Safe is as safe does
By: Gary Magwood
Date: 2000-09-13
Gary Magwood is a driving educator and freelance writer.
The adjective, safe , as defined by the Gage Canadian Dictionary is, "free from harm or danger" or "out of danger, secure." We spend huge amounts of energy, time, and money to be free from harm or danger. I suggest we're obsessed with safety : "the quality or state of being safe." Recently I monitored a two-minute radio news broadcast where the two words were used 14 times in reference to water, a highway, a tire, an airliner, and an amusement park ride at the Canadian National Exhibition.
We live in an incredibly complex society. We deal with incredibly complex situations. We control incredibly complex equipment. Regardless of our efforts to be safe, something invariably goes wrong. Despite our relentless pursuit of safety, things happen. We surround ourselves with huge numbers of laws, bylaws, rules, regulations, standards, guidelines, and procedures to ensure safety. Still, stuff happens!
Yet we have the expectation that whatever we do, buy, consume, or participate in will be free from harm or danger. Let's look at water. In Ontario, Canada, we are all still in shock over the e-coli bacteria contamination first exposed in Walkerton and subsequently being discovered in other communities. I'm not sure water can be referred to as "safe." I know it can either be potable or non-potable-either fit for drinking or not. Can we expect a resource as necessary to life to be uncontaminated? I don't believe it's possible unless we change our attitude towards the environment and start to collectively make decisions to protect water from the excesses of our lifestyles. Maybe each of us has to take responsibility for the potability of water in our own communities. It's going to be interesting to watch and listen to the inquiry into the tragedy in Walkerton as it unfolds. How many times will the word safe be used in reference to a commodity that cannot inflict harm or danger. It is only what we do to it and how we abuse it that inflicts the harm or danger.
Highway safety is another term rife with expectations. We're mandated to build "safe" highways and vehicles. We blame the highways when conditions deteriorate and crashes occur. We blame the vehicle or components when we crash. So how does a "safe" highway cause problems? A highway cannot inherently be "safe." It cannot keep us free from harm or danger. A highway just lies there and soaks up the sun. It won't hurt anyone. However, add a bunch of vehicles of disparate sizes traveling at more than a mile-a-minute driven by individuals with little or no training, mix in variable weather conditions or mechanical problems, and before you know it the highway is labeled dangerous and unsafe when crashes and collisions occur. It is what we do in our vehicles on that highway that determines our safety-not what the highway does. Again, the responsibility for our well being is ours.
Then we get to the recent tire-recall story. Here's a situation that begs closer scrutiny. On the surface it would appear that Bridgestone/Firestone deliberately manufactured an unsafe tire and Ford deliberately installed them. I have difficulty believing that two huge corporations would deliberately place their customers in circumstances hazardous to their health and subsequently damaging to the two businesses. Again, here is a product that cannot be referred to as "safe" or "unsafe." A tire cannot inflict harm or danger when installed on a vehicle. How it's used and maintained will determine its safety. Most of us never question the type and quality of tires fitted to the shiny new vehicle in the showroom-we just want the green one, right now, please. We're probably more concerned with the sound system and interior trim. So if we fail to keep an eye on the inflation level, overload the vehicle, and drive a bunch more than a mile-a-minute, the tire cannot perform under those conditions and delaminates. We immediately blame the tire failure for the subsequent crash.
Furthermore, people do not have to crash because of a tire blowout. With a little skill training in managing a crisis behind the wheel we could deal with emergencies such as a tire failure. Regardless of how many rules, regulations, and standards a product is subjected to they are designed, manufactured, installed, and used by human beings. We're fallible, believe it or not!
The Concorde story provides the next example of what we construe to be safe or not. This amazing aircraft has flown for over 20 years with few incidences of consequence. Think about it, here's a machine that flies 11 miles above the earth's surface at twice the speed of sound and we expect it to be completely free from harm and danger. One finally crashes (the result of a piece of metal on the runway) and our response is to ground every one of them as being unsafe! Aircraft cannot be safe or unsafe. They can be unstable, hard to fly, contain design flaws, or be poorly maintained. But, again, how they are used determines their ability to take off, reach their destination, and land. Without much hesitation we strap ourselves into the seat of the aircraft (as if those seat belts are going to make a difference in a crash!) and blissfully expect the machinery to perform perfectly-or is that safely?
Now we come to the CNE rides. The Exhibition has been running for over 120 years. There have been thrill rides there from day one. Millions of people have shrieked and roared as they temporarily defied the law of gravity. As with everything else in our lives the rides evolve. They've become more dramatic, scary, and exciting than ever before. We love it. Enter the "s" words. In all the years only a few individuals have been hurt as the result of faulty equipment. Yet, listen to the news and you would think that every day folks are being injured on the rides. Earnest reporters interview operators and regulatory bodies to determine if an improperly applied emergency brake or some such is going to cause a rash of injuries. They ask questions like, "Are the rides safe?" Who is responsible for ride safety?" In the time it took to ask these questions more than two people were injured in car crashes and collisions somewhere in Canada. That adds up to about 220,000 injuries (almost 3000 fatalities) per year! Now who's taking a risk? Now what's "safe?"
We humans are by nature a risk-taking species. In ancient times we took risks just to eat. Later we took huge risks by setting out in little wooden ships to explore the earth's surface. We continued as we sought to fly, travel faster than the speed of sound and to head off into space. We rely on increasingly more complex equipment and constantly strive to design and manufacture faster and even more elaborate devices. It goes without saying that every effort is made to ensure our "safety"; to keep us from harm or danger.
Every time you slide behind the wheel of your vehicle you are taking a risk. Driving is the riskiest activity in our lives. It is an inherently "unsafe" environment. The most perfect vehicles on the best designed highways on beautiful sunny days driven by fallible human beings crash into each other. The only way to drive "safely" (as we are all admonished to do!) is to learn more about the process. Learn more about your vehicle and how to maintain it; learn how to use your eyes to look far down the road; learn to spot problems before they happen; and also learn to deal with emergency situations. In most cases it's the human element that fails. After all, safe is only as safe does.
A. Chenkin:
While I agree that we are a risk-taking species, the author is treading down
a dangerous path....
Comments to this article have been disabled.
