Acceptable loss ratio

I was watching some videos of the Renegade Trucker on YouTube last night and he posed an interesting question in one of them; that is, when is it ok for a company to kill people? Not actively killing anyone, like taking them out back and they're never seen again but there are companies whose culture and standard operating procedure lead to a lot of dead bodies and at some level they're obviously ok with it since they aren't changing. The Renegade Trucker used Swift in his video as they're the worse or one of the worst offenders whose hiring practices, revolving door policy and lack of anything resembling a competent training program have led to 58 deaths in the past two years. Here's a few others that don't seem to mind the exorbitantly high body count. Feel free to add to the list.

Fatal crashes in the past two years -

Swift - 58
CR England - 22
Werner - 41
JB Hunt - 26

 

Well, I hadn't heard about or paid attention to the fatality statistics part of the equation before so it's new to me. Besides, wouldn't want to break the TTR SOP of rehashing everything a thousand times

 

I disagree. I would say the probability is higher just based on numbers but that doesn't translate to more likely. For comparison, FedEx and Werner drove roughly the same amount of miles last year (950 million). Now, considering FedEx's propensity for being in a ditch during the winter, they still have fewer fatalities by a wide margin (19 vs 41) and fewer accidents overall by less of a margin (822 vs 1080) with twice as many drivers as Werner. So numbers alone aren't a solid guarantee.

 

Absolutely its about the money. That was my point in different phrasing. This post was the answer to the question, "but at what cost?" A disproportionate amount of dead people, that's the cost. This is the acceptable loss rate (of people) that these companies are ok with to achieve their revenue goals.