If it Dehumanises Persons, It Doesn’t ‘Work’!

Safety often makes absurd claims about what ‘works’ (https://visionzero.global/why-vision-zero) even though it never declares an ontology, methodology or method about what it does.  Safety certainly never speaks about an ‘ethic of risk’ (https://safetyrisk.net/ethics-morality-and-an-ethic-of-risk/) nor what this implies for acting professionally. It also never speaks about personhood (https://safetyrisk.net/personhood-and-risk/) or what this implies for an ‘ethic of risk’. Such are the many silences of Safety (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-culture-silences/). These silences enable Safety to conduct itself unethically and immorally and then justify what it does as ‘good’.

Zero is neither a policy, method or a methodology and so it cannot ‘work’. Moreso, Zero is an ideological concept (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) that is fundamentally deceitful about its methods. It sets out an impossible goal, tells people to believe it (https://safetyrisk.net/believe-the-impossible-and-speak-nonsense-to-people/) and then brutalises anyone who doesn’t achieve it.

Any projection of zero as a ‘policy’ (https://forgeworks.com/to-zero-harm-or-not-to-zero-harm/) is nonsense. It is certainly NOT a ‘commendable goal’ as described by this article and there are no ‘positives or negatives to both sides of the argument’ especially, when the article itself affirms that zero is irrational and non-mathematical. Without an ‘ethic of risk’ or any sense of moral philosophy, this is the kind of Safety goop puts out about Zero. Of course, you never read from any of this stuff anything about fallibility, the nature of power or personhood. In Safety, the best candidates to present on Ethics are those who know nothing about it (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-the-expert-in-everything-and-the-art-of-learning-nothing/). This is how Safety can make declarations about the morality of goals, from a foundation of ignorance. The same applies to declarations on culture.

Of course, Zero is the centre of how Safety identifies itself (https://visionzero.global/vision-zero-takes-centre-stage-world-congress) and we know all its sponsors (https://safetyrisk.net/the-sponsors-of-zero-are/). There it is folks at the World Congress in Sydney in 2024 ‘Zero takes centre stage’. Ah, look at all the lovers of zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/for-the-love-of-zero-free-download/) extoling an ideology that dehumanises persons.

At the heart of knowing whether something is moral or ethical (yes, there is a difference AIHS), is whether it humanises persons.

And, we can apply this litmus test to Zero or Behaviour Based Safety (BBS) and we know that both produce brutalism (https://safetyrisk.net/nothing-is-learned-through-brutalism/). If your ideology brutalises persons then it doesn’t ‘work’.

If the processes of your ideology de-humanise persons then they don’t ‘work’! (https://safetyrisk.net/the-dehumanization-of-safety/). Any test of what works in safety must be founded on the humanisation of persons.

And this is what we learned from Carrillo’s book Voices from the Resistance (https://safetyrisk.net/ohs-voices-from-the-resistance-rosa-carrillo/) indeed, Safety best brutalises its own people. This is because the many processes of Safety focus on hazards/objects NOT persons (https://safetyrisk.net/the-enemy-of-safety-humans/). And we even see this is in how it approaches Psychosocial Hazards! (https://safetyrisk.net/the-language-of-hazards-and-psychosocial-mental-health/) You couldn’t make such nonsense up! Roll up, roll up, join the quest to demonise persons and call it ‘safety’.

When Safety talks about ‘Duty of Care’ it’s not about a Duty towards persons but rather a Duty towards safety (https://safetyrisk.net/duty-of-care-is-not-duty-to-care-for-persons/). This is evidenced by the language and discourse of the AIHS BoK Chapter on non-ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/the-aihs-bok-and-ethics-check-your-gut/). What an extraordinary chapter that never speaks of persons, power, care or helping, the foundations of being professional. This is why safety is NOT a ‘helping profession’

But there is an alternative that ‘works’ (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/). This is because SPoR does not focus on hazards or objects, and has a well-articulated ‘ethic of risk’ and Personhood.

In SPoR, the focus is positive, constructive and practical methods that work (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/) and is founded on the prioritisation of persons over systems. The purpose of systems is not to serve systems but to systems serve persons.

You can learn about SPoR here: https://cllr.com.au/elearning/

Or download any of the free resources provided by SPoR:

Free books on SPoR: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/

Free videos: https://vimeo.com/cllr

Free courses: https://vimeo.com/showcase/3949916; https://vimeo.com/showcase/4883640

Or Free conversations on risk: https://vimeo.com/showcase/3938199

• Bio
• Latest Posts
• More about Rob

Dr Rob Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions

Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)

• Believing Safety Delusions - November 20, 2024
• This is Not About Safety Is It? - November 20, 2024
• My Target Goal is Zero Death - November 14, 2024
• Safety is NOT Your Life - November 14, 2024
• Embodiment and Risk – Online Workshops – February 2025 - November 12, 2024

PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.