Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 03 February 2006 10:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Skipsey I have been tasked to deliver H&S training to employees of the company I work for, in doing so I intend to discuss the perception of risk, I thought a quick 5 question quiz may help this, does anyone have any data to hand on accident rates i.e. chances of accidents/incident/disease occuring eg chances of being run over by car, involcved in plane crash etc. I seem to recall seeing such a quiz, but can't recall where. Regards
Admin  
#2 Posted : 03 February 2006 10:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Hallett IOSH Managing Safely. Frank Hallett
Admin  
#3 Posted : 03 February 2006 11:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bill Bircham Dep of Transport and the OPDM websites both have loads of stats etc re transport related accidents rates, espcially roads. Alos comes with commentary to wlak you thru it. R Bill
Admin  
#4 Posted : 03 February 2006 13:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi Dave, HSE's Reducing Risks, Protecting People(R2P2) at:- http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf Refer to Appendix 4-it has statistics for comparing risks from different hazards
Admin  
#5 Posted : 03 February 2006 15:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andy Petrie I can't promise that the data is accurate but this site gives the 'odds' of things happening to you http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm some examples are Odds of injury from fireworks: 19,556 to 1 Odds of injury from shaving: 6,585 to 1 Odds of injury from using a chain saw: 4,464 to 1 Odds of injury from mowing the lawn: 3,623 to 1 Odds of fatally slipping in bath or shower: 2,232 to 1 Odds of drowning in a bathtub: 685,000 to 1
Admin  
#6 Posted : 03 February 2006 15:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By The toecap I've sent you something with 5 simple questions on
Admin  
#7 Posted : 03 February 2006 16:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip McAleenan What happens when the odds are remote; is the risk worth taking? The problem with risk, no matter how remote the probability, is that the occurrence of the uncontrolled event could be the next time (and it could always be the next time). Bear in mind that a risk is basically the element of chance in an activity, whether it is 50:50 or 1:1,000,000. Every week millions of people put their money on lesser odds in their national lotteries and most weeks one or more come up “trumps”. Work environments, where the element of chance is retained, for whatever reason, are environments where every week someone's number comes up. That is why risk costs the USA more than $127bn and the UK more than £20bn every year. Furthermore, there is nothing in the theory that states that a 1:1,000,000 event could not occur on 2 (or more) consecutive occasions. No matter what the odds are, no matter how well "managed" the activity, the next time could be that one in a million time because there is no chance rule that says the activity has to be done a million times before the accident. In fact every time could theoretically be that one in a million time. Regards, Philip
Admin  
#8 Posted : 03 February 2006 16:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Helen Horton I usually put in your "risk" of winning the National Lottery ie approx 14 million to 1 for the jackpot and 57 to 1 for £10. Gets them thinking about what risk actually is and whether they would accept a 14 million to 1 risk of being killed or a 57 to 1 risk of a serious injury.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 03 February 2006 16:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andy Petrie Phillip, by your view we should abandon the practice of risk assessment and assume that in every case the risk will occur next time. The chance of an astoroid landing on me today is probably a billion to one, but by your counts i should assume it will happen to me on the way home. Other way of looking at the problem is that while the risk may be present, and yes could happen next time, it's also statistically possible that it may never happen at all.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 04 February 2006 12:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip McAleenan Andy, Your conclusion that we should abandon risk assessment does not follow logically from what I have stated. In fact my posting made no reference to risk assessment, which is a tool to determine what control measures are necessary for the elimination of risk. I raised issues pertaining to “risk” itself, i.e. the probability of a hazardous event occurring. To conflate the two, as you did, is either disingenuous or, as your final paragraph illustrates, the result of a misunderstanding of my point. Risk, as in the probability of an undesirable event occurring, is the outcome of a series of cause and effect events that lead inevitably to the undesirable event. This is the case when the probability is 1:1. It will always result in the undesirable event. When the probability is less than 1:1, e.g. 1:2, it means that there is more than one possible outcome from the process of cause and effect. But, if we know every cause and its effect, then there can logically be only one outcome. How then can there be more than one after the initiating event or cause? The answer lies in the fact that all the causes and effects of the process are not known and therefore not controlled. If we throw a die and want a six, the probability is 1:6. Why? It is not simply because there are six possible outcomes, we can always get a six if we control the process correctly, e.g. by simply setting the die on the table six facing up. But because we cast the die, it is out of our control once it leaves our hand and any one of the six faces will land up. So too with work events; if we have assessed the process and calculated