On Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 09:03 PM, Dave Williams wrote:
> In message <[log in to unmask]>, Barry
> Job <[log in to unmask]> writes
>> However, Peter Challis is also correct in saying
>> that being able to separate the different reasons for
>> safety improvement would be notoriously difficult.
>
> I'm not convinced of this. I think it would not be difficult to compile
> a graph of accident trends, from, say 1900, up to at least 1980 (when I
> think the sample would start to become too small). A statistician could
> probably produce a more intelligent result than a mining historian. Such
> a graph, adorned with published accounts, would, I think, demonstrate
> the fact. From Nationalisation up at least until 1970, there was such a
> sea change in attitudes within the industry with regard to consultative
> committees, training, safety officers, union participation, etc. etc.
> that I doubt that you could find anyone to deny that the lot of the
> collier did not improve as a result of Nationalisation.
>>
>>
>
>>
Sorry Dave, your graphs would only show the decline or otherwise in
accidents, they couldn't possibly be used, with much confidence as to
the reason for that decline/increase without a massive amount of
second-guessing and much else besides!
What about the effect of scientific progress and technological
development to mention but two of the myriad possible inputs that could
be brought into the equation, they would, in the main have occurred
whether the mines were subjected to State control or not. Sorry, if it
was that easy it would have been done by some aspirant or indeed
established historian/ statistician by now!
Peter Challis
|