Rank: New forum user 
|
Simple question....
Can the severity of an accident be reduced?????
(seems simple but I have "other views" who claim only the likelihood of an accident can be reduced, but not the severity? Whats your opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This can be a hang-up in the context of risk assessment, when the realisation of the hazard has several potential outcomes. The normal approach, as I understand things, is to focus on the most likely outcome.
This can be based on statistical information or, as risk assessment involves a fair amount of subjectivity anyway, the judgement of the risk assessor.
A pragmatic approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
It depends a lot on the accident. Take the hypothetical example of it being possible for someone to fall 30 feet from an open loading bay on to a concrete surface. If you replace the concrete surface with packing boxes you can reduce the severity without altering the likelihood. Think like a stuntman and you get the gist.
Although that is likely to be impractical in a lot of work places try to extend the thought experiment to other scenarios and imagine wha can still get the job done whilst reducing the severity if things go wrong. A more realistic example is using relatively blunt plastic knives to open boxes - they will do the job but not cut someone if things go wrong. Likelihood remains the same butthe severity is reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Changing a harmful chemical to a less harmful one will probably reduce the severity if you get it on you, but likelihood remains the same.
Something falling onto a hard hat wearer against someone without, could reduce severity, but not likelihood.
So yes I think severity can be reduced without altering likelihood, but the two go hand in hand a lot of the time
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Where I think someone else will need to view my risk assessment and maybe will not have my local understanding of the risk and the rating I used I just add a note in to explain my thinking. Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This was the subject of a rather protracted thread some weeks ago and suggest that the simple answer (if there is one) is 'yes'.
Whilst I would accept that the majority of precautions tend to reduce the likelihood, I would suggest that your first consideration should be to try and reduce the risk 'at source' by reducing the severity of the hazard e.g. using 110v or battery operated tools in preference to 240v; substituting substances with those that are less harmful are a couple of examples where this might be achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In reality most of the time it is about reducing likelihood but it is possible to reduce the severity in some cases. For example, limited projection cutters in the woodworking industry reduce the severity of cut; using something to mitigate the consequences of a fall (in agriculture that can be as simple as using bales of straw).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Ditto the 'yes' - ppe, first aid, fire extinguishers, even training. Almost anything can be directed towards mitigating either likelihood or severity factors. That is why we determine which one is the greatest element of the risk equation. It may be that existing controls are already in place so residual risk (perhaps most probably the likelihood aspect in a modern workplace) needs to be reviewed but we should always start from first principles and not be drawn to premature conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think that if you change the system of work to reduce the severity, for example replacing a hazardous substance with a less hazardous one, then the risk assessment needs to change. You've already done those things higher on the risk reducing hierarchy, and reduced the severity to as low as reasonably practicable.
So now your risk assessment considers what processes you can put in place lower down the hierarchy to reduce the likelihood.
Of course, as has been said you need to look at this on a case by case basis. So those who say you can only reduce likelihood may be missing a trick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.