feature and its long term effects. I hope you would agree this must be discussed.

You mentioned human behavior...how long until the numbers increase with this added feature? It will create that same false sense of "safety" that PPE does.

The father that lost its child does mention in the article that this is nowehere near sufficient and I tend to agree.

I feel it's one more of those "lawyered-in" features that a marketing department will love as it creates discussion, momentum and sales.

Seeing how most vehicles have an on-board display (regardless of your opinion on it) why not use that and have it linked to a rear-seat facing camera pointed towards the child? It should overrride all other displays when in P and/or when the handbrake is on.

In this visual world with screens all around us, I feel this might be a more suitable solution. It can be added to the dome light and it's more likely to have an impact and switch us from the automated process of thinking.

thanks 2 users thanked mihai_qa for this useful post.
hilary on 10/09/2019(UTC), ttxela on 10/09/2019(UTC)
fairlieg  
#44 Posted : 10 September 2019 07:58:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

Originally Posted by: mihai_qa Go to Quoted Post

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't discrediting the efforts or the need for it. I wasn't even trying to place blame on the parents.

My concern was with regards to the effectivness of such a feature and its long term effects. I hope you would agree this must be discussed.

You mentioned human behavior...how long until the numbers increase with this added feature? It will create that same false sense of "safety" that PPE does.

The father that lost its child does mention in the article that this is nowehere near sufficient and I tend to agree.

I feel it's one more of those "lawyered-in" features that a marketing department will love as it creates discussion, momentum and sales.

Seeing how most vehicles have an on-board display (regardless of your opinion on it) why not use that and have it linked to a rear-seat facing camera pointed towards the child? It should overrride all other displays when in P and/or when the handbrake is on.

In this visual world with screens all around us, I feel this might be a more suitable solution. It can be added to the dome light and it's more likely to have an impact and switch us from the automated process of thinking.


I think Steve was more concerned about the overwhelming need to blame and shame on the forum thather than to understand the problem and potential solution(s).

thanks 1 user thanked fairlieg for this useful post.
stevedm on 10/09/2019(UTC)
stevedm  
#45 Posted : 10 September 2019 08:03:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

You got it....finally some light! :)

mihai_qa  
#46 Posted : 10 September 2019 08:37:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

Originally Posted by: fairlieg Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: mihai_qa Go to Quoted Post

I think Steve was more concerned about the overwhelming need to blame and shame on the forum thather than to understand the problem and potential solution(s).

I'm not entirely sure how that's any different than blaming and shaming. None of the approaches help, but rather help divide and point fingers.

And yet, when someone proposes to discuss on topic and the faults or benefits of such an addition, it's disregarded. 

I keep having these conversations with the Dekker's and Gantt's of the world when it comes to safety bashing and "anti-zero". What's the point of it? Clearly there's an issue, but we're too busy focusing on what the other has done wrong rather than talk practical solutions.

I've had my Gandhi moment here, please don't judge me harshly.

fairlieg  
#47 Posted : 10 September 2019 09:08:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

Originally Posted by: mihai_qa Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: fairlieg Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: mihai_qa Go to Quoted Post

I think Steve was more concerned about the overwhelming need to blame and shame on the forum thather than to understand the problem and potential solution(s).

I'm not entirely sure how that's any different than blaming and shaming. None of the approaches help, but rather help divide and point fingers.

And yet, when someone proposes to discuss on topic and the faults or benefits of such an addition, it's disregarded. 

I keep having these conversations with the Dekker's and Gantt's of the world when it comes to safety bashing and "anti-zero". What's the point of it? Clearly there's an issue, but we're too busy focusing on what the other has done wrong rather than talk practical solutions.

I've had my Gandhi moment here, please don't judge me harshly.


The first responses on this thread were to call the guy who killed his son an idiot for his "rank stupidity" and blame him for the accident and how one could never make such a mistake... the point is doing that does nothing to stop it from happening again.  There was also comment that we shlould not need to discuss solutions because this is an occupational safety forum and the child was under 18 (even though some of us are product safety, human factors engineers).

