[SystemSafety] words you cannot use at GM

[Chris Hills]

RE ‘has potential safety implications’

 

You can’t use “safety” 

 

So ‘has potential implications’
..

 

Sorry not had my coffee yet J 

 

 

 

From: systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of
Maier, Thomas
Sent: 21 May 2014 09:55
To: nfr; Bielefield Safety List
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] words you cannot use at GM

 

Reference to the GM-list only was made. Don’t know the paper you are
referring to, in particular how the term “safety” was employed by it.

GM provides the following guidance, or whatever you want to call it:
“instead of ‘safety’, use ‘has potential safety implications”. So, is
“safety” forbidden or not?

 

Med venlig hilsen / Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

 

Thomas Maier

E:  <mailto:Thomas.Maier at ul.com> Thomas.Maier at ul.com

T: +45 42 13 74 52

 

Fra: systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] På vegne af nfr
Sendt: 21. maj 2014 10:38
Til: Bielefield Safety List
Emne: Re: [SystemSafety] words you cannot use at GM

 

"Safety" is not forbidden? 

 

Some years ago, when I edited papers for the annual System Safety Symposium
(in England), I received a call, rather close to the delivery deadline, from
an author in a US-based automotive company. 

"We've got a problem," he said. "The company reviewers have told me that I
have to remove every mention of the word 'safety'. What can we do?"

I suggested replacing "safety" with "risk" and adjusting the wording
accordingly.

"I've tried that," he replied, "but I'm not allowed to use the word 'risk'
either."

It was too late for me to commission a replacement paper, and our "solution"
was to employ the word "reliability", which was not what the paper was
about.

 

Felix.

 

 

On 21 May 2014, at 09:14, Maier, Thomas wrote:

 

A correction regarding IEC 615011: 

That minimum failure rate per IEC 61511 is specified in Part 1 clause 8.2.2:
“The dangerous failure rate of a BPCS (which does not conform to IEC 61511)
that places a demand on a protection layer shall not be assumed to be better
than 10-5 per hour.”

 

A question regarding legal damages by non-zero risk statements:

The US National Electrical Code for machinery (standard NFPA 79) normatively
requires: “Where failures or disturbances in the electrical equipment cause
a hazardous condition or damage to the machine or the work in progress,
measures shall be taken to minimize the probability of the occurrence of
such failures or disturbances.” It informatively refers to IEC 61508, IEC
62061, ISO 13849 in this context, i.e. to standards which are based on
probabilistic quantification of risk.

How much legal protection do you actually get as a manufacturer in a
liability law suit under US jurisdiction by showing compliance to NFPA 79?

And in the automotive domain: How about ISO 26262, which also allows
quantitative arguments in the safety case for programmable electronic
controls on board road vehicles, and which has been written and is supported
by the global automotive industry as state-of-science-and-art?

 

A comment regarding the qualification as “Orwellian” of the 69 words (by the
way I was only aware of the “Milwaukee 7” so far, should these be called the
“Detroit 69”? 
J):

Even though the list looks a bit funny to me, I think this is the kind of
language regulation you generally want for technical / scientific writing. I
cannot see any corporate agenda of truth-hiding or any other evil intention
behind. And please note also that the word “safety” is not forbidden.
Guidance is provided, very much in line how “safety” is used in functional
safety standards. 

 

Med venlig hilsen / Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

 

Thomas Maier

E:  <mailto:Thomas.Maier at ul.com> Thomas.Maier at ul.com

T: +45 42 13 74 52

 

Fra: systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] På vegne af
Peter Bernard Ladkin
Sendt: 21. maj 2014 09:20
Til: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Emne: Re: [SystemSafety] words you cannot use at GM

 

This would seem to be one of the disadvantages of not taking IEC/ISO
standards seriously. In European arbitration, the claim "the applicable
international standard says...." is mostly taken very seriously by the
arbitrators, I understand.

 

Not that the standards are perfect, or even wonderful..... :-) But they do
tend to say " there is no such thing as zero risk". Indeed, in IEC 61511
you're only "allowed" to assume that an otherwise-unqualified process
control system has a failure rate of 1 in 10 ophours or worse.

 

PBL


Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, University of Bielefeld and Causalis Limited


On 21 May 2014, at 00:02, Eric Scharpf <EScharpf at exida.com> wrote:

Unfortunately this is not surprising. I have dealt with other US companies
which have indicated that any statement acknowledging a non-zero risk from
their equipment invites legal damages in potential product liability
lawsuits.


This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient: (1) you may not disclose, use, distribute, copy
or rely upon this message or attachment(s); and (2) please notify the sender
by reply e-mail, and then delete this message and its attachment(s).
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and its affiliates disclaim all liability for
any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in this message or any
attachments.

_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE

 


This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient: (1) you may not disclose, use, distribute, copy
or rely upon this message or attachment(s); and (2) please notify the sender
by reply e-mail, and then delete this message and its attachment(s).
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and its affiliates disclaim all liability for
any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in this message or any
attachments.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20140521/99406fff/attachment.html>