Peter Cochrane's Blog: No risk, no progress

We're being hamstrung by health and safety tsars

By Peter Cochrane, 3 October 2007 12:46

COMMENT

Written at Norwich Airport, UK, and dispatched to silicon.com via a public wi-fi service

The removal of risk from people's lives is leading to a lack of understanding, imagination and, worst of all, real progress.

Recent constraints on the working environment in the UK prompted me to muse on the following proposition. Suppose a health and safety directorate had been the first of all human innovations and institutions. Can you imagine the consequences?

I think it goes something like this: no running, climbing, swimming, throwing and definitely no tools or weapons - and certainly no wars. So no progress then. Humans would have been in stasis pretty much like most animals.

Let's fast forward to the start of the industrial revolution before we invoke health and safety systems: no large-scale smelting of ores, no engines, no advanced tools or weapons, no wire, no mass-produced glass or anything else, and certainly no telegraph.

So, no progress in communications, medicine, education or trade, and millions would be dying as a result.

Fast forward a decade or two at a time and: no trains, trucks, cars or planes, no telecoms, no space exploration, no computers or IT, no modern medicines, no idea about evolution, the cosmos or much else, and yet more millions would have died as a result.

I suppose the basket-weaving, back-to-basics fraternity might applaud such an outcome, but I do not. I cannot see a single civilisation in the long history of our species that has prospered and survived on ignorance and a lack of risk taking. Quite the reverse - they have all perished.

And the instruments of their demise have usually been events that they could only attribute to the will of the gods. That is because they had very little understanding of anything.

Now fast forward to today: our children are denied freedom and adventure and an exciting education just because there is too much risk in the old hands-on mode of getting to know the physics and chemistry of the real world.

And this appears to be one factor that drives them to computer games and the virtual world. What a pity. How much they are missing.

In Western education and industry, teachers and managers feel inhibited by the oppressive, risk-averse culture laid on them by central government and fear the potential for punitive litigation over the most trivial errors or accidents.

Contrast this with our Asian competitors, who are not subject to authoritarian health-and-safety tsars, whose hordes of inspectors dictate when people can or cannot climb ladders, or for that matter, toss a lifebelt to a drowning man.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for looking after people and keeping them safe - within reason, that is. But I come from a culture that says: if you are not taking risks - failing and having occasional accidents - then you are not trying hard enough.

The trick is to avoid any really serious incident or damage. But that is the role of the manager and mentor - to look after their people, to judge what is a reasonable risk.

Risks, accidents and failures are vital elements in progress and the success of any venture. But they now seem to have been largely removed, or suppressed, in our companies and institutions to such an extent that people feel they have to climb mountains and sail the oceans for excitement. What a shame and what a disabler.

So who are these health-and-safety tsars? It appears we have ex-policemen dictating how ladders can be used and how scaffolding is erected. These people have studied accidents and statistics, but never actually performed the task.

No wonder we have a no-risk-is-acceptable culture disabling our society. But I suspect it goes well beyond these probably well-intentioned people.

Check out this quote from the Health & Safety Executive site about myths:

A well-meaning head teacher decided children should wear safety goggles to play conkers. Subsequently some schools appear to have banned conkers on 'health and safety' grounds or made children wear goggles, or even padded gloves!

Realistically the risk from playing conkers is incredibly low and just not worth bothering about. If kids deliberately hit each other over the head with conkers, that's a discipline issue, not health and safety.

Government might just be on the right track to create a safe environment at work and play, and it may be the local implementers who are the cause for complaint.

It might all be the fault of the jobsworth folks who never take a risk. I can't tell, it is far too complex. But I can't help wondering why the government has to devote so much time and money to heath and safety.

So I choose to ignore it all. I take risks, calculated risks, all on the basis of common sense and my training in engineering and science.

And so I have the occasional accident and will show you a scar or two if you ask. But you know what? It sure is exciting and I keep making progress.

