Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Walk me through this “Safety Third” thing (2020)

mikerowe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Walk me through this “Safety Third” thing (2020)

#11

Post by jack_riminton »

gnode wrote: post #8
tompagenet2 wrote: post #2

This seems like a (perhaps deliberate, but I'll assume good faith) misunderstanding of what "safety first" means. It doesn't mean we should prioritise any safety improvement above any other objective. It simply means that before we start on a plan or action we should minimise any safety risk as low as is reasonable. Clearly we can debate what reasonable means, and it will differ for different people, but it isn't an…

> it isn't an absolutest point or mantra. "Safety first" literally is an absolutist mantra; no part of its wording is conditional. Of course people read into it a less absolute figurative meaning that may be useful for thinking about safety. However it can be politically and legally useful to speak using absolutes. Using the example of viruses and the economy, it has been politically expedient for politicians to stat…

At it's heart I think the phrase is essentially a political one. It signifies at attempt to address the balance between success and safety, rather than skew completely towards success.

When I was in the army fellow officers would say their first priority was to get their soldiers home safely, to which the soldiers would joke "can you fly me home tomorrow then Sir?"

Re: Walk me through this “Safety Third” thing (2020)

#12

Post by benjohnson »

DanBC wrote: post #6

Health and safety is used as a tool by reactionaries who lie about what it is and what it means in order to avoid thinking about how they may be harming other people. > What I suggested in my post last week, was that Safety is not a thing to be “ranked,” but rather, a state of mind, to be applied as needed to a myriad of situations in varying amounts. But if we were to rank it, it would rarely be “first.” Were safety…

He then however goes on to describe a real problem that hurt his crew - safety as a talisman.

I fight that in my company by being a bit flippant with ladder safety to remind them of the danger of getting complacent.

"Use the ladder safely while I'm looking at you, but after about an hour get really complacent and over-reach and fall off and die."

Re: Walk me through this “Safety Third” thing (2020)

#13

Post by benjohnson »

pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #9

> Here’s an honest question – would you be OK if the government reduced the posted speed limits by 50%, required all motorists to wear helmets, and outlawed all left turns? If not, why not? Doing so would save almost 40,000 lives a year. Rhetorical devices like this one are always telling. Rowe expects -- assumes, really -- that the answer is "no". It's a foregone conclusion. My answer, even as a person who made a li…

I'll throw this out there - being over cautious in mountain climbing is a good way to get killed by the weather.

I'm kind of a safety nut - and had to learn that a little risk of falling let me get back to base in a timely fashion.

I'd love to head the nail gun issue - sounds like there's a good lesson there.

Re: Walk me through this “Safety Third” thing (2020)

#14

Post by Bailin »

FYI, Mike Rowe has been financially backed by the Koch brothers, and is a known right-wing commentator. Obviously this is ad hominem, but not necessarily a fallacious one: Context and financial incentives are important, after all.

https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-64-mike-rowes-koc...

Re: Walk me through this “Safety Third” thing (2020)

#15

Post by Werewolf255 »

gnode wrote: post #8
tompagenet2 wrote: post #2

This seems like a (perhaps deliberate, but I'll assume good faith) misunderstanding of what "safety first" means. It doesn't mean we should prioritise any safety improvement above any other objective. It simply means that before we start on a plan or action we should minimise any safety risk as low as is reasonable. Clearly we can debate what reasonable means, and it will differ for different people, but it isn't an…

> it isn't an absolutest point or mantra. "Safety first" literally is an absolutist mantra; no part of its wording is conditional. Of course people read into it a less absolute figurative meaning that may be useful for thinking about safety. However it can be politically and legally useful to speak using absolutes. Using the example of viruses and the economy, it has been politically expedient for politicians to stat…

You're arguing from a place where metaphors don't exist. Aside from people who have already questionable judgement, nobody treats "The customer is always right" as a literal dictum. I am not compelled to "Love that chicken from Popeyes" and I can stop eating Pringles after one.

Re: Walk me through this “Safety Third” thing (2020)

#16

Post by thundergolfer »

DanBC wrote: post #6

Health and safety is used as a tool by reactionaries who lie about what it is and what it means in order to avoid thinking about how they may be harming other people. > What I suggested in my post last week, was that Safety is not a thing to be “ranked,” but rather, a state of mind, to be applied as needed to a myriad of situations in varying amounts. But if we were to rank it, it would rarely be “first.” Were safety…

Citations Needed has a great episode where they debunk this “Safety Third” nonsense[1].

1. Episode 64: Mike Rowe’s Koch-Backed Working Man Affectation

Re: Walk me through this “Safety Third” thing (2020)

#17

Post by explodingman »

If you take a bit more risk driving, you get a bit more hazard to yourself and other road users. If you take a bit more risk with COVID-19, you get an epidemic with thousands of mainly elderly people dying in an overwhelmed medical system.

With COVID-19, the relationship between risk and hazard is nonlinear in a way that doesn't apply with most personal risk choices. Analogies with driving, climbing ladders, etc. are false.

Post reply on HN