None of these comments are from you BTW the point is they don't add anything of value.  Debating solutions is valuable, trying to understand the context and the problem is valuable (all of which you have done, so maybe you are a Dekker(ite) after all)

My job would be easier if I could fire everyone who made a mistake in my workplace...... there just wouldn't be many people left (including me)

thanks 2 users thanked fairlieg for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 10/09/2019(UTC), chris42 on 10/09/2019(UTC)
stevedm  
#48 Posted : 10 September 2019 11:45:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

MH think you need to lay down in a darkened room for a minute or two...I think if you actualy read what I am saying, we are saying pretty much the same thing...except I hold no interest in the spoutings of Dekker and Gantt...

the OP was done with no undertanding of the route cause and culture of the person involved...you have all gone on a rant about apps and nanny states...when you need to be looking at behaviour and culture..when I first got responsibility for South Africa and then the global Human factors program...I had to understand why things like 8,000 pedestrian deaths where happening every year...why because of the changes that happened around that time meant that now the people felt 'empowered' to walk anywhere they liked...even with a car bearing down on you at 120km/hr....so you see it isn't as simple as saying 'what an idiot he left the child in the car'...people do it all the time...understand people and you will get a better chance of changing yourself and thier attitudes...  now I'm going to lay down in a darkened room! :)

thanks 2 users thanked stevedm for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 10/09/2019(UTC), ttxela on 10/09/2019(UTC)
mihai_qa  
#49 Posted : 10 September 2019 12:27:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

SA sounds awfully familiar to what's going on back home...it's just, we've been at it for the past 30 years without showing any signs of improvement.

"Liberation" comes at a cost, and that awakening, at least in our case, meant everything is free for all. Distrust of authority, desire to flaunt rules and a general entitlement combined with victimhood have all lead to us having horrible statistics.

This is one of the points I've tried to make with the Dekkers, Gantts and their band of cheerleaders. The last thing "developing nations" (i'm being nice here) need is to "embrace risk"(Dekker's been spouting this nonsense for some time now). They're already embracing risk quite succesfully, thanks. 

Some places need enforcement, others empowerment and others a mix of both. Some, just need everyone to stay away and not interfere. 

Darwin awards, natural selection, all these snide remarks help no one, I agree with you. I will give people the benefit of the doubt in saying that this profession takes its toll and gets otherwise morally sound people to look through a skewed glass. I know I have and it has made me question myself and my abilities. 

I'll go way off-topic, but is there a study anywhere on the psychological effects of people engaged in this profession? I've searched previously but haven't found anything.

achrn  
#50 Posted : 10 September 2019 12:59:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: mihai_qa Go to Quoted Post

Clearly this is an issue, but if we read the article, the father that lost his adopted child also states that alarms won't do much.

I don't find that in the article.  He says that the system being proposed by the car manufacturers is not very effective, I don't see him saying that alarms won't do much.


mihai_qa  
#51 Posted : 10 September 2019 13:04:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

Extract:

"This system doesn't detect anything," said Mr Harrison. "You could have a watermelon on the back seat. It doesn't detect that there is a living being there."

Mr Harrison, of Purcellville, Virginia, said the new system would not have made a difference in his case.

That's because it sounds an alert when the back door has been opened ahead of a journey. In his case, he stopped at a dry cleaners on the way to work that day in July 2008, so the system would have been disabled when he got out of the car briefly.

"If you make a stop on the way, the system is useless," he said. "Then you get distracted, and you go to work. Which is what happened."

"All they're doing is putting off legislation that would make them actually do something," he said. "There's no oversight and there are no consequences. It's just gobbledygook.

"They're trying to sell cars, not save lives."

ttxela  
#52 Posted : 10 September 2019 15:35:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ttxela

Originally Posted by: hilary Go to Quoted Post
I'm quite sure that a lot of us "safety professionals" are also parents (believe it or not we do have lives which are separate from our chosen professions) and on this occasion we responded as parents because, as someone rightly pointed out, health and safety law does not apply to children and does not apply outside the working environment, so why would we respond as safety professionals?