Perhaps this policy of mine will one day see my life come to an abrupt and unscheduled end. But I'd sooner depart this life on a wave of excitement and discovery, shouting, 'What a ride!', than be involved in an accident with my in-tray that sees me depart with a long groan as the paper cuts off my air supply.

Comments

There are 23 comments. Join the discussion

  1. 1. anonymous

    How true!

    And because of the risk averse society that is forced on us, we are bringing up, or probably already have produced, a generation that isn't capable of recognising danger when it stares them in the faces.

    My generation (born 1945) played in children's playgrounds that would be closed down now, but we learned that falling off onto the rough concrete caused pain and bleeding, so we avoided doing it again. We learned by experience and most of us survived.

    Those that didn't have proved Darwin's theories of "survival of the fittest"

  2. 2. Roger Huffadine

    I agree absolutely - add to this argument the role of interactive computer games, TV & a lack of parental stimulation and kids stand no chance.
    Ten years ago I was trying to talk to my own [highly intelligent] software developers about design, failure mechanisms and robustness. To illustrate my point I asked how many of them had played cowboys and indians and built a wigwam out of garden canes and an old sheet - blank looks all round.
    None of them had tried, failed, redesigned, improved and ended up with a half stable structure - it was then that I realised why I was having to talk to them about design robustness and failures.
    Shockingly we now live in such a stimulus free, risk averse society that we have snuffed out innovation - we even have TV programs like dragons den that exhibit individuals with little common sense and less imagination in the name of entertainment.
    Ah well, it doesn't really matter 'cos red tape, offshoreing, and raw greed have annihilated the UK manufacturing base.

  3. 3. Jeremy Wickins

    Thanks, Peter - now let's see if we can get this discussion out into the wider world! My favourite example is the committee sat around deciding whether Ug the caveman should be able to exploit this "fire" he has just invented. It has advantages, but, you see, it might hurt people - exit homo sapiens!

    The ability to look at costs **in the light of benefits seems to have gone away. Costs are given disproportionate weight. For instance, the banning of DDT has led to more people dying as a result of insect borne disease than most other causes. The cost was an unknown and unquantifiable (at that time) effect on other species, the benefit was dominion over the insects for the first time ever. If there is a rational race watching us from flying saucers, they must be shaking their heads with dismay! Forget about the search for intelligent life outside the Earth - let's find the bits that exist here first!

  4. 4. Simon Allen

    It will be interesting to see the fulcrum moment when Eastern (Mid + Far) countries start to have the H&S culture and Western start to open up again.

    Also, what series of events it is that causes the reversal.

    However, I do not expect that (inevitable) event for quite some years.

  5. 5. Simon

    Spot on !

    There is one aspect you failed to mention though - the risk avoidance strategy that underpins the whole problem.

    Take a real example, I'm a private pilot and find that more and more airfields implement a blanket "hi vis when airside" rule. No if, buts, or discussions of risk - that's the rule. Never mind that I have yet to find out about just ONE accident cause by an aircraft hitting someone because of lack of visibility. NOT ONE, ever, anywhere around the world - or at least not one that anyone has been able to tell me about.

    I claim no originality for describing this as the South Sea Islands Syndrome. When the US set up a base in the South Sea islands, the natives saw that men came and cut down trees, put up a tower building, and gabbled into a microphone. In response, big silver birds arrived and left goodies like sweets and cigarettes. When the war was over, the US shut up and went home, the tower decayed and the trees grew again on the runway. The Islanders figured that it was the trees that put off the big silver birds, so they cleared the trees, built a new tower, made a wooden microphone - but the bird didn't come.

    What was wrong ? They didn't understand the process - they see the actions and the results, but not the process. They simply replicated the actions in complete ignorance - and it's the same in many business areas. Managers see what other people do - in the context of the article, they see that places with hi-vis etc rules have good accident figures so they copy the rules without understanding the process of risk assessment that underpins it. As a result, rules get implemented that in some cases are counterproductive, and in any case have no safety justification.

