Now, I'd like to know what exactly did anyone do wrong? All the display team did was light a firework, they did nothing untoward at all. Or perhaps it was the couple's fault? Were they acting irresponsibly? Were they being stupid, acting dangerously or taking excessive risks? No, they were standing with the rest of us watching a professional set off fireworks in the manner in which they are intended. They died.
I would like to turn this back a page and make the point that this is still a case of human error. As mentioned before in passing, there are circumstances in which no one directly involved in an incident is at fault. Now we're talking about either storage or manufacture. Assuming that the people in question observed safe storage and handling practices,
this is where you start looking at the manufacturer. This is where an investigation starts concerning the conditions at the factory, the level of quality, the number of defective products reported from that manufacturer, the standards used in inspecting the product prior to shipping, etc.
It is saddening that people have to die, but mistakes like these cause deaths regardless of who caused them. It simply is not the fault of the item in question. Let's use a famous tragedy as an example here- the Challenger explosion (I can think of no closer comparison) in 1986. What happened there? A design flaw allowed hot gasses to escape one of the boosters and burn through the external fuel tank, causing the tank to rupture and explode- killing seven astronauts. The investigation that followed the disaster found the cause to be a defective o-ring, and as a result the design of the shuttle's booster rockets was changed to prevent the same problem from causing more deaths in the future. In the 20 years since, a second booster failure of that nature has yet to occur (The Columbia was doomed by a loose peice of foam insulation that fell off one of the tank mounts, a nonrelated issue).
And here is where statistics are most valuable to anyone seeking tighter regulations or an outright ban- statistics are never taken on the successful and safe uses. How many firecrackers do you suppose go off harmlessly for every one which causes an injury? How many more for each death? How many rounds of ammunition are fired for every one bullet which is used in a murder, or even an accidental shooting (I've fired thousands myself, and I've yet to get so much as a misfire)? How many folks commute safely to work each day for every one who is injured or killed in an auto accident? How many people get completely smashed and manage to not die of alcohol poisoning for every one that does? You'll never find those statistics. They aren't collected.
The cold fact is that it sometimes takes someone dying or getting hurt to increase safety standards, but it does happen- and when it does, it happens big. Such standards are never put into place when something is banned- it might be noted that the number of accidents using illegal fireworks is decidedly higher than that of legal ordinance, and that violent crime statistics show similar trends concerning firearms. People just don't pay attention until somebody gets killed, unfortunately- but the same principle holds true for any product that carries the risk of deadly consequences. How do you think we got the regulations and standards for the use of electrical appliances? Unsafe wiring caused fires, caused deaths, and people demanded safer products. Seatbelts and airbags? Traffic fatalities led to stricter regulations, not a general ban on automobiles (but they are
useful, aren't they?), and today we have seatbelt laws- and you won't find a car manufactured in the US today that doesn't come standard with airbags (most have side airbags now, too). Accidental firearm discharges have led to improvements in safety mechanishms so that now they do not just lock the trigger, but actually put a barrier in front of the firing pin so that it
cannot strike the bullet if the safety is on, even if the weapon is dropped or jarred by an impact.
Do we just ban everything that doesn't have a practical application, then? Is that our gold standard? I'd much rather see improved and revised safety standards that lead to higher quality products that don't fail in ways that kill people. Or shall we ban snowboards, which are used in a decidedly non-useful sport which can be quite dangerous? Alcohol and tobacco, though overused examples, are still prime ones, since neither is really useful beyond getting trashed or getting cancer. Is everything extraneous to be banned just because it isn't useful for something? Or do people have a right to do things that are potentially hazardous in the name of entertainment and having a good time?
A better question might be this: Why did you attend the fireworks demonstration where those two people died? Rather, why did
they? My guess would be to enjoy a good show; I've attended a number of such demonstrations for exactly that reason. On some intellectual level, you know that something could go horribly wrong... but you also know the chances of it are so low that such a thing is not ever likely to happen. Lower than the chances of getting run down my a car while crossing the street. Perhaps higher than the chances of winning the lottery, but certainly lower than the chances of having a heart attack. Do we think of those things on a regular basis? No, we don't- and the truth of it is that we aren't aware of any risks we take until either the danger is so great that it is blindingly obvious or - hopefully not - something does happen and someone does get hurt or killed.
Perhaps my opinion would be changed if I witnessed what you did. My opinions on many things have changed after powerful experiences with them. However, is the reality of the situation really changed? How will life be made any safer? Do we avoid death by one cause only to be turned into a statistic by something else? I'm not so sure the question should be "How do we eliminate danger" so much as "how do we
reduce danger?" The former is impossible. Some danger will always be helpful; otherwise we just don't learn how to avoid it.
Where
does the line get drawn, though? Here we've got two basic opinions, both with some very valid points, and netiher is likely to be convinced. IMHO, this debate is never going to be resolved, and everything that can be said pretty much has been- and now there's a full page of flame posts. Maybe someone should lock the thread and leave it in the "food for thought" section.
Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:23 am 