Hello.

This is a very interesting question. And not an easy one.

It can certainly be stated that, in certain systems, there are nowadays fewer accidents then during comparable time periods in the last century. This is for instance the case in the maritime transportation industry, see:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753516000369

The accident rates of the world merchant has declined steadily since at least the 1970ies, if the numbers are correct. A whole lot of regulations and safety measures have been implemented since those days, so apparently something has gone "better". At least in this system. I suspect this is similar e.g. in road traffic and aviation.

However, the question is: do we actually know why this is the case? And can we say anything about the effect of the various measures taken? Has all that effort been worth it? Are these "manageable" risks transformed in a way to push the limit to the more extreme accident types? Are they transferred to new types of risks of which much less is known?

It is a massive question you ask, and I am afraid there are very few conclusive studies that answers your question. Any studies on the subject will be of great interest also to me.

Best regards

Floris

Hello Floris,

Thank you for your detailed response. I agree with you that there are certain systems that indeed are much safer now than they were before due to technological and organisational innovations. Thank you for the example and article about maritime transportation, that is of much help. Indeed the question remains: can we assign this to the effords and was it worth it?

It would be interesting to know about examples/studies where safety measures did not lead to more safety (or the opposite) and why. Also I would like to know about papers that address modern societies occupation with reducing risks and providing more safety.

Best regards,

Anthonie

it takes time. but I am optimistic..someday..

Thanks for your responses but I don't totally agree with you. Of course it is a continuous proces but the question remains whether in enhancing safety at one level does it create weaknesses on other levels? On top of that I don't think that we will ever be capable of providing 100% safety. I think that is an illusion (and a dangerous one as well).

Any more suggestions on literature that address this question?

Hi.

I agree with Anthonie of course. The process being continuous doesn't make it necessarily an "improvement" process. At least, one needs to define carefully what one judges "improvements" to be. That of course is a normative, not a scientific, question.

Whether 100% "safety" is possible, is a question to which we do not have an answer. There are "visions" for that formulated, but from there to reaching that is quite something else...

A good example to highlight zero-risk is the car industry’s effort for zero-emission and zero-fatality.

Electric vehicles are promoted as the zero-emission mobility. When one inquires the source of power, it is evident that the carbon foot print is not zero. But car industry is trying to improve their product.  The bulk of car market is petrol cars; electric car is still too expensive. Hence zero emission is a target. Diesel engines go a long way and upsurge in car with diesel engine in Europe is a testimony for it (ignore Volkswagen faux pas).

Car industry has also made great progress in zero-fatality. The industry is striving to achieve virtually zero fatalities and serious injuries in accidents involving its vehicles.  If you see injury and fatality due to car accident, you will see a drop (for new cars).

Zero-risk should be our target. We can close the gap by research.

I think your question is very interesting, but also very wide. My field of specialization is the occupational safety and health at work, mainly in manufacturing environments. Therefore, my answer (schematic and summarized) focuses on such subject.

In general, conventional or traditional risks are controlled better every day (e.g. work at height, machine safety, fire protection, etc.). However, in recent years, we are identifying new and emerging risks, often characterized by a high level of preventive uncertainty. These risks are not only a result of new technologies, but also on other factors, such as social or organizational changes.

In the field of new and emerging occupational risks, we can mention as examples: nanomaterials, psychosocial factors, human-machine-interfaces, etc.

From a technological point of view and overall, we can cite as examples of emerging risks: hydrogen technology, security of energy supply, cyber vulnerability, etc.

If you have more interest about new and emerging risks, you can find in my profile several related papers. In addition, I recommend you visiting the following websites (very interesting):

- New and emerging occupational risks: https://osha.europa.eu/en/emerging-risks

- Emerging technology-related risks:  http://www.integrisk.eu-vri.eu/

I hope I've helped.

Dear Sirious and Francisco,

Thank you for your responses, examples and reading suggestions. That is of much help!

Dear Anthonie,

A straight answer to your question would be "Yes", protection from risk is better now. Then starts dicussion: What are the criteria used ? One can put forward improvement of health, education... observed at a global level (but with differences according to countries, social groups, occupation...). Emerging risks are also put forward to tell us that the future might not be so safe.

Another point to consider is the awareness of risk, which has increased over time, along with public concern (again, with differences according to countries). "Risk" is now part of common sense vocabulary, leading to everyday language associating the concepts of risk, safety, and security (see Boholm et al., 2016, Risk Analysis, 36/2, p. 320-338).

Looking at the management of risk, studies about the cost of saved lives have shown that money is not always spent in a way that can be justified from the rational point of view of economics (save the maximum lives with the minimum money). Enters the issue of choices made by society about risks and their management, in part under the influence of perception and amplication of risk -- which includes social attenuation of risk (as revealed by the case of the 2003 heat wave in France, at the origin of some 20, 000 excess deaths).

Best of luck,

Marc

Thank you for your response Marc.

I agree with your arguments. In recaping all answers given on this page I think that the question I posed cannot have a final answer.

First I think that because risks and safety levels are also partly social constructs, answering the question depends strongly on who you ask it to (as we have seen in the responses here).

Second I think that it is inherently connected in reducing risks that we can never know for sure whether we are not creating new risks in this proces (a argument Wildavsky gave in 1979).

Thirdly I think that it is also often hard to connect risk reduction efforts to prevented harm. How can you know whether your efforts have prevented something when the thing you want to prevent has not occured yet? Risk policy, therefore, has in my opinion issues with establishing the causal order of things.

I would really like to know whether or not you agree with me on these 3 points.

Kind regards,

Anthonie

Hi Anthonie,

Yes, the social dimension is important, specially in democratic countries -- an interesting study could compare risk prevention methods and concepts between countries with varying degrees of democracy. 

The Wildavsky argument you mention is correct, although risk/risk analysis are supposed to tackle this issue.

Your third point is complex. To solve it I guess you have to look at a specific context/issue, e.g. risk prevention within an industrial organization. If it is efficient, nothing happens: no big accident, no human casualties... However, causality is difficult to establish (in both directions: it is difficult as well to prove that prevention did not help). Another point is to look at the secondary and short term benefits of risk prevention: part of prevention is to provide employees with renewed training, reach/ keep a high professional level for operations and maintenance, develop participatory approaches for all  (see safety culture principles) and care (healthy personnel prevent risks better : ) 

Best,

Marc

I think, this has something to do with Risk Perception as well. Different societies during different ages perceive risks differently. For example, a 100 years ago mining accidents in Europe was a common occurrence. Those frequent deaths has been "socially accepted" as an Acceptable Risk given the economic benefits of the  industry. However, that is not the case in the modern day European society. That kind of high fatal accident rates are no longer an acceptable norm. So, it is not only that we are technically able to provide more safety, but we are not ethically, regulaterally, and socially able to tolerate such high risks as we were, say a 100 years ago. 

Thank you for your response Deshai. I totally agree with your argument. We preceive risks differently and maybe it is fair to say that we are increasingly becoming risk-averse.