    Last time I mentioned this in the context of the article, the response was "so we have to wait until someone dies before you'll do anything ?" Usually followed by the argument that "the rules" are all that's prevented <something> from happening already.

    This is the "pink custard & elephants" argument. Man see his neighbour painting the fence with pink custard. "What's that for ?" he asks. Neighbour replies that it's to keep the elephants away. "But there are no elephants around here !" gets the response "See, it works."


    I've even read a quote from a Health & Safety Commission member that is summed up by "We're fed up of H&S being used as an excuse not to do things".

  6. 6. Mark Hosey

    There is a problem of trust. A minority of organizations have been seen not to act responsibly by not policing their own safety policies (if they even had any), and innocent people have died as a result. i.e. Asbestos in 20th century ship building and construction industries. Chernobyl. Bhopal. Need I say more? OK then, it was recently concluded that a lack of coherent health and safety procedures lead to the explosion in a Glasgow plastics factory with devastating consequences for the workers families. 2005! It’s unfortunate but the public cannot trust industry, so governments must legislate on the populations’ behalf forcing industry to comply with some minimum standards of health and safety. Unfortunately the misbehavior of the minority is causing problems for the majority because of ignorance of risk on the legislators and lobbyers behalf. For instance, education authorities prevent students carrying out some classroom experiments because they’re considered too dangerous. You are indeed correct, they are tackling it in all the wrong way. They should not be preventing them from carrying out these experiments. They should be ensuring they are done safely, under adequate supervision and with the pupils, teachers and parents being informed of the risks. But when you have a large class of kids all waving test tubes of alcohol about in a room with Bunsen burners and only one teacher between them and 1st degree burns I can appreciate the schools dilemma.

  7. 7. anonymous

    What an incredibly puerile article! Health and safety would have "stifled cars and trucks"? Utter garbage well worthy of the average Daily Mail reader! Children use video games because "health and safety" stop them doing.., what? Shooting each other? Flying helicopters? visiting alien planets? Investigating ancient ghost infested tombs?

    get a life and find something real to write about, not just a pile of poorly informed "opinion" based on ignorance and tabloid sensationalism! I read your articles for informed views about IT - not cheap nonsense you can knock up at an airport.

  8. 8. anonymous

    To my way of seeing thing Health and Safety experts generally don't seem to do Risk Benefit Analysis looking at the wider picture. I suspect its done by small teams who become expert over a particular accident, incident or political hot potato and can't or won't put their little baby into context.

    Our government puts in the issue of working at heights (i.e. ladders), electrical work only by certified electricians, gas by CORGI registered fitters, etc. etc. Its now discussing scalding and requirements to restrict hot water temperatures to less than 40 degrees. Each costs the nation as consumers millions or more pounds to save very few (and very precious) lives and more injuries. OK., but faster approval of new drugs which have been accepted elsewhere is estimated could save 5,000 to 8,000+ lives a year and alleviate much more suffering. Even having dental hygiene more readily available is estimated to cut hart attacks by thousands a year. Disease doesn't seem to fit into H&S thinking this way.

    Cycling is accident prone, the government decided mandatory wearing of cycling helmets would cut head injuries significantly but put so many off cycling the benefits didn't justify making it a requirement. OK, this may have had a lot of political side issues but Risk v Benefit was looked at.

    As a nation if Risk compared to Benefit had to be both quantified and published with costing included we could undoubtedly save many more lives, have less suffering for similar or lower costs.

  9. 9. anonymous

    I think that H&S laws are sometimes over the top but many deadly accidents appear to be easily avoided.

    It is not the role of the manager or mentor to keep people safe. It is the employee themselves.

    Fireservice staff for example in the Netherlands is more trained in risk assesment than actually fighting fires.

    Any decission to enter or pull-out a installation is the firefighters's decision rather than following a do or die, which may actually mean do and die, command structure.

