Yea, you’re probably right. I guess I was overestimating the Risk-Reward calculation they go through. Like, if it doesn’t cost much to be compliant (schedule already accounts for inspections, crews are already on salary) then they would be less willing to risk regulatory consequences. But as soon as it starts to cost them more to do so, compliance becomes “nice to have” and not a standard. Recent incidents suggest they have already been skipping steps, so I concede.
yes. maintaining or tightening safety standards and their associated penalties in conjunction with penalizing delays is probably the best way to do this.
as a non-expert, i am hoping that the investigations into recent safety failures go somewhere positive so that the fears this comment section are bringing up are assuaged. cuz we shouldn’t as citizens be forced to choose between basic consumer rights and safety.
If they could get away with bypassing those inspections or regulations, they already would.
I want the decision makers thinking “Gee, this pattern of delays will cost us more than if we hired more workers”
Yea, you’re probably right. I guess I was overestimating the Risk-Reward calculation they go through. Like, if it doesn’t cost much to be compliant (schedule already accounts for inspections, crews are already on salary) then they would be less willing to risk regulatory consequences. But as soon as it starts to cost them more to do so, compliance becomes “nice to have” and not a standard. Recent incidents suggest they have already been skipping steps, so I concede.
yes. maintaining or tightening safety standards and their associated penalties in conjunction with penalizing delays is probably the best way to do this.
as a non-expert, i am hoping that the investigations into recent safety failures go somewhere positive so that the fears this comment section are bringing up are assuaged. cuz we shouldn’t as citizens be forced to choose between basic consumer rights and safety.