Hi there,

I agree, the severity will very seldom be reduced (If ever). Even PPE will only reduce the likelihood of the given harm occuring, i.e. the hazard is a rotating piece of a machine, the risk is the event that it slices your finger - PPE will reduce the likelihood it will cut you, but if you are cut then the severity wont generally have changed.

I do think people put too much importance on this aspect of Risk Assessments though, to me they are a tool for systematically listing hazards, risks and controls - I would be tempted to say that the 'score' attached is the least important part of it, they are very subjective, often graded with no real data as to how likely or severe something will be. This is why we tend to have such wide bands on the scoring, i.e. 1 - 12 low risk, 13 - 20 Medium etc.

Just my opinion of course, as I'm sure you are aware there is no legislation which states what a risk assessment must look like or be comprised of.

Cheers
Steve

Hi Evans,

interesting debate;

I think I'd disagree with the flymo one, lowering the noise level of the machinery means its less likely you will suffer hearing loss, but if you do then its just the same severity surely?

The acid example is a good one, and I think one of the rare occasions when severity is genuinly reduced, although it could still be argued that 5% acid could leave you with just as severe a burn but you'd have to leave your hand submerged in it for a good while, therefore less likely.

Think this thread might go on and on!

VERY briefly, while I accept that most controls are more likely to reduce the likelihood, it is possible to reduce the severity of some hazards (and to a degree that should be a prime consideration shouldn't it?).

I suspect that this debate will 'run', however, I think 'you' would be wrong to assume that the only way of reducing risk is by reducing the likelihood of the event occurring, and indeed wrong to adopt an approach that this is the only way of reducing risk. If you are going to 'argue' or accept that there are 2 factors or elements to risk (likelihood and severity) why on earth would you only consider one of those factors when considering your controls.

Some simple examples of reducing severity might be:

The substitution of substance i.e. from one that is toxic (or very toxic) to one that is harmful or even one that is not hazardous (I will wait for the inevitable debate on that one!)

The risk of electrocution using 240v tools by using 110v or battery

The risk of falls from height by reducing the distance of the fall e.g. by using staging under a fragile roof or using nets

Let the debate commence!

The 'what if' factor is always present and in some cases the severity rating cannot be changed irrespective of what you do so if an event actually happens e.g. Nuclear explosion or the high vis case as noted above the severity status will always be there as all we can do is try to mitigate to the best of our ability

If people are stuck in the habit of risk assessing worst case scenario then invariable the severity would seldom change.

I think it's prudent to risk assess worst reasonable case scenario, the most probable worst case. If we do this then quite often the severity and likelihood can be reduced by effective controls.

Mr F, you raise an interesting point; and I think you’re right. I have used the trailing example previously in training and I have had responses that it could result in a death; agreed. BUT the MOST LIKELY outcome is something pretty ‘minor’, possibly embarrassment more than anything else. Of course such a scenario is ‘played out’ any number of time everyday and most people will pick themselves up, dust themselves off, look around to see if anybody has sent them (turn red if they have) and then get on with it.

I would guess that there are some more complex risks where it is necessary to explore the worst case scenario in order to arrive at some sort of meaningful consideration of the risks and the necessary controls. However, in the main I would suggest that for the majority of risks, we need to consider the most likely outcome otherwise the process would become almost meaningless.

There are of course those ‘creative’ individuals that adopt the worst case scenario when assessing all risks, exploring any number of ‘what if’s’, disappearing up any number of blind alleys and in the process lose sight of the ten tonne weight dangling on a piece of frayed string above their heads! Be realistic in your consideration of risks, otherwise you may lose sight of those with the real potential to cause harm.

Do consider ways to reduce severity; it can be done!

Lisa, an interesting slant on the discussion. With respect, I think your W@H example is flawed in that you have not reduced the severity but removed it altogether.

Look at the task with no controls in place - whats the severity rating? Put in the control measures, this should reduce the likelihood down to an acceptable level. If someone ignores the control measures, then the severity will be as was before controls introduced?

Why worry about severity changing? If the likelihood is reduced from a certainty to an unlikely, the assessment can be deemed suitable & sufficient? All assessments need to be reviewed regularly anyway. A 5 x 5 (or similar) risk matrix shows that risk has been reduced and is useful to identify which assessments require further control considerations on a risk prioritised basis.

Of course you can lower one, the other or both.
In a lot of cases it depends how you define the original hazard.

