6.1.2 How accidents happen
The cause of accidents is a topic that raises a lot of emotion. Often such emotion is the result of confusion between how we think about accidents and how we think people should be compensated for those accidents. Before we look at these issues, let us consider what the general population considers to be the cause of accidents.
Activity 1
Why do people have accidents in the workplace?
Take five minutes to write down in the space below what you consider to be the top five causes of accidents in your workplace, or a workplace with which you are familiar. Rank them from the most important cause (1) to the least important cause (5).
The top five causes of accidents in the workplace are:
Typical responses to the question 'what causes accidents?' often include:
- The person was careless
- The person did not use common sense/was stupid
- The person committed an unsafe act
- There were unsafe conditions at work or it was an "Act of God"
- Lack of supervision/poor training
When it comes to discussing the cause of workplace accidents most people blame the injured party. Is this what happened with your "top five"? When we step back, however, and consider accidents from the point of view of those involved, did the person about to be injured believe that they were doing something unsafe or stupid? From Bird's accident pyramid discussed previously we know that, for every serious accident, there are many minor accidents that could have been much worse. Are they all the result of individual carelessness?
How did you set the ranking? Did you decide what causes the worst accidents ranks as 1, or was it frequency of the accidents that gave it a higher ranking? How we rank or prioritise causes also has both planning and legal implications.
Why do we blame the people involved in accidents? The way that our legal system operates may contribute to this common perception. According to Common Law, people claim damages (dollars) against another person (or organisation) and in so doing must prove that the person was negligent (at fault). They must also prove that such negligence resulted in a loss (dollars) to the "injured" party. The person, or organisation, that defends such legal action usually states that the injured person "didn't use common sense," or that they contributed to their loss through their own negligence. The downside of attempting to blame individuals is that the real causes of the incident will not be identified, and therefore not remedied. In many cases, remedies are deliberately not actioned in case it admits liability.
By comparison, let us consider the health scenario. Not long ago, individuals were "blamed" for ill health. For example, children had tooth decay because parents didn't give them fluoride medication; typhoid was contracted by unclean living practices and some reports even went further and blamed immoral living for diseases. Eventually, however, people came to realise that the health problems that affect a community are often the result of poorly designed or maintained social services and infrastructure. By addressing the real causes of ill health the tendency to blame individuals for their sickness is reduced. Efforts to provide reticulated and fluoridated water, sewerage systems and pasteurised milk are all examples.
As public health has improved by "designing out" the cause of the problem, it is likely that the problem of workplace accidents can benefit from a similar approach. By identifying the real causes of workplace accidents, rather than blaming the individuals affected, an attempt can be made to prevent accidents from occurring. As a result, attempts to modify the way people work will take place alongside changes to the working environment that often contributes to accidents.
Previous Page