The Dangerous and Harmful Bradley Curve

Of all the models, tools and semiotics in safety I can think of, none is more dangerous and harmful than the Bradley Curve.

Here is a model based on the completely false assumption that humans have a ‘natural instinct’ to harm. What utter nonsense. Only the harm organisation DuPont (https://safetyrisk.net/dark-waters-the-true-story-of-dupont-and-zero/) could invent such a brutal model. The Bradley Curve is premised on the denial of fallibility, the delusion of zero and the absurd idea that any of this has anything to do with culture.

Just look at the model (Figure 1. Bradley Curve)

Figure 1. Bradley Curve

Look at this silly idea that injury rates decrease when one moves away from these so called ‘natural instincts. (Of course, injury rates are not evidence of safety)

As is the case with many models in safety, the opposite is the reality. Whenever you see Safety proclaim one of its salvic models (eg. bow-tie, swiss-cheese, Heinrich’s pyramid) you can be sure that it hides in its code (https://safetyrisk.net/deciphering-safety-code/), the dehumanisation of persons.

The truth is, human fallible persons have a natural propensity for sustaining life (homeostasis) as does all life in the ecology. This evolutionary drive to survive and thrive is what drives all of life. Try reading any of these and they will blow to pieces the silly assertions of this dangerous Bradley Curve:

· Damasio, A., (1999). The Feeling of What Happens. Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. Harvest Book. New York.

· Johnson, M., (2007). The Meaning of the Body. Aesthetics and Human Understanding. University of Chicago Press. London.

· Johnson, M., (2017). Embodied Mind, Meaning and Reason. How our Bodies Give Rise to Understanding. University of Chicago Press. London.

· Slovic, P. and Peters, E. (2006) ‘Risk Perception and Affect’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 15 (6): 322–5.

· Slovic, P., (2010). The Feeling of Risk, New Perspectives on Risk Perception. Earthscan. London.

In the Bradley Curve world this false assumption (of natural instincts to harm) guides the marketing of a zero harm product fostered by faux care. There is no articulated care ethic anywhere across the globe in safety, least of all by DuPont associated with the Bradley Curve. Indeed, there is no articulated ethic of risk anywhere in any training in safety, it is simply nowhere in any safety curriculum.

And just look at what the Bradley Curve articulates. It starts with ‘compliance is the goal’ to ‘help others conform’. It’s the same thing! Furthermore, we are somehow urged to be someone else’s ‘keeper’. What ethic is this??? I am not your ‘keeper’ and have no right to be your ‘keeper’. This is not the language of ‘helping’ but the language of surveillance and dominance. I have no right to over-ride (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-gives-me-the-right-to-over-ride-your-rite/ ) you just because I think my risk assessment is better than yours!

This is what you get when you anchor to the Bradley Curve to a (hidden) deontological immoral ethic. Here we see the notion of ‘care’ not connected to an ethic but anchored to conformity.

Care should not be conditional on conformance.

How fascinating that you will find nowhere in the safety world or in any discussion of the Bradley Curve ,an articulation of ‘care ethics’ (https://safetyrisk.net/culture-silences-in-safety-care-ethics/ ).

Similarly, you will find nowhere in the safety world, an articulation of what it means to ‘help’ or to be a ‘helper’ (https://safetyrisk.net/the-advisor-as-skilled-helper/). The notion of being a ‘keeper’, stands in complete contrast to what it means to be a ‘helper’.

Of course, care and helping are essential to being professional.

What the Bradley Curve really advocates is more behaviourism – more dominance, power and over-riding in the name of ‘care’. As the Bradley Curve moves away from the real basic human instinct to care, it moves away from our natural homeostatic drive and energy to an unethical co-dependence based in an institutionalised behaviourist safety system (DuPont).

So, if you want to ultimately bully and brutalise people in the name of good, then adopt the Bradley Curve and see where it takes you.

• 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)

• When Risk Doesn’t Make Sense - December 7, 2024
• How to Enable Unethical Practice in Safety - December 7, 2024
• Mapping an Ethic of Risk - December 6, 2024
• Principles for Safety - December 6, 2024
• Causation Myths, Stop Looking for Linear and Root Cause - December 4, 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.