Posted By Sean Fraser
Alec,

Totally agree with what you say. The elimination of risk is impossible and in certain cases, undesirable. Any and all efforts in this respect will end in failure and deservedly invite ridicule. As has been mentioned in this forum before, we have swung from a risk ignorant society to one that is risk adverse - equally to our detriment. A risk-free existence would be a stagnant existance and totally against our evolution as the dominant animal on the planet. If we didn't take calculated risks, we would not have acheived the levels we currently enjoy. Eliminate risk and you eliminate the thirst and satisfaction of learning, improving, striving for a better way. Attempts to stifle and suppress our natures will end in disaster.

Everyone involved in any activitiy needs a suitable understanding of the hazards (and associated technology) and the risks that arise from it, and this is critical to making pertinent and realistic decisions on how to approach the work. And the best person to consider, evaluate and take action of the risks involved is the person doing it - not someone who considers themselves to be an "expert" but who is divorced from the realities involved. I offer two examples of how this is currently being achieved.

Oil and gas extraction is challenging and demanding work, with obvious hazards inherent in the activities involved. Couple this with often harsh and unforgiving locations, both on and offshore, and there is an environment that is inherently dangerous. If we approached this from a risk averse standpoint then we simply would not bother trying to exploit these resources - yet we have to (putting ecological and economic discussions to one side for now). All we can do is make the working environment as safe as we can, through a thorough understanding and appreciation of what is involved and acting accordingly, while continually seeking means to reduce the potential for harm further. The work goes on, but the right attitudes and behaviours ensure it is conducted safely and with due respect for the consequences should it all go wrong. And if it does, we learn the reasons why, then more importantly we disseminate and apply the lessons we have learned.

Secondly, we have seen an increasing emergence of "extreme" sports, from small specialist cliques to generally available participation activities. The dangers in some of these sports will, if handled incorrectly, lead to the ultimate consequence. That is the appeal! Yet how many people are actually injured or killed in these sports, when compared to the numbers participating - bearing in mind there are various levles of skill and ability who take part? I would submit these numbers being proportionately low. Why? Good preparation, an understanding of the risk and double/triple-checked equipment right up to the point of launch. All the thrill of the danger with the reassurance that the chance of realising that danger is relatively low - but not eliminated. Otherwise it wouldn't be worth doing.

Risk taking is essential for progress, whatever form that risk actually takes be it physical, psychological or economic (and often it is a combination - this is a complex issue). What determines the go / no-go sanction is the degree of acceptability of the risk - mitigate it as far as reasonably practicable, but don't let fear of the unknown be the reason for not doing something. If you don't know - find out! Six P principle applies.

Critical to my point is understanding. Understand what it is you wish (or have) to do. Understand the tasks required to achieve that objective. Understand the levels of knowledge, competence and technology necessary and desired to achieve the tasks. Understand the hazards involved and wherever possible, remove or replace them. Understand the risks associated with the hazards that remain, and take a proportional and realistic response to ensure that these hazards are adequately contained and controlled. Understand the need to keep reviewing these controls and contrast against new and developing technologies, practices and business management. And the way to achieve this? A trained and educated workforce, from the top down. Just telling people what the hazards are and the controls that are in place to deal with it is not sufficient. No person, professional or otherwise, "knows best" all the time - they might know more, and they might have an authoritative contribution to make, but they cannot prescribe and proscribe on everything. We need to foster a situation where the views of everyone concerned are actively sought, considered and applied. Underpinning this is an assurance of adequate knowledge and education, where people don't just see the problems but also understand them. Until then, their contribution is of limited value and the fear generated by their ingorance may often create more problems than it solves. Allowing such directed ignorance allows a climate of fear and trepidation to proliferate - the bogeyman is an excellent control tool but it is not constructive and certainly not beneficial. Short term "wins" will lead to a loss in the longer term. Better understanding leads to more proprotionate responses and more effective solutions.

And first thing to tackle is the "compensation culture" bogeyman. As a layman, I have an intense interest in all the British legal systems and I stand up and say that I believe that the justice applied throughout our respective lands are of the highest world standards. It isn't perfect (nothing is) but in most cases, justice is done. And the principles of justice are fairness and proportionality. It is a difficult and demanding subject and no doubt all of us have anecdotes of where it went wrong. But over time, we as a nation still have confidence that cases are heard fairly and judged accordingly. And in saying that, I would be interested in reading any research that compares the number of personal and corporate liability claims of 20 years ago to now, the nature of these claims, the number that were successful and the differences in awards. If there isn't any yet, I would strongly recommend it. My perception is that the facts will speak for themselves and we will begin to realise that although the threat of litigation has indeed increased (albeit less than the plethora of individual reports may suggest), the proportion that are successful have not and that awards are not much different than previously. This whole "compensation culture" is being accepted as fact yet it has little substance behind the myth and legend perpetuated by our so called free press. Lets tackle our ignorance and find out if this is even true, then take steps to mitigate the risks. Banning or discontinuing activities on the (remote) off-chance something may happen and will lead to a liability claim is ludicrous, and rightly held up as such.

I have a well-worn Lao Tzu phrase on my Oxfam mousemat that caught my imagination when I first heard it, and I believe it applies to this subject equally as much as it does to others.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.