Assignment #4 Safety

Emilio Joaquin C. Flores

1. Identify unsafe acts, unsafe conditions and contributing circumstances in each report.

For Case 1-1, the use of substandard materials and disregard of Bangladesh’s Building Codes is
what caused the incident. Adding insult to injuries is the bribing of government officials for the
approval of the permit even though it was deemed unsafe by the inspecting engineers.

For Case 31-2, the step down from the hall to new building and the glaring effect of sunlight are
the unsafe condition, while contributing circumstance is the turmoil and stresses inside Gary’s head
which led to him not paying attention.

2. Identify preventive actions that were possible for the cases. Identify any accident theories or
models that helped identify preventive actions.

For Case 1-1, The strict implementation of the building codes and the usage of standard materials
should have been done. There must not be shortcuts and extreme cost cutting in building factories.
The government agencies should not allow its operation knowing that it is deemed unsafe to begin
with. Not only their names and reputations were at stake, so does the lives of the deceased and
injured. The Domino effects is used in the analysis as it started with the use of substandard materials
and the lack of implementation, which led to the cracks, which later collapsed and killed the
workers.

For Case 31-2, A best preventive action is to add warning signs/device like “Watch your step”. It
is common to put it in staircases especially in areas with least expected to have a staircase. Another
preventive action is to reduce the glaring effect through tinting the windows or adding blinds for
when it is too bright. Human error cannot be prevented, nor can his circumstances. I used the
reactive approach, since, Gary’s incident identified the unsafe condition of the stairs. Multiple
factor theories can be used as Gary (Man) made human error, stair (Media) is at unsafe condition,
Management lack proper warning signs.
3. Identify possible factors involved in each case using a multiple factor theory, such as the four
Ms.

For Case 1-1, The owners (management) cost cut the construction by not following building codes
and using substandard materials. The government (management) signed the building permit and
operations approval without proper inspection and thinking of the consequences. Substandard
Materials (Machine) meant that cracks and deformation may manifest at the building at a faster
rate. Poor Design (Machine) means that there is poor foundation at strength which leads to cracks.

For Case 31-2, There are multiple factors which caused the incident. Gary (Man) made human
error. Given his rough situation at that time, He wasn’t thinking straight and was unaware of the
hazard. Stair (Media) is at unsafe condition. If possible, the two building should have been aligned
to prevent offsets. The sunlight glare is also an issue that needs mending. Management lacks proper
warning signs. Warning signs should be placed, given that human error is not preventable. Blinds
or tints should be added to prevent glaring.

4. Select one or two of the cases and list the hazards potentially involved in each. Suggest which
hazard controls might have prevented each case or reduced its severity.

For Case 31-2, the stairs and the glaring sunlight caused Gary’s demise which can later be a
potential hazard. I used the reactive approach as basis on how to reduce human error. As I
mentioned in the previous items, “Watch your steps”/ “Staircase Ahead” signs should be added
knowing that people might not be aware of it. Since Gary mentioned glaring effect of sunlight was
also a factor on why he tripped, we should add blinds and/or tint the windows to prevent others
from blinding lights.

5. Use the history of automobile safety (or some other product) to show the shift in public
acceptance of and preference for safety features.
Seatbelts:

Bohlin first designed seatbelts for Volvo cars in 1958. When American consumers realized the
benefits of automobile safety, the demand skyrocket. It led to companies adding it as an option for
car features. By 1966, Americans are required to have seatbelts in their cars. By 1975, most first-
world countries followed this, which led to all car manufacturers adding it as a standard feature
rather than an option.

Airbags:

John W. Hetrick started sketching designs for his “safety cushion assembly for automotive
vehicles” after an accident his family experienced. He later patented it in 1952. During the late 50s,
both Ford and General Motors started experimenting on an inflatable restraint system. They found
that an airbag would be effective if only a sensor could detect a collision accurately and reliably,
and if could inflate within 40 milliseconds or less. The government began to focus in car safety
after the rapid increase in accidents during the 60s. During 1970s, the mandate for airbags was
issued. The rest of the world follow, and more cars started to have air bags as standard feature.

Crumple Zones:

Crumple zones are a structural safety feature used in vehicles that absorbs the force of impact of a
collision. Béla Barényi, a Mercedes-Benz engineer, first patented crumple zone design in 1937. He
divided the car body into three sections: the rigid non-deforming passenger compartment and the
crumple zones in the front and the rear. Early vehicles followed a principle that a safe car had to be
rigid. After numerous studies involving car crashes and death, they realized that rigid cars transfer
the collision force directly towards the passengers, leading to a fatal injuries or death. After this,
cars become less rigid, and more flexible at crumple zones.