    Another example, Lorry drivers who do excessive hours behind the wheel are punished and we all agree. Yet how many of us do a four or five day stint in a different time zone, Fly to Heathrow with virtually no sleep and drive home for a couple of hours (without stopping), just because that's the thing to do?

    This just shows that we cannot do without H&S laws as companies and employees are not able to handle the responsibility just yet.

  10. 10. anonymous

    Is this website an IT news site or a HSE news site?

  11. 11. Martin Anderson

    Absolutely agree.

    There is already evidence that "Health & Safety" is causing significant deaths where kids don't learn early enough how to handle traffic properly, and then end up with more deaths and injuries.

    I suspect that the net effect of "health & safety" even when measured in simple death and injury terms is close to neutral.

    In terms of the damage to our environment through unnecessary waste, and our society, by making it so risk averse I suspect it is huge.

  12. 12. Captain Sensible

    H&S is a 'compensation culture' shield.

    Compensation culture has gone mad. People injure themselves through their own stupidity, or pretend to injure themselves. LawyersRus encourage them to sue. Courts hand out ridiculous money. Insurance rockets. Organisations turn to straightjacket H&S as a last ditch defence.

    The fraudsters and lawyers laugh all the way to the bank, everyone else loses.

    Practical H&S (eg. seat belts) is essential and desirable.

    Defensive H&S is a nightmare.

  13. 13. anonymous

    Here here! The only pity is that this article is not a front page item in most of the national press.
    We are producing (have already produced?) a society of people so worried about the highly improbable that it is a wonder anything gets done. It infects all aspects of life and is one of the driving forces behind increased surveilance and monitoring of the populous "in case of terrorism/identity theft/disorderly behaviour etc. etc." whilst achieving almost nothing to prevent any of those things, merely a show of activity.
    Before long the "safety tsars" will, no doubt find a way of extending their activities even into the virtual world because of the trauma that might be caused by virtual accident or virtual death?

  14. 14. Peter Cochrane

    Jeremy = You reiforce my points nicely - and especially with the DDT example. But see my next blog on an animated visualisation tool that might just help people understand more easily. We can only live in hope! Peter

  15. 15. Peter Cochrane

    Simon = Very nice!! I too get these stupid arguments based on - it could happen scenarious of stupidity.

    I suspect it is all a new employment scheme for the unemployable and 'reasoning impaired, people in our society

    Peter

  16. 16. Peter Cochrane

    Anonymous London Security Director =
    Your title falls right in line with you soda straw thinking. Might be an idea to look out of you box now and again. Peter

  17. 17. Peter Cochrane

    Mark = You make the case nicely - but I think we need to differentiate between corpoarate and personal responsibilities and accidents. Accidents will never and can never be irradicated - that is why we call them accidents. And school children entering industry in a clueless state due to a lack of any practiucal experience are now a big risk. Peter

  18. 18. Peter Cochrane

    Anonymous Bristol = I guess it all comes down to education. Those employed on H&S matters are hardly the sharpest tacks in the tin! They seem to look at the world thro a soda straw and only ever see risk! Peter

  19. 19. Peter Cochrane

    Anonymous Marketing Manager = If these foks could just balance the up and down sides instead of just looking at the down.
    Legislation is one thing and enforcement another. And then there is education and understanding which is even better! Peter

  20. 20. Peter Cochrane

    Anonymous UK = It's an education site that takes a look at broad issues facing society and industry. All technologies and impacts are considered. Peter

  21. 21. Peter Cochrane

    Martin = I think it is called 'The Law of Unintended Cosequences' - and wouldn't it be interesting to get a quantified assessmemt by people without a vested interest in sustaining their own H&S careers! Peter

  22. 22. Peter Cochrane

    Captain Sensible = It is the anticipatory H&S legislation that worries me - the might happen, but never has to date clauses! Peter

  23. 23. William Sandison

    Yet again Mr Cochrane, you hit the nail on the head ... and probably bash your thumb at the same time. :-)

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

Log in or create your silicon.com account below

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy.

Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Membership FAQ