How rational are we when we assess risks?
A
One of the many design faults in humans is ours startling unwillingness to measure
consequences. We become so mesmerised by one particular
risk that we cannot see
beyond it. So, for instance, convinced that out children are perpetual danger from
strangers (though statistically the risks are tiny), we refuse to let our kids walk to school
and instead trigger obesity, which is far more likely to harm them.
B
And what happened after the Hatfield rail crash in the UK in 2000, which killed four
people? The cause was identified as a broken rail and an immediate slowdown was
ordered on 500 sections of suspect track. Frustrated by delays, a third of rail
passengers
switched to the roads, where accident rate per kilometre is 12 times that of
rail. The resulting growth in road traffic probably resulted in five additional fatalities
–
compared with only six caused by broken rails over the last 30 years. Meanwhile, train
drivers operating on a railway with no timetable were having to consult up to 16 pages
of special directions on speed instructions, increasing the likelihood of passing a signal
at red
– 10 times more likely to result in death than a broken rail.
C
Then there are seatbelts. If you have the misfortune to be in a crash, there is no
doubt that a seat belt will reduce your
risk of dying, but overall, there has been no
discernible effect of seatbelt legislations on fatalities for car drivers and passengers.
Why not? Because no one foresaw the consequences of people changing their
behaviour once they were securely belted up
– driving faster and more recklessly.
Similarly, sports researchers have found that protective aids, such as
body armour, lead
to more injuries because players take greater risks.
D
Human behaviour is fuelled by perceptions, not th
e ‘facts’ or what scientists present
as ‘real’ risks. Research has identified several ways in which we perceive and assess
risk, including the following.
E
In many areas of technology, such as nuclear
power generation, major accidents
involving safety system failures can have catastrophic effects, and risk is seen as a fatal
threat. Such an event could, theoretically, occur at any time., although the likelihood of
its occurrence is extremely low. A look at the perception of rare random events shows,
however, that probability plays hardly any role at all in how people perceive danger: it is
the random nature of the event that poses the feeling of threat.
F
Natural disasters like earthquakes are usually seen as
unavoidable events with
catastrophic effects, but because they are natural, they are beyond control
– unlike
accidents caused by human error. In such cases, the relative rarity of the event provides
psychological reinforcement for risk denial, as shown by the large numbers of people
who choose not to move away from earthquake zones.
G
When, despite considerable risk, people climb the world’s
highest mountains without
breathing apparatus, or throw themselves off a cliff-top with nothing more than a pair of
artificial wings to save them, and do so in the name of sport, the meaning of risk takes
on a new dimension. The attraction of such activities is the fact that they involve risk.
People take risks in order to test their own strength and to triumph over natural forces.
Rakhimov Mukhammad: 99-542-74-54
Удалить Водяной Знак
Wondershare
PDFelement