[SystemSafety] Historical Questions

[DREW Rae]

Peter and Paul,
My question is not about when investigation was invented, but specifically
when did people start explaining accidents in terms of failed safety
processes.

Formal investigation for the purpose of safety, and formal regulation of
safety through Inspectorates is a 19th century invention. It wasn't a
gradual process at all, and it wasn't linked to the insurance industry
notion of risk (in fact it was only tenuously linked to insurance - it was
much more about public morality).

I'm wondering when they started saying "you should have done a better job
of assessing risk" instead of "you broke the design rules".

Drew

On 9 Mar. 2017 2:48 pm, "Peter Bernard Ladkin" <ladkin at causalis.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 2017-03-09 01:58 , paul_e.bennett at topmail.co.uk wrote:
> > On 08/03/2017 at 11:50 PM, "Drew Rae" <d.rae at griffith.edu.au> wrote:
> >> 1. When did people start talking about the importance of
> >> identifying hazards, assessing risks etc as general practices?
> >>
> >> 2. When did people start talking about not doing these things or
> >> doing them badly as a cause of accidents?
> > ....
> > I wonder if this link might help........
> >
> > <http://maritimeaccident.org/2008/12/history-of-maritime-
> accident-investigation-from-who-to-blame-to-how-to-stop-accidents/>
>
> Supposing the history quoted in the link is correct (for me, a non-trivial
> supposition, since I am
> largely ignorant of it), namely
>
> [begin quote]
> The maritime law of Rhodes, Lex Rhodian, laid down the principle of
> general average, which
> determined who pay how much of the losses when a ship cames to grief.
> [end quote]
>
> then it indeed seems to be as old as Paul suggests.
>
> I would suggest that concepts of risk concern (a) identifying stakeholders
> (people whose
> life/business is affected if an event E happens) and (b) figuring out the
> loss (or gain) of each
> stakeholder. Lex Rhodian apparently did that.
>
> The modern concept of insurance dates from the late 17th/early 18th
> centuries. Peter Bernstein's
> book Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk (John Wiley and Sons,
> 1996, 1998) is, well, a
> book about the history of risk and well worth reading. Bernstein suggests
> on p126 that the "modern
> concept of risk" was first defined by Abraham de Moivre (yes, he of the
> calculus theorem) in his
> paper de Mensura Sortis of 1712 (published in the proceedings of the Royal
> Society. A commented copy
> was published by Hald and McClintock in the International Statistical
> Review / Revue Internationale
> de Statistique, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Dec., 1984), pp. 229-262. This is
> available from the archive JSTOR.
>
> According to Bernstein, de Moivre says that "The Risk of losing any sum is
> the reverse of
> Expectation; and the true measure of it is, the product of the Sum
> adventured multiplied by the
> Probability of the Loss". However, I have been at a loss to find that in
> the Hald version of the paper.
>
> The paper was published a quarter century after Edward Lloyd opened his
> coffee house near the
> Thames, and six years after he started publishing his List of shipping
> schedules and maritime
> situations.
>
> I would imagine, following Paul's suggestion, that the concept of
> adverse-event investigation is at
> least as old as any concept of risk. Certainly those stakeholders who lose
> from an event would want
> to know why it happened, for two reasons: prophylaxis for the future
> (identify and avoid those
> circumstances in your future dealings) and determining the magnitude of
> their individual loss
> (arguing with other stakeholders that they should shoulder more of it and
> you less). I would guess
> that those kinds of basic business dealings are as old as barter itself.
>
> The 19th century does seem to me a bit late to start the history.
> Engineering risk (for example,
> poorly designed or built ships) is possibly separable from general risk,
> which includes
> environmental adversities (for example, storms at sea) and adversarial
> human acts (for example,
> piracy; attacks by locals when in remote ports). But it is hard to imagine
> that the negotiators
> around Lloyd's did not explicitly count seaworthiness of vessels in their
> judgements.
>
> Summary: there is a continuity from ancient times.
>
> PBL
>
> Prof. i.R. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
> MoreInCommon
> Je suis Charlie
> Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20170309/ca25a888/attachment-0001.html>