Re: [SystemSafety] WG: words you cannot use at GM

From: Peter Bernard Ladkin < >
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 20:58:11 +0200

> On 22 May 2014, at 17:50, Mike Rothon <mike.rothon_at_xxxxxx
> 

>> On 22/05/2014 13:46, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-22 14:31 , Nancy Leveson wrote:
>>> I think saying that "acceptably safe" is safe is a ridiculous definition.

>> Nevertheless, it is de rigeur in Europe. The UK Health and Safety Executive says that is how it
>> judges, with "acceptably safe" usually meaning a one in a million elevated chance of dying:
>> http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.htm
> Sorry to be pedantic, but I think that the HSE paper you linked discusses 'acceptable risk' rather than 'acceptably safe'.

Good point. Further, "risk" is not on the list of GM words. But, depending on the motivation for the list, which if car marketing is similar to what it has ever been is to suggest that "new car" = "it's a wonderful life", it might well get on it quickly if everyone started talking about "risk" and "residual risk" as the standards require.

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



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Thu May 22 2014 - 20:58:23 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:06 CEST