Er, wait, what? Children may not have to comply to H&S law but I'm reasonably sure we are required to consider damage to them. Admittedly this is, if anything, more a matter of product safety rather than occupational health and safety but it is a safety issue nonetheless (even if you don't judge it one worth addressing) surely?

Roundtuit  
#53 Posted : 10 September 2019 19:11:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

In UK law consideration would be as potential unwanted intruders to site or as young persons in the work place.

It clearly states Institution of Occupational Safety and Health at the bottom of this web page.

Product safety is the specialism of others within the UK - Chartered Institute of Trading Standards and the Office of Public and Product Safety to name but two.

Certainly weren't any modules on product safety in the NEBOSH examinations I have sat.

mihai_qa  
#54 Posted : 11 September 2019 06:41:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

Just because Nebosh hadn't even mentioned that in their syllabus, doesn't necessarily mean we should be oblivious to it, does it? I've done my fair share of Nebosh courses and while there's good info in them, they do encourage (unwillingly perhaps) rote learning and scripture referencing (sometimes that's painfully obvious). Hopefully their new revised GC will help tackle that.

The opening post was in the OHS section and it did get the ball rolling to conjecture and somewhat judgemental views. I blame this on social media (particularly LinkedIn) and the hit and run posts where most look at a video from a third world country (The East mainly) and start dusting off their CMIOSH and CSP badges ready to invoke the Darwin Award.

For someone that was so readily available to scold another for using the thank you button, you seem to have no issue in engaging in social media practices yourself. Just thought I'd leave that out there.

Have a great day,

Mihai

hilary  
#55 Posted : 11 September 2019 07:44:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

I make no apologies for my views.  I had two children, I was sleep deprived, working full time with two kids under 3 but I never forgot when I had them with me and I never left them in the car.  I managed to remember to drop them off with my mother in law every morning, pick them up from nursery at lunchtime and collect them from my mother in law every evening and I will admit here and now that I was not Supermum, I just did my best and was very cognizant of my responsibilities to these small people that I brought into the world.

To forget you have a child in the car is not just a bit of forgetfulness - like leaving your sandwiches on the side at home, it's downright stupid, irresponsible and criminal.  Yes, I feel sorry for the parent but I feel a lot sorrier for the child who is now dead because of this cavalier attitude.  It is a tragic accident but it could easily have been avoided, not by adding cameras, beeps, flashing lights and other technology which it is easy to ignore, but by just checking the car when you leave it.  How difficult is that? 

If that's harsh then I'm sorry but in my opinion he failed in his duty and no amount of soft soaping is going to change that fact.  You have a child - you look after that child - end of.

thanks 1 user thanked hilary for this useful post.
webstar on 11/09/2019(UTC)
Xavier123  
#56 Posted : 11 September 2019 11:05:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Xavier123

Originally Posted by: hilary Go to Quoted Post

  How difficult is that? 

About 38 children a year in the USA difficult.

An answer is an earlier part of the thread.

https://humanfactors101.com/2017/05/21/fatal-distraction/

This is clearly a reality whether commentators think it should be or not. Thus there is a societal choice between attempting to mitigate and reduce those child deaths through some means or doing nothing. It seems unlikely that this rate of incident will decrease through the latter.

thanks 2 users thanked Xavier123 for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 11/09/2019(UTC), fairlieg on 11/09/2019(UTC)
fairlieg  
#57 Posted : 11 September 2019 11:58:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

Originally Posted by: Xavier123 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: hilary Go to Quoted Post

  How difficult is that? 

About 38 children a year in the USA difficult.

An answer is an earlier part of the thread.

https://humanfactors101.com/2017/05/21/fatal-distraction/

This is clearly a reality whether commentators think it should be or not. Thus there is a societal choice between attempting to mitigate and reduce those child deaths through some means or doing nothing. It seems unlikely that this rate of incident will decrease through the latter.


Past performance is not a predictor of future success.

