(December 15, 2010 at 11:02 am)lilyannerose Wrote:(December 15, 2010 at 9:04 am)theVOID Wrote: Sure, we can do that, but it creates a double standard. The current overarching line is "all reasonable measures are to be taken to ensure the safety of all people on site at all times" or something to that effect. Reasonable is dictated by risk assessment vs project viability, some kind of opportunity cost. The only solution here would be to require that only mines have to comply with higher required risk aversion. As dangerous as mines are more people die on rail yards on average, so the double standard is unfair.
I believe that "reasonable" "risk assessment" "viability" are too fluid to use as a standard what are your scales measuring? You wouldn't have the same standards for a mine that one would have for a rail yard as both present different safety issues within different working environments. I'm not certain what measurement you are using. I would think that the end result would be that all steps be taken to ensure that regulations are in place to address the issues that lead to accidents or death. Which one environment can require more stringent regulation to achieve a safety goal than the other.
I think you misunderstand, it's not "the same measures for all workplaces" but the same goal for compliance, that goal again is "all reasonable measures are to be taken to ensure the safety of all people on site at all times" - The standards (the "reasonable measures") are relative to the specific working environment, you don't need compressed air on a rail way any more than you need a conductor in a mine yet both are necessary in the relative environment to meet the standard of taking "all reasonable measures".
The mining industry is just as compliant as supermarkets in terms of "reasonable measures".
.
