Posted By Sean Fraser
What is the point to a safety advisor? Is it just to create rules, then enforce them? If that is what you think, and you work in the safety profession, then you are behind the times mes amis. Safety is no longer about rules and procedures - it is a matter of culture and belief. Banning things solves little and can even create more dangerous situations that were unforeseen at the time - and bans (and laws) can be ignored or circumvented. But informed decision-making . . . that is for life. Do we do things becuase we have to . . . or because we want to?
Take away the objective of zero incidents - that is a discussion for another time. But surely we all agree that our purpose is to reduce accident frquency and severity, so even if it never reaches absolute zero in perpetuity, it is at least a very rare event and even then only minor in consequence? It is seductively exciting to be involved in an accident investigation - very important job, must get to the route cause and eliminate it, no expense spared . . . all done AFTER the event. And often the same things recur anyway, despite our "best" efforts. Frustrating, time consuming and ultimately futile.
In our profession, success is measured by what DOESN'T happen (i.e. accidents), not in how well we cope with it afterwards. After a while, it looks like we don't have a job because, well let's hear it, it is "common sense" anyway . . . isn't it? Where do you think this "common sense" comes from? It comes from a combination of nature & nurture. Past vision is always 20/20, but we don't seem capable of applying the lessons learned. Let me reiterate - encouraging good behaviours at the outset, at the earliest age and onwards, will not benefit us immediately - but it will improve our society in the longer term as we use a combination of information, experience and intellegence to make safe and effective choices for ourselves and others, clearly understanding the hazards and proportionality of consequences involved. No fate but the one we make.
Short term fiscal-oriented thinking would ask - why do we still need to educate, train, audit if no-one is having accidents anyway? It is this mis-comprehension that leads to cuts, reduction in activity and eventually . . . accidents rise as poor habits and practices creep back in. How much easier would it be for us ALL if we and our compatriots approached ANY activity with risk perception fully and constantly active? Our eventual aim - replace checking with training, and let people work the best way they can to meet their objectives, safely. Safety is not an add-on - it is integral to everything we do. A safety person doesn't make me safe. Rule and procedures don't make me safe. Equipment doesn't make me safe. I make me safe. And if it isn't safe, I think how I can make it safe and then decide whether I want to proceed or not.
Clarkson is quite right in his "attack" on the safety profession as he sees it - it is obviously the response to the controlling mentality that he has been unfortunate to experience in his trade, if not in others. The general tendency of public organisations especially to over-react and over-prescribe is legendary and the frequent object of ridicule. And well deserved too. Treating adults like children is offensive and counter-productive. People follow and apply principles and procedures much better if they understand the 'why', not just the 'what'. I do things safely because I understand the principles of hazard and risk - planning and preparation, good knowledge and proper equipment. I choose to hold hand-rails on stairs because I feel safer that way - not because someone told me to. All I want to do is teach people the same principles and let them decide FOR THEMSELVES the best way to assure their own safety. People don't want to be injured or killed at work. Yet they still do and for why? Because we have failed to adequately educte them in effective risk perception.
I come back to an old favourite of mine - extreme sports. The actual object is to place oneself as close to danger as possible, to experience the adreneline rush involved. Ban it, and they would seek this thrill some other way - most likely criminal and almost definitely in a dangerous manner. So can it be safe? Of course it can! And how - planning and preparation, good knowledge and proper equipment. Do you really think they participate in the sport EXPECTING to be killed or injured? Of course not. But it is a possibility and they do everything they can to offset it, while still achieving the result they crave. I salute them.
And if that sounds like an anorak or a despot to you, then I despair. If through this discussion I am failing to get this message out to my fellow professionals then I see I have a long way to go yet.