 |
|
||||||||||||||||
Chief Executive's Report
A year ago, my report touched on our philosophy that a few minor bumps and scrapes, on the route through childhood will lead to a safer adulthood. This seems to have struck a chord with the public, not least on a Radio 4 comedy show where a lampooned new sobriquet – “The Royal Society for the Promotion of (small) Accidents”, seems to have raised a much needed laugh in the dry old world of health and safety. The serious point is that the application of common sense and balance is much more reasonable than the seeking of mindless increments towards “absolute safety”, a destination which is neither feasible nor, in all probability, desirable, since it would come at such cost to our freedoms. The communications battle, although well underway, is not nearly won. In truth, accident prevention is no mean science – it involves so many technical, legal and ethical issues, ultimately defining life and death, that there is no simple shorthand for explaining how the whole thing works, for the benefit of the 60 million people who rely on it. So, never short of ambition for our cause, we have tried to evolve one.
At the other end of the scale, information, education and advice need to be provided so that people can decide what risks they wish to take. Whether walking in the hills or mowing the lawn, people need to be able to get on with it themselves, ideally armed with the tools of knowledge and experience, often when that is the experience of others. In the middle is the tricky bit – where to draw the line between intervention and laissez-faire - and this is typically the area where the media (and the public) become most incensed with what might be described as “misplaced’ intervention”. Here is the crux – how to apply the proper balance of factors in order to exercise good judgement. Too prescriptive, and accusations resound of the “nanny state”; too casual and people would undoubtedly be forced to take unknowing risks. We draw the line with two simple questions: Is the intervention proportionate to the risk? If the problem is not that great, steer towards the lighter touch, but if the evidence demands more guidance, consider intervention. And what would be the effect on others? Someone who puts only themselves at risk should have the freedom to do so; but if an act can kill or injure others, it must be proscribed or regulated. A solo mountain climber fits into the first category; a speeding motorist the second. As you read through this review, I hope you will find that we have applied this judgement logically and consistently in all we have done this year. Once again, I must thank our hard-working and energetic staff, our Trustees, our Members, our numerous stakeholders and the millions of people who have taken our advice and we hope, have benefited from it. We have just marked the 25th anniversary of the seat-belt law, engineered through Parliament by our then President, Lord Nugent, a single act of intervention which has saved 60,000 lives. Not one of these people realises they have anyone to thank. But some quiet satisfaction drives us on with our mission, and with 12,000 people lost every year through accidents, there is still a long way to go. Tom Mullarkey MBE
|
Our paradigm is designed to take safety education/explanation to the next level of public understanding. There are clearly areas where prescription, through regulation, legislation or standards, is essential. There are few who would not wish, for example, to have the most precise, prescriptive state safety control over the nuclear, chemical or aviation industries. 