There’s a report in the Times (in part by the usually reliable Ben Webster) about an allegedly dangerous airline. So, just for balance, here goes:
- There is the underlying assumption that safety ie living as long as possible is the most important thing in the world. This is not true.
- There is the underlying assumption that private enterprise is indifferent to the safety of its passengers, staff and equipment. This is also not true.
- There is also the suggestion that safety regulations improve safety. This is debatable and, more importantly, unknowable.
- Yet another unstated assumption is that the only way to prevent aircraft crashing into populated areas is by regulation. One, you can’t prevent this happening. Two, there are other ways of discouraging it.
- I have no idea if Ghanaian safety standards are lower than in the West nor if there are differences in their enforcement. And I don’t really care.
- Isn’t it interesting that the most important element to a report is often the part that is left unsaid?
The traffic around the western edge of London was diabolical this morning. It started before Guildford, where there was smashed indicator residue on the tarmac by where the Hog's Back road joined the A3, and it ran right around to well beyond Watford.
Was it knock on from Friday night's tanker crash near Sevenoaks? If so why is it still causing trouble over two days after the event? It's rather like last week when it took forever to clear away the GWR derailed on the level crossing in Berkshire.
The 1952 Harrow rail crash claimed 85 lives and yet the line was cleared and trains were passing the wreckage the very next day. Why does it have to take so long these days? Forensics? Health & safety?
Addition: Prompted by Tim Hall's comment, I've been and checked the toll of the Harrow and Wealdstone crash and in actual fact, sadly, 111 people died and 349 were injured that fateful October morning.This website has the details and photographs.