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 : 14 November 2001 13:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker
I want to use some facts to illustrate real risk and perceived risk, using non-work related risks.

One I've put together is that the NY Twin Towers disaster killed under 4500, yet over 28,000 die on USA roads.

I read a newspaper article some time ago, from memory it said:
Recent recommendations for improved rail safety were likely to cost £2M per life saved. However the roads engineers, when costing accident black spots put a figure of £100K per life saved.
Can anyone confirm or deny? Unfortunately the writer gave no cites of reference. If true, can anyone direct me to the data this is based on.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 14 November 2001 13:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin Gray
Jim,

Not sure where you get the cost for accident blackspots (now hotspots) but the figure is based on 9 or more injury accidents in a year.

However the cost of a fatal road traffic accident is based on a Department of Transport formula that works out the cost of each fatality to be in excess of £1million for all the services and associated costs this includes a figure for loss of earning for the deceased.

Can send you a copy of it by fax if required.

Martin
Admin  
#3 Posted : 15 November 2001 00:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Urquhart
Jim,

Not really an answer to your question but something that I noticed the other day when reading the BBC News pages and an e-mail reaction section by people affected or likely to have been affected by the Airbus Crash in New York.
(I know that the investigation is in early stages and that it is not yet certain whether it was a Terrorist incident or an Air Accident, although the news this morning suggests that it is more likely to have been an accident).

In regard to risk and perceived risk, the responses posted by people fell mainly into two categories.

If the incident truly was as a result of Terrorist Act(s), then you could sense the Trauma, fear and demoralisation of the respondents.
Terror like this is unacceptable but also the feeling conveyed in the messages portrayed to me a total despondency, a fear that here is a problem; but no, We can get out of it or through it spirit, more an acceptance of fate and fear.

On the other hand, postings by some other respondents sympathised with the circumstances and although saddened and frightened by the event and the outcome, many stated quite clearly that as an Act of Terror it was unacceptable, but, if it were An "Accident" then it was an unfortunate incident!!!!!!!!!

The general implication therefore that I felt was conveyed by this free and open discussion was:-

If a condition arises out of Terror, (Risk), it is unacceptable.

If an incident arises out of Accident (because similar accidents are known and people have experience or knowledge of similar things happening before and generally being a part of life) "Perceived Risk", then this type of event is "Acceptable".

In regard to risk and perceived risk another situation that I became aware of recently, (I am based in Hong Kong).
In the run up to the Chinese National Day Holiday preiod 01/10/2001 Emirates Airlines were offering very cheap, (less than half price) return airfares between Hong Kong and London. (The Flights were scheduled and the carrier had to fly his routes to maintain them so he required to get Bums on seats as it were. Cheap fares is the way to do it. Even at greatly reduced fares it would bring some revenue in to offset the cost and overhead of making and maintaining the schedules)

Despite the atrocities of 11th September and the perceived risk to International Air travel and the threat of terrorisim that most people said they feared and would influence them postponing travel, people were actually queuing up and almost fighting to get seats on these flights.

Travel and Air safety were out of the question for many because of terrorism, but when an Air fare of much less than Half normal price was offered, suddenly the terror threat and risk did not seem to matter any more, what mattered was how cheaply can I travel.
Risk and perceived Risk and the influencer - Money!!!!!!!!!!

I am no physcologist but I find these concepts and behavioural patterns interesting.

Just thought that I would share these points with you and add to your debate.

Regards.

ken Urquhart
Admin  
#4 Posted : 15 November 2001 08:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mike Charleston
Only one word to add to Ken's very pertinent contribution - "PERSONAL" money.

Perception of risk is very different when the money belongs to an employer, government or some other third party.

Mike
Admin  
#5 Posted : 15 November 2001 08:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Jim,

If you want some interesting insights into risk assessments witb examples, some occupational and some not, I suggest you read the following:

The first four are essential reading:

The psychology of judgement and decision making
Scott Plous
ISBN 0-07-050477-6

Normal Accidents
Charles Perrow
ISBN 0-691-00412-9

What Risk Science, Politics & Public Health
Roger Bate
ISBN 0-7506-4228-9

Life's Adventures virtual Risk in a real world
Roger Bate
ISBN 0-7506-4679-9

These are in addition to these two clasics:

Royal Society's Report Risk Analysis, Perception and management
ISBN 0-85403-467-6

Human Safety and Risk Management
AI Glendon & E McKenna
ISBN 0-412-40250-5.

Regards Adrian Watson
Admin  
#6 Posted : 15 November 2001 09:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker
Ken,

To some extent this is the point I'm trying to get across in my training program.
The Hatfield incident resulted in less than a "weeks worth" of UK road deaths. Yet society (or is it just the media) considers it reasonably practicable to spend a hundred-fold sum (in comparison to road black spots) in further controls of the risk. "Everyday" risks that are far more frequent are OK, but exotic risks are not.
I then want to go on to show similar thinking with more mundane workplace risk.
I have trouble getting a £30 for a set of steps in the offices to avoid people standing on swivel chairs - worst case scenario, a broken neck. Yet no problem with £3000 to upgrade guards on a press brake - worst case scenario, amputated finger.

Adrian,

Thanks, I'll follow those up
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.