Put this blame argument into the workplace arena, there were 147 workplace fatalities and 92 members of the public killed due to work related activities in the UK 2018/2019 according to the HSE report.  I wonder how many of these put the responsibility for them at the feet of the people directly involved at the time they happened (147 Darwin Award Winners, really!!).  If we as a profession continue to use punishment and blame as a corrective action nothing will change, it’s not just a people problem, it’s more likely to be a systems problem. 

achrn  
#58 Posted : 11 September 2019 12:56:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: mihai_qa Go to Quoted Post

Clearly this is an issue, but if we read the article, the father that lost his adopted child also states that alarms won't do much.

I don't find that in the article.  He says that the system being proposed by the car manufacturers is not very effective, I don't see him saying that alarms won't do much.


Originally Posted by: mihai_qa Go to Quoted Post

Extract:

"This system doesn't detect anything," said Mr Harrison. "You could have a watermelon on the back seat. It doesn't detect that there is a living being there."

Mr Harrison, of Purcellville, Virginia, said the new system would not have made a difference in his case.

So you agree he does not say that alarms won't do much, he says that the system (quotr, "This system", emphasis added) being proposed by manufacturers won't do much.  He goes on to extol the system that does have an alarm - he wants cars to be fitted with alarms, but better alarms than teh systen the manufacturers want to adopt. 

He's not objecting to alarms, he's objecting to a particular system of alarms.

achrn  
#59 Posted : 11 September 2019 13:01:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: hilary Go to Quoted Post

If that's harsh then I'm sorry but in my opinion he failed in his duty and no amount of soft soaping is going to change that fact.  You have a child - you look after that child - end of.

Still this insistence that the proponents are looking for someone to blame.  I don't see this.  Mr Harrison in particular is clearly not looking for someone to blame - he knows he is to blame: "I desperately pray that reading about this will make just one person save their child's life. That's all I would ever need. Don't do to your family what I did to mine," (emphasis added).

He's not 'soft-soaping', he's not claiming he didn't fail, he's not trying to blame anyone else.  He's (apparently) trying to prevent other deaths.

It must be nice to have never made a mistake that could have had terrible consequences.

thanks 1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 11/09/2019(UTC)
mihai_qa  
#60 Posted : 11 September 2019 13:04:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: mihai_qa Go to Quoted Post

Clearly this is an issue, but if we read the article, the father that lost his adopted child also states that alarms won't do much.

I don't find that in the article.  He says that the system being proposed by the car manufacturers is not very effective, I don't see him saying that alarms won't do much.


Originally Posted by: mihai_qa Go to Quoted Post

Extract:

"This system doesn't detect anything," said Mr Harrison. "You could have a watermelon on the back seat. It doesn't detect that there is a living being there."

Mr Harrison, of Purcellville, Virginia, said the new system would not have made a difference in his case.

So you agree he does not say that alarms won't do much, he says that the system (quotr, "This system", emphasis added) being proposed by manufacturers won't do much.  He goes on to extol the system that does have an alarm - he wants cars to be fitted with alarms, but better alarms than teh systen the manufacturers want to adopt. 

He's not objecting to alarms, he's objecting to a particular system of alarms.


I've had another look at the posts in this thread, including my own and yours. Wasn't the debate about the proposed alarm? I even went further and said that just an alarm would likely not affect the occurence. I went on to propose an alternative means and went further in trying to explain some of the causes (Xavier123 posted a much clearer description of what I was going for).

That particular system of alarms is the point of discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any proposal for a different type. Maybe I overlooked something.

achrn  
#61 Posted : 13 September 2019 12:33:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: mihai_qa Go to Quoted Post

That particular system of alarms is the point of discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any proposal for a different type. Maybe I overlooked something.

Mr Harrison wants an alarm that is triggered by movement in the seat, not just by whether the rear doors have been opened. It seems you have possibly overlooked the statement "Mr Harrison and other campaigners want car manufacturers to detect motion in the back seat"

Mr Harrison wants an alarm system and the statement "the father that lost his adopted child also states that alarms won't do much" is incorrect.  The father that 'lost' his adopted child did not state that alarms won't do much, he stated that the system proposed by the manufacturers wouldn't have helped him.  That father wants alarms, but better alarms.




thanks 1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 14/09/2019(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages<12
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.