Mauled by animal. Pull its teeth and claws out. Still mauled, less severly.
Electric shock. Swap 415 for 110. If still shocked, less severly.
Chemical burn. lower concentration. If burned, less severly.
Think fire and housekeeping. If you have a fire the less stuff knocking around to burn the less severe the fire.
Burning your hands. Don't use water from the kettle, use the tap. (lower temperature).
If I was going to be assaulted, I'd rather be assaulted with a feather than a brick...
etc etc etc

Hello,

I am a new member and interested to express my view on this debate, that engineering or the substitution controls (say like replacing the harmful chemical to less harmful chemical) may reduce the severity rating, likewise the exposure limits do also have certain level of impact in reducing both severity and likelihood.

Regards...

Sorry Mr F, but I don't agree.

If someone is wearing goggles the likelihood of loosing an eye is reduced, but cannot be said to be zero. Also, there are many ways that the proposed risk control can fail, including the fact that someone may not wear goggles or may use the wrong type that offer less protection.

The likelihood is reduced, but potential consequence is not because the hazard remains the same.

As someone said earlier, this thread could go on a bit, but I have seen some similar threads and some of you posters (you will know who you are!) made the most important points before.

The ratings LxSxF are not the purpose of the assessment, just a means to prioritise which risks we utilise every decreasing resources to manage.

Does it really manner that a piece of paper (the assessment record) shows any factor decreasing or is it more important to know that you have implemented the right / effective controls?

And yes, before someone jumps in, I know that we live in a litigious world, evidence and records and all that......

.....just a though.

Well done Andy - someone else gets it!

The hazard potential has to be reduced to lower severity.

Instead of being struck in the eye by high speed small object you would need to be struck at a)lower speed b) bigger object (bigger than eye socket) - then, then the severity will reduce.

The severity is the scale/size of your injury ranging from paper cut > death.

This really is very very simple guys.

You need to fundamentally understand what the words mean!

Likelihood = the chance of it happening, anything you can put in place to reduce chance of something happening will reduce the likelihood
Severity = How much its going to hurt you, the less it hurts you the less severe it is.

Being covered from head to toe in 10% sulfuric acid for 20 seconds is less severe than being covered in 100% sulfuric acid for 20 seconds.

The airbag example is not a good one to help those who are struggling with the concept. Fundamentally the airbag reduces the likelihood of you falling far enough to die by breaking your fall. It can also be argued then that at 100% success rate of 'catching' someone it would also reduce the severity of said fall if positioned quite close to catch the person 'safely and comfortably'.
To REALLY reduce the severity of the fall we would have to reduce the distance of the fall to a height where it was more probable you would survive, even if mangled up (4) than die (5) regardless of the airbag being there or not.
WAH is not a good example of lowering severity I hope you can see.

Totally forget the chance of something happening for one minute (the likelihood) and focus on if it did, will it kill me? If you can do something to change the outcome to ' it will really really hurt me but not kill me'- or anything lower I should add, that would be lowering the severity.

The hazard itself has to be less 'hazardous' (lol) in order to be less severe.

If you can swap something out/change something that the outcome is not as painfull/you keep more body parts when it all goes wrong - congratulations - you have lowered the severity score on a risk assessment!

I'm with you Bob......

Tried not to respond but failed what was the likelihood of that.
I try not to use anything based on the ANZA risk matrix or scoring system.
4 pears by 2 apples have reduced the score to a banana.
Check out some of the example risk assessments on the HSE site.
A hazard is something with the potential to cause loss/harm as long as the hazard remains the same; the only control is reducing or eliminating the exposure.
Don’t get wrapped up in the severity it subjective on most occasions, taking into account any legal requirements reduce the hazard or likelihood where applicable.

walker - well that would depend on the speed of the vehicle, the angle at which you met the speed bump, the conditon of your tyres, the condition of the vehicle generally and....... who cares!

Depends on your car, your speed, how you drive, tyres..... the list is endless..... as is the conversation

The problems with Risk Assessments is folk tend to get to hung up making the numbers fit in a matrix.

For my tuppence worth, very seldom should the severity drop unless the actual task environment changes somewhat. Best example I can give is consider a busy logistics yard, vehicles travelling at 40mph, the severity impact is fairly catastrophic; you drop the speed limit to 5mph the severity impact is reduced significantly.

This kind of busy logistics yard?
http://www.shponline.co....r-lorry-driver-fatality.

Puts LxS into context does it not - the purpose of risk assessment is to get the control measures in place where they are needed

How does one aseess risk without knowing how it is to be managed and vice versa?????:-)

Bob