In responding to your peers, compare their views with your own in terms of what information is most important. Are there elements your peers have omitted? Provide reasoning to support your views.
In response to your peers, state whether you agree or disagree with their conclusion as to whether the money spent to regulate railroad safety was spent in the most efficient way to reduce death and injuries. Critique their strategy for influencing safety regulation. Be sure to justify your response.
Reply to the classmates post below There are two post listed below that you will respond to separately.
Must have more depth and thought than simply “I agree” or “You are wrong.”
Adds substantive information, asks meaningful questions to peers, and provides substantive responses.
There are two post listed below. Please respond to both Students post.
Classmate Post #1
5-1 Discussion
Ben Hearne
What was the cause of the Metrolink accident and could it have been avoided?
I believe that the Metrolink accident was due to a variety of poor decisions. First, I believe the most critical factor here is that Conductor Sanchez was not given the time necessary to grieve and recover from his hardships. If they were to have had a more intimate sit down with conductor and taken the time to gain an understanding of the severity of his emotional shortcomings, he would not have been back at work so soon and been afforded the time and tools to recover properly. I think that the cell phone usage and the resulting accident are merely a byproduct of this. Taking the time to fully understand and resolve conflicts are a very necessary component to running a business properly.
Is the high cost of train control justified by the likely safety gains for passengers?
I certainly think that it is. It is always better to take the time and resources necessary to prevent incidents such as this, than to later pay a greater toll in the form of lawsuits from injured patrons. With each life valued at $6 million and the cost of the safety protocols at roughly $10 billion, in a twenty year span simply preventing two train accidents proves to be worthwhile in terms of finances. This does not take into account the indirect consequences such as losing the integrity that customers see in the organization if injuries were to continue. In my opinion, this is money well spent.
Is the money spent to regulate railroad safety being spent in the most efficient way to reduce the risks of death and injury in society?
I believe that the money spent here is certainly the most efficient way to reduce death and injury. Following the new regulations and policies put in place by the Federal Railroad Association (FRA). This includes The Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 which made for increased monitoring of conductors and their ability to perform. Taking the time to save lives is in my opinion the best way to reduce death and potential injury.
If you had been a lobbyist wishing to influence safety legislation after the crash, what would your strategy have been?
If I were lobbying for safety legislation after the crash I would reach out to the manufacturers of the current manufacturer of the locomotive for way in which effectively monitor the conductor. Whether this be added cameras, ways to eliminate cell phone usage or other safety measures, I would reach out to the organization who makes the locomotive first in order to gain a solid base on ways in which to improve things effectively.
Reference
Morgan, D. (2015, July 14). Insight – Buffett may benefit as train lobby to weaken safety rule.
Retrieved August 26, 2021, from http://web.archive.org/web/20160128081639/
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-train-regulations-idUSL2N0ZT0VW20150714
Steiner, J. F. (2011). Business, Government, and Society (13th ed.)
v
Classmate Post #2
5-1 Discussion: Metrolink
Aaron Mohammed
The Metrolink accident was tragically caused by the train engineer and operator Robert Sanchez largely due to gross negligence and texting while operating the vehicle (Steiner, 2012). To take it a step further, it was also caused by the negligence of his employer and the industry as a whole. When Robert was grieving the loss of a loved one and was dealing with the emotional toll from the accident with the suicidal person he struck, his employer forced him to return to work before he was ready. I do believe he was not in the emotional state to return to work but was forced to do so anyways. The situation he was in the day of his fatal accident was that of a lack of sleep and coming off a four-hour nap in the middle of the day does not seem to be enough time to have been well-rested to go back to work (Steiner, 2012). The industry was negligent about various safety measures that could have previously been in place prior to the accident that would have prevented the Metrolink accident but was instead convinced of letting profits dictate the decisions being made (Steiner, 2012). I believe all of these components play a role in what caused the Metrolink accident.
The high cost involved in the implementation and regulation for modern train control was first introduced around 1900 and for decades the excuse for not implementing the technology to trains was that it is unaffordable (Steiner, 2012). The FRA’s cost-benefit analysis indicated that the safety benefits of positive train controls were $440 million to $674 million over 20 years and a statistical life was valued at $6 million (Steiner, 2012). The expense to railroads to equip them with the new technology was between $9.6 billion and $13.3 billion over 20 years and this discrepancy in value is what was used to fight against implementing the needed safety measures for so long (Steiner, 2012). With all this being said, I still believe it was worth the cost because the safety measures would be able to save lives. To erase and minimize the value of life by lobbyists and company decision makers is literally putting profit over people and is a destructive practice in the balance of business, government, and society.
I believe there can always be a debate on how the money is spent to ensure safety through regulations. There was a lot of emphasis on the technology being incorporated inside and outside the train. Cameras were installed inside the train, staffing models were improved, brighter light bulbs were used outside of the train at crosses and mandatory restrictions were placed for how workers were used. I personally felt more could have been done to protect workers from a physical and mental health standpoint. It is easy to highlight the railroad industry’s negligence in all of this however blame should also be put on the politicians. There should be more federally supported programs protecting workers that simply was not in place. The reading discussed some of the health issues Robert Sanchez had both physically and mentally and yet he was still in a place where he was forced to these issues in the background and go to work helping make people like Warren Buffett rich. So, efficiencies in both railroad safety and worker safety and well-being should be emphasized in my opinion and could have been improved.
If I were a lobbyist looking to influence safety legislation after the crash my strategy would depend on who I was lobbying on behalf of. I would be hard pressed to advocate for profits over people after seeing such a devastating crash killing nearly 30 people and injuring over 100 people (Steiner, 2012). I would likely use the strategy of utilizing statistics that would benefit my argument along with leveraging the media if I could, to get my messaging out. If I were for the companies, I would at least be trying to advocate for safety measures that utilized the most effective and reliable technologies and that would make the most sense.
Steiner, J., and Steiner, G. (2012). Business, Government, and Society: A managerial perspective, text, and cases (13th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
The post In responding to your peers, compare their views with your own in appeared first on PapersSpot.
