Is misperceived risk or consciously accepted risk a major source of accidents? And will it help to tell people who may be involved in accidents about these risks, so that they will be in a better position to avoid them? From an analysis of studies on driving behaviour, on the use of dangerous products, and of accidents at sea, it emerges that most accidents are consequences of routine behaviour, which is preprogrammed to such an extent that it occurs without any consideration of risk. The normative model of human decision making, which assumes an exploration of alternatives and consequences, is not applicable to the actual behaviour of people about to be engaged in accidents. People are running risks, but that does not mean they are aware of these risks, or are consciously taking them. The risks people are running are created higher up in organizations and society, at a level where knowledge-based problem solving occurs. At these levels it can be assumed that exploration of alternatives and consequences take place, and that risks, when realized, may be considered. Therefore my answer is: No, people engaged in accidents did not misperceive or consciously accept the risks, Yes, many accidents are the ultimate consequence of decision processes in which risks were wrongly omitted, underestimated, or willfully accepted. I conclude that risk communication should be aimed, not at those individuals who may cause accidents at the `shop floor', but at those individuals in organizations and society who take decisions that create the situations in which the routine behaviour of others will appear to be unsafe. (A)
Samenvatting