Events bring changes that are certain to involve trade-offs

Sometimes, activities that are satisfying can also be dangerous. Take old steam engines, which I love. Judging by the growing popularity of tourist railways, steam parks and steam museums, many other people love them, too. Unfortunately, they are not always safe.

That became clear recently at the Ohio Medina County Fair, after an antique steam tractor was driven under its own power to the fairgrounds for display. While it was being parked it exploded, killing four people and injuring 38 others. Many of the victims were burned; many were children.

This tragic accident is sure to generate calls for change, and any change is certain to involve trade-offs. The decisions that ensue in this case will be similar to those made in determining highway speed limits and auto safety standards, in or in regulating genetically modified foods and pharmaceuticals.

In the case of the Ohio accident, let’s look at some possible responses that would increase public safety with steam engines:

  • Injured persons could sue for damages. The deceased tractor owner or Medina County may be found liable. Their insurers could pay damages, and in turn could revise the premiums they charge to insured customers who own steam tractors or allow their display. Some hobbyists or event organizers would decide the increased cost was not worthwhile. Fewer tractors or other engines would be displayed while operating under steam.
  • New regulations could require that any antique steam engines be subject to recurring and detailed inspection and testing. This would cost money that would have to come from taxpayers or from fees by the engine owners. The first could divert funds from other useful public purposes; the second could reduce the number of operating engines.
  • Conversely, governments could pass laws limiting the liability of county fairs or nonprofit exhibition organizers. Well-informed members of the public would have to take the danger of explosion into account, and fewer of them might choose to visit such exhibits.
  • Regulations could require that all antique tractors be equipped with the latest technology, including redundant safety valves and electronic low-water cutoffs that would blanket the firebox with CO2 if a dangerous condition reached. Such technology exists, but is expensive relative to the financial resources of hobbyists.
  • Laws could also require that antique steam engine owners furnish a large bond or proof of insurance before being allowed to operate their machines in range of the public. The bonding agencies or insurers might set their rates according to the rigor of inspections or the number of safety devices voluntarily provided by the insured owner.
  • The operation of antique steam engines could simply be banned in any public place.
  • Governments could allow the operation of such engines only if all those in attendance received detailed information about the risks involved and had signed extensive waiver forms. Divorced parents bringing children to such exhibits would need to furnish a notarized consent form from the other parent.
  • Steam engine owners could be required to furnish protective suits and heat resistant face masks to all attendees at live steam exhibits.

This list is not exhaustive, nor are the possible actions mutually exclusive. Increased regulation is likely, as are lawsuits and higher insurance rates for someone. But the range of possible responses illustrates the ways in which society may choose to limit possible harm from dangerous but rewarding activities.

Note that people will reach different conclusions about which response is best. Many people may be happy to see these dangerous, stinky machines shut down. Nuts like me might happily sign a waiver to see an engine with an unusual valve gear and would figure that dying in a boiler explosion is a pretty good way to go.

But there is no “right” response to this problem. And virtually every response involves some trade-off. Fewer displays, but more safety. More safety, but more expense. More government regulation of a hobby activity, but cheaper liability insurance. More regulation, but fewer scalded kids. Nearly every individual in society will place a slightly different value on each option.

Societies ultimately settle such questions through the political process, which functions best when voters realize that there are few absolutes – and many tradeoffs.

© 2001 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.