Re:2016 was first year on record for zero roof fall fataliti...
by pm215 on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @06:42AM
(#41499394)
The industry was motivated by costs, but the government regulation was motivated by deaths and injuries. And the graph in the article certainly rather suggests that when the government regulated that's when the number of deaths fell...
Re:2016 was first year on record for zero roof fall fataliti...
by boxed on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @08:52AM
(#41500273)
There was a pretty sharp drop before too.
Re:2016 was first year on record for zero roof fall fataliti...
by snowflakeandrey on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @10:26AM
(#41501137)
I wonder if that's because as regulation is considered and debated, industry incentives start to align as they attempt to show they're "regulating themselves just fine".
Re:2016 was first year on record for zero roof fall fataliti...
by boxed on Wednesday September 11, 2024 @02:13AM
(#41508496)
Could be. Could also be partly due to the general decline of the coal industry.
Re:2016 was first year on record for zero roof fall fataliti...
by jessriedel on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @11:33AM
(#41501807)
The deaths themselves are costly to the org, both because of insurance and because it's terrible for morale.
Re:2016 was first year on record for zero roof fall fataliti...
by myrmidon on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @12:49PM
(#41502868)
Do you mean contributed in a negative way, because subsurface mining had to compete on cost with strip mines?
From the article it appears to me that the mines still stayed somewhat viable despite the added safety, and were mainly lacking a mechanism (=> the regulator) to have everyone prioritize worker safety sufficiently at first...
As the text makes clear the industry was mostly motivated by the cost of roof falls, not the deaths and injuries they caused.
Random AI quote from Google Search: > Surface mining is more cost-effective than underground mining, and accounts for over 60% of coal production in the US.