Something must (not) be done.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Source:
    Economist. 9/13/2003, Vol. 368 Issue 8341, p13-13. 2/3p. 1 Black and White Photograph.
  • Additional Information
    • Subject Terms:
      ACCIDENT investigation; EMERGENCY management; ACCIDENT prevention; FIRE prevention; FIRES; FIRE detectors; RAILROAD accidents; TRAFFIC accidents; WORK-related injuries; EPIDEMICS; OIL spills; DISASTERS; SAFETY
    • Subject Terms:
      LONDON (England); ENGLAND
    • Abstract:
      Disaster demands a response, but it is often the wrong one. That is the view of Sir Bernard Crossland, a safety expert who led the inquiry into a disastrous underground railway fire in London in 1987 which killed 31 people. Sir Bernard questioned the $450 million spent on fire-proof doors, metal escalators and suchlike on London's underground after the disaster and suggested that the money might better have been spent on home smoke detectors, as house fires kill around 500 people a year. A deadly rail crash can force authorities to impose speed restrictions and track inspections, which results in passengers taking to the far more dangerous roads, possibly resulting in more fatalities than the original crash. The same applies to most industrial accidents, health scares, and environmental catastrophes, like the clean-up of the Exxon Valdez oil spill which is thought to have damaged the environment more than the spill itself. The best solution, before costly technological fixes, is to let individuals decide how much risk they will bear, and how much safety they want to pay for it.