that there is a 1:x probability of an accident occurring, then in effect we are stating that there is more than one possible outcome to the work process. If we only want one outcome and there are multiple possible outcomes, then somewhere along the way we have lost control. And if we have lost control, the accident will occur at any time. Risk assessment s only one of many tools that we use to ensure that we fully understand and control our work processes. The above analysis does not negate that use of such a tool. In fact a proper understanding of “risk” will allow the assessor to be more effective in using risk assessment. Two final points; in reference to the asteroid, in the apparent random chaos of the universe we have no control over such events in our day-to-day activities. But when work demands that we have control, such as sending vehicles and people into space, then we had better make sure that we do gain the necessary control to offer protection. Secondly, the statistical probability that some thing will never happen is 0. With any other figure, it may never happen, but again it may happen next time. And those who do not understand that … Philip
Admin  
#11 Posted : 04 February 2006 16:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman It's all very well for us to debate probabilities of certain events happening, but I the title of this thread is "perception of risk". Which is an enormously different thing. I supose someone has calculated the probability of another terrorist attack in London, probably plus or minus 25%, but what is the public's perception of that risk ? Rightly or wrongly I use a figure of "about 5%" of the workforce suffering a serious injury each year. (not always the same person ...) so an individual will statistically suffer a serious injury once every 20 years. Twice in a working lifetime. This apparent overall frequency of accidents is so low that the threat of "do that again and you'll get hurt" has very little influence in modifying the safe behaviour of an employee. And I remember a quote from the Beloved Terry Pratchet "a million to one chance will do it for your every time" apologies Phillip.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 04 February 2006 18:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Hallett Merv - Are you one of the 4 Horsemen of the Akropolips/ If so, who was the 5th? Frank Hallett
Admin  
#13 Posted : 04 February 2006 19:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stephen D. Clarke I bring this topic into risk assessment training and find presenting trainees with a varied list of work, home and life risks and asking for their perception before revealing actual risk always stimulates interest/debate. Typically I might go down the list asking their views - is it higher/lower - Brucey style.
Admin  
#14 Posted : 05 February 2006 15:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman Stephen, a very good approach. Must see if there has been some reserach there. Anyone know of any ? (kieran ?) Frank, 5th horseman of the apocalypse ? Statistics
Admin  
#15 Posted : 05 February 2006 15:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Hallett Merv- Do you mean Ronnie Soak? Frank Hallett
Admin  
#16 Posted : 06 February 2006 08:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Hallett Hi All One of the better debates that actually sprang from, but hasn't addressed the actual question! Lots of really good discussion on what "risk" is and so on. Philip [MacAleen], I thought that your particular exposition on Sat was really very good; and, if you don't mind, I'm going to be iusing that to support client explanations of "risk & risk management" - suitably translated into their particular level of understanding of course. I do have one comment however. In your first sentence you state "which is a tool to determine what control measures are necessary for the elimination of risk"; I believe that this should read "the successful management of risk " on the basis that if the hazard is eliminated there is no risk to eliminate nor manage. Frank Hallett
Admin  
#17 Posted : 06 February 2006 09:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip McAleenan Frank, Thank you for your comments on my last posting and of course feel free to use it if it can help your clients. Indeed I would be interested in any feedback, positive or negative, that they may have in regard to this analysis. On your comment, re. the successful management of risk, some five years ago I tackled the problem of “risk-management” arguing that it was logically self-contradictory and that it promoted the concept of acceptable levels of risk. Following on from the Saturday posting, “risk” is by definition the possibility or likelihood of harm or danger. My argument is that it is the absence of certainty, and in its place chance determines which of two or more outcomes are likely. “Management” is the authoritative control of operations. If there is control of an operation, chance is removed and there is only one possible outcome, that which is established at the outset. However, if it is not known with certainty what the outcome will be, chance exists and any action is a gamble on the outcome being what is desired. And this is the absence of “management”. To return to the analogy of the die, when I cast it I rely on the random play of gravity, kinetics, and air resistance etc. to decide for me which of six faces lands upwards. I may not be a successful gambler but I would be welcome at the roulette table. But if I removed chance by loading the die so that I always achieved the number I wanted, I have eliminated the risk (of losing) by controlling or managing the die, i.e. I do not manage the risk but control the operation. Unfortunately I have introduced a new risk, namely one concerning my relationship with the owners of the casino. Any how, hope this help, Enjoying the debate, Philip
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.