The Horrors of Hyper-Safety
Yet, we know from all the research (Amaberti, Taleb etc) that hyper-safety is not just unachievable but dangerous.
Hyper-safety makes people more vulnerable and fragile to risk. Hyper-safety is anti-safety.
There’s nothing worse than an ignorant safety crusader who thinks they are safety (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-is-not-your-life/).
When safety people start talking about safety as their identity and ‘safety as their life’, someone needs to quickly tell them to: ‘get a life’.
Not so on LinkedIn, such nonsense language gets applauded.
There’s nothing more dangerous to safety than a safety crusader! (https://safetyrisk.net/wowzers-and-crusaders-in-risk/).
What we learn from this article about seatbelts for Santa is, just how alienating and stupid Safety is. I wonder how many Santa’s in the past have fallen off floats going 3 kms an hour? None!
And, all of this nonsense came from a ‘’safety audit’!
Goodness me, sack the auditor and get in someone with some risk intelligence. Preferably NOT an engineer.
Hyper-safety is toxic for safety. Hyper-safety is lunacy for the industry that espouses that safety=zero (https://safetyrisk.net/safetyzero-culture/). When zero is your mantra, such ideology (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-risk/) is toxic for society.
When no injury is acceptable and safety is defined as injury rates, Safety becomes known as the moronic industry that can’t think. But make sure Safety that you keep repeating the word ‘professional’ as often as you can. That way people will identify the industry as professionally stupid.
This kind of safety on show at a Christmas parade is NOT about safety but rather, the political power of a small group seeking power through hyper-safety. Any consideration about an ethic of personhood for just a second, would throw out such nonsense for what it is – Safety trying to be relevant when it is not.
Examples of this kind of hyper-safety demonstrates that safety has a long way to before it can every claim to be professional or relevant.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Enactive Thinking in Performance as Meeting – Free Workshops - August 19, 2026
- How Safe is Too Safe? - August 17, 2026
- Enactive Cognition in Safety – Free Workshops - August 17, 2026
- The Satire of Safety Extremism - August 15, 2026
- Our Colours Never Fade - August 14, 2026
You are rigth in this paper but, jajaja!!!, I suspect some woman engineer make you many danger in the past. You can say or write all you want of course, but data are strong: Engineering has saved but a lot of more lives in occupational settings than Psychology along the time, and it is still the case. Happy Hollidays
Ricardo, you can’t compare disciplines and there is no evidence for such a comparison. You could also argue that Engineering in war has killed more people in comparison to propaganda. Such comparisons are pointless.
The message of the blog is not about Engineering but the problem of hyper-safety.
This is “fabulous” (ridiculous) idea; however, in my opinion they missed a couple of things. I just conducted a risk assessment and believe that in order to keep safety and engineers happy, they should do the following:
– there should be a defibrillator with an occupational health nurse present at every vehicle,
– clocking in station to know how many elfs are on the job,
– induction training before start,
– steal-toe cap shoes, helmets, earplugs (to protect from kids screaming for joy) and of course cut-proof gloves (as unwrapping gifts can be a very dangerous activity and a possible TRC),
– safety shower in case of diesel spillage on every vehicle,
– a large poster of Swiss Cheese Model and the Bradley Curve displayed on every platform,
– exit signs above all the entrances,
– and finally a consultant present on every vehicle measuring everyone’s culture and bringing “Zero Harm” into Christmas
Happy Holidays everyone,
Aneta
Aneta, a good response. It’s what all this safety stupidity deserves.