Oner of the grand delusions of safety amongst many is that there is a relation between minor injuries and fatalities. There is not. The silly Heinrich semiotic that promotes this idea was made up in 1941 by an insurance salesman. Yet this nonsense semiotic is still in safety texts because Safety wants to believe it true (https://safetyrisk.net/culture-is-not-what-we-do-around-here-yet-safety-believes-it-is/).
There’s nothing quite like a semiotic myth to drive belief.
Safety is so committed to its own indoctrination that it thinks the world is binary, ordered, linear and objective. It is not.
The indoctrination of James Reason (https://safetyrisk.net/you-get-what-you-expect-in-safety-or-how-the-burden-of-james-reasons-ideology-bogs-down-safety/) litters safety text books with the swiss-cheese semiotic but it is just another delusion. Events do not unfold in a linear ordered way just as prevention and cause are not linear.
The safety industry is committed to faith in James Reason because it wants to believe the mythology he created (https://safetyrisk.net/faith-in-reason-and-unreasoned-faith-as-safety-myth/). But, belief in Reason is an act of faith, there is no evidence to support Reason’s ideology, just a semiotic that people find attractive. Life is messy, ecological and chaotic but Safety doesn’t want to believe that. Events don’t unfold like dominoes.
Tet, safety continues to believe in its myths, ensuring that nothing improves.
If you want to deconstruct the myth of Heinrich you can look here: https://safetyrisk.net/deconstructing-the-myth-of-heinrich/
Anyway, we will soon see the nonsense of Heinrich tested in New Zealand (https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/360677309/acc-warns-about-proposed-health-and-safety-law-change).
In a great move the NZ Government proposes to get rid of petty pissy safety. Most of the nonsense that passes for safety is driven by the myths of Heinrich, Reason, Rasmussen and others that has no supporting evidence. Great to hear the Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden say that ‘Small businesses accounted for ¾ of work-injury costs and about half of ACC’s costs were accounted for by “lower grade injuries” such as slips and trips, it told the ministry.’
She stated: ‘This uncertainty has led to over-compliance and a focus on paperwork instead of actions, which leads to higher costs … and lower productivity for businesses,’.
Furthermore, 95% of what Safety does makes no difference to practice other that compliance with systems. Systems-compliance doesn’t improve safety, it improves systems compliance.
It will be great to see NZ businesses focusing on just critical risk and jettisoning petty pissy risk, that makes no difference to safety.
It’s about time we turfed out the mythologies of safety and got back to some realities of safety. Wouldn’t it be great to see a next step to reform the safety curriculum and get rid of the many myths concocted by the likes of Reason and Heinrich.
And, ditching those myths will not result in the end of the world, there are alternatives that work that are positive and practical, such are proposed by SPoR. Positive, practical and real alternative methods to tackle risk that work (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/).
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Third Group Commences the Graduate Program in The Psychology of Risk - May 10, 2025
- When Semiotics Show Your Real Agenda in Safety - May 10, 2025
- Heinrich Was Wrong, A NZ Case Study - May 7, 2025
- iCue Methodology – A Video - May 6, 2025
- The Delusions of DMAIC Investigation Method - May 5, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below