High-profile kidnappings, sexual assaults, child abuse and elder abuse are a handful of crimes that get a lot of attention from the media. Often, these cases are the catalyst for changes in the law or procedural changes regarding the manner in which the offenders responsible for these crimes are sentenced or treated. Mass school shootings have sparked a debate over whether school personnel should be armed. These crimes create intense emotion and often result in change. There are schools with metal detectors, which were unheard of years ago. What motivates most people to evaluate real risk and take proactive steps toward a safer life or community?
During the evening rush hour on August 1, 2007, the 35W Mississippi Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota collapsed in catastrophic failure. Thirteen people were killed and approximately 145 people were injured. In January 2008, the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) suggested the bridge collapse may have originated with the failure of gusset plates that were too thin. By June 16, 2008, the Minnesota Department of Transportation had announced it would replace or rehabilitate 120 bridges throughout Minnesota by the year 2018 to the tune of $2.5 billion. Is this expense necessary or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on emotion?
According to the 9/11 Commission Report: “At 8:46 on the morning of September 11, 2001, an airliner traveling at hundreds of miles per hour and carrying some 10,000 gallons of jet fuel plowed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan. At 9:03, a second airliner hit the South Tower. The Twin Towers, where up to 50,000 people worked each day, both collapsed less than 90 minutes later. At 9:37 that same morning, a third airliner slammed into the western face of the Pentagon. At 10:03, a fourth airliner crashed in a field in southern Pennsylvania. It had been aimed at the United States Capitol or the White House, and was forced down by heroic passengers armed with the knowledge that America was under attack.
More than 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center; 125 died at the Pentagon; 256 died on the four planes. The death toll surpassed that at Pearl Harbor in December 1941. This immeasurable pain was inflicted by 19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan. Some had been in the United States for more than a year, mixing with the rest of the population. Though four had training as pilots, most were not well-educated. Most spoke English poorly, some hardly at all. In groups of four or five, carrying with them only small knives, box cutters, and cans of Mace or pepper spray, they had hijacked the four planes and turned them into deadly guided missiles.”
The Department of Homeland Security, formed as a direct result of these attacks, released the following on 04/11/02: “Immediately following the tragic events of September 11, departments and agencies from across the federal government took steps to strengthen the safety and security of the American people. At the Federal level, a total of $10.6 billion from the Fiscal Year 2002 Emergency Budget Supplemental was dedicated to homeland security.” The list of activities these funds were dedicated to is much too lengthy for this article. Suffice it to say there were significant changes that took place on many levels and significant funds dedicated towards those changes. Was all of this expense necessary or was it over-reaction based on the violent acts of a few people?
Educated professionals have been warning of oil demand outstripping oil production for many, many years. A decade ago, crude was priced at $13.00 - $14.00 per barrel. It now hovers between $130.00 - $135.00 per barrel. A decade ago much of the alternative energy research and development was being explored by small companies. Per the American Petroleum Institute, between 2000 and 2005, oil and gas industry investment in emerging energy technologies was approximately 98 billion dollars. Today, there is intense pressure from stockholders and legislators on oil companies to invest significant profits into alterative energy resources. How will these companies react to this pressure?
Dr. Peter Sandman is the creator of the “Risk = Hazard + Outrage” formula for risk communication. Essentially, the formula works like this: Outrage and hazard do not carry equal weight. When hazard is high and outrage is low, people under-react based on their perception that everything is okay. When hazard is low and outrage is high, most people over-react based on their perception things are not okay. The reality of real risk will not necessarily be the determining factor that motivates people toward action.
In the examples above:
*The bridge collapse may have exposed a real hazard, previously unknown, which is being addressed. We can be certain, due to the intense emotion surrounding the bridge collapse; officials will err on the conservative side of safety when evaluating bridge design.
* Swift action and a lot of money was spent post 9/11. Most people were outraged over these attacks.
*The energy solution is still developing, but it is clear people are moving toward outrage due to the increasing price of gasoline.
As an entity who has been preaching a proactive approach to personal safety for many years, we have made some interesting observations. Most people do not take action unless significantly motivated. When it comes to personal safety, it is fear or outrage that usually motivates people to take action, not necessarily the actual hazard. Others will wait until a lawsuit requires them to take action, or a violent act in their community demands action.
Example: Several employees of a company have complained informally about being approached by strangers in the parking ramp. Nobody takes any proactive action. Eventually, an employee of the company is sexually assaulted in the parking ramp. It is perfectly understandable and natural that other employees are outraged and frightened as a result of the incident. They press for changes in security at the parking ramp. The company hires a private security firm to patrol the ramp for $100,000 annually. Would money be better spent by the company offering self-defense training to all employees? How about changing policy so employees are able to possess pepper spray for defensive purposes?
Over the years I have been asked to present information to countless safety committees, administrators, politicians and decision-makers. Many of these invitations are generated by someone who believes in the benefits of proactive safety planning and perceives a benefit to their community. Often, these people are not decision-makers. Therefore, some of the presentations fall on deaf ears, as they have been crafted only to pacify the request.
Public outrage drives behavior. High profile kidnappings and deranged killers who prey on the innocent seem to grab our attention for a few days. Often, they are just as quickly forgotten as the next news cycle comes around. We hear about one of these violent encounters and think; “How unfortunate. But that will never happen to me.”
Community is defined by any group that has a particular mission; a company, corporation, association or organization. It is a place where a group of individuals spend a considerable amount of time with others. Think about this as you consider the personal “communities” that you are a part of and interact with. Are they really safe? What real hazards are experienced with some frequency? Are the decisions regarding safety based on emotion, or solid research and information?
© 2008 Terry Hipp
Return to AssaultPrevention
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
