Risk Homeostasis – the more things change the more they stay the same

bubble wrapped car, croppedLet’s talk for a few minutes about risk homeostasis – a fascinating concept put forth by Gerald J. S. Wilde. The premise is that every person has a certain level of risk with which they are comfortable then use risk protection measures not to be safer, but to increase their risk taking so their level of acceptable risk stays the same.

An example would be driving a car with lots of safety features such as seat belts, front and side airbags, ABS brakes and sideview (blind spot) assist that lets you know a vehicle is next to you but hard to see with your peripheral vision or mirrors.

Now compare driving this car with driving a car from the late 1950s or early 1960s with none of these safety features. Risk homeostasis tells us that the same person would drive the car loaded with safety features in a riskier manner. The idea is that all the protection provided by the safety features allows for more risks to be taken yet the original level of risk tolerance is still maintained.

If risk homeostasis is valid, the same person would drive the older car without the safety features more cautiously and as a result achieve the same level of risk as driving the safety feature loaded car in a riskier manner.

The same idea would suggest that a motorcyclist wearing a helmet and protective leathers with carbon fiber armor plates would drive in a riskier manner than if the same person was on the same motorcycle in shorts, a T-shirt and no helmet.

I leave it to you to decide whether you think risk homeostasis is valid. Some researchers think it is not.

Here is one last data point as you consider the validity of risk homeostasis:

When drivers see bicyclists wearing helmets, research shows that they take slightly less care with passing them than bicyclists without helmets. The results of a study published in Accident Analysis & Prevention in March 2007 tells us that drivers give a bicyclist not wearing a helmet on average 3.35 inches more room when passing them than if the bicyclist is wearing a helmet. Consider that this all happens spontaneously as the driver passes the bike without much time for the driver to contemplate their behavior in advance. They likely do it all rather intuitively.

So, do you think risk homeostasis is valid?

 

Message to Team: “Whatever you do, don’t take risks!”

caution-tape, croppedWhen I saw this article recently on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, I thought it was a joke. Unfortunately, it was not April 1st and the article was for real.

Here is the title: “Safety Cops Patrol the Office For High Heels.” Seriously? You can see why I thought it was a joke.

The article tells us that employees at some companies now have to document daily safety risks including “walking across the street, entering restaurant, sitting down and eating meal.” I’office helmetm not kidding.

At some companies, employees are required to document at least two safety infractions each month – like holding open an elevator door for a colleague. (How horrible!)

The article goes on to say that employees at Exxon Mobil Corp. in Irving, Texas recently positioned themselves in the stairway to determine if people were using the handrail. (Really? This was the best use of their time?)

Please understand that I do not mean to make light of workplace safety. It is a very real issue – for people operating wood chippers and stump grinders. These are office workers.

Now think for a minute about the message this sends to people in an organization with these ridiculous safety policies. That’s right – whatever you do, don’t take a risk. Don’t take initiative. Don’t do anything differently than in the past. Don’t step out of “the box”. And above all, don’t even think about innovating.

Someone in these organizations who sees the bigger picture needs to intervene.

Free White Papers

Receive a Free White Paper

* indicates required

Choose a White Paper *

100% privacy. We don't spam or share addresses.