How about a little risk in our lives?

Lily livered bureaucrats

More in the ongoing and entertaining developments in the UK health and safety arena, where there is a refreshing campaign by safety authorities, politicians and lately, the insurance industry, to counter silly “jobsworths” who give health and safety a bad name.

Lily-livered bureaucrats have been hiding behind “health and safety” to avoid personal responsibility or the effort of thinking constructively. In a nutshell, stories about banning conkers and ice slides in playgrounds, Santas having to wear seatbelts on their floats, science lessons being dumbed down, councils banning hanging baskets, are not due to the HSE (DoL equivalent), or insurance companies, but to urban myths or silly bureaucrats who are too stupid or scared to make intelligent risk based decisions.

In January this year, PM Gordon Brown promised to fight this “nanny state” culture. He has set up the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council, and one of its first tasks will be to examine "systemic risk aversion".

'Top Gear' - another lamb to the slaughter?

Last week, Richard Hammond, otherwise known affectionately as "Hamster" by his co-presenters Jeremy Clarkson and James May, crashed a jet car while performing a speed run for the top rating BBC programme "Top Gear".

There was a collective sucking in of breath from the safety vultures.

It seems Richard will survive. All Top Gear fans (and there are millions around the globe) are waiting anxiously to see if "Hamster" returns to the TV screen with his impish sense of humour and incisive wit intact, after suffering a "significant" brain injury. We all wish him well. I have personally couriered him a rag impregnated with the smell of oil and petrol and instructed him to sniff twice daily until the urge to be politically incorrect returns, and that if symptoms persist, to see a mechanic.

Now, strange as it may seem,

Safe Society vs Individual Rights

The New Zealand Fire Service is in a dangerous business. They walk into places when we are running out. It's their job. Tempting, perhaps, to assume that accepting danger is part of the deal. But the Fire Service Commission has the same OHS responsibilities to their employees as any other employer. They just can't walk away when the going gets tough.

In common with any emergency service, whether in NZ or elsewhere in the world, they have developed safe operating procedures and recognised responses for types of incident. These range from person specific safety behaviour, to broader communication, command and control structures. The purpose, (which is largely very successful), is to introduce an element of predictability and safety into day to day incident management.

As with any work place (but more so in an emergency environment), there are times when the dynamics of the situation make any SOP almost impossible to use. An example might be a person injured who is about to be overtaken by a fire, flood, chemical or similar. Do you go "by the book" and spend precious time taking all the precautions, by which time the life has been lost, or do you take a calculated risk?