Safety at Any Cost?

It irritates me that after every disaster the media sing the same tired old refrain: If the government had been more involved and had spent more money this wouldn't have happened. We're hearing it now in regard to the Minnesota bridge collapse and the Utah mine cave-in. They seem to believe that no cost should be spared when it comes to public safety. They don't seem to understand that 'safety at any cost' is just a slogan. But any reasonably intelligent engineer or bureaucrat knows that safety has to be balanced against cost and functionality. Wouldn't surface travel be a lot safer if everyone had their own highway? Couldn't all bridge collapses be avoided if no bridges were ever built?

An AP article discussing the decisions made by authorities on maintenance of the bridge contains this statement:

The inspection strategy was also deemed to be more cost effective, but (senior engineer Gary) Peterson and state bridge engineer Dan Dorgan denied that money played a role.

If money played no role, the inspection strategy could not be deemed the more cost effective approach. 'Cost effective' is a fancy term for 'the most bang for your bucks' or, more formally, the right balance of cost and effectiveness -- where effectiveness includes safety and functionality. That is, if an approach is deemed the more cost effective, cost had to be considered by definition. Peterson and Dorgan were obviously pandering to the media; they have to know that money always plays a role.

Not only bureaucrats, but users of public transportation infrastructure discount the importance of safety every day. Consider this scenario: Bureaucrats inspect a bridge and find it structurally unsound. Instead of closing the bridge they publicly disclose that it is unsafe and that those who continue to cross it do so at their own risk. They post overhead signs advising motorists to exit now to avoid crossing the unsafe bridge.

Here's what I think will happen: Traffic across the bridge will decline dramatically and increase dramatically along alternative routes in the short term. Then motorists will gradually return to the unsafe bridge to avoid delays along the alternative routes. Traffic across the unsafe bridge will eventually stabilize at a level somewhat lower than before it was found to be unsafe.

People who regularly travel along I-10 in Northwest Florida have experienced a similar scenario since hurricane Ivan washed out the bridge across the bay at Pensacola. The washed out eastbound span was temporarily repaired while a new span was being built. People continued to cross the temporary span although it was clearly not as safe as some alternative routes (some trucks were not allowed to cross and low speed limits were imposed).

People will accept some risk in order to save travel time and money -- like they also do in almost every aspect of their lives. And it is absurd to not recognize that bureaucrats must weigh the cost of safety considerations in the construction and maintenance of the nation's infrastructure.

Comments

Make a comment: