YOUR report of the investigation into the cilling of Alan Fincher's boat shows clearly why some industries have reaped considerable benefit from a 'no blame' culture when it comes to reporting and investigating accidents and other health and safety matters, writes Mike Todd.
In an emergency we all act swiftly—or even sometimes just freeze—and it would take a brave person to claim that they would never do this themselves. The aim of any such investigation is firstly to establish factually what happened. Only then is it possible to move on to looking at ways that can design any problem out of the system. Yes, even seeking to eliminate adverse consequences when people react incorrectly. In the situation itself there is no time to weigh up the merits of alternative actions—often it is the nearest that we head for.
Concerned with blame
Too many parties commenting on this specific incident seem to be more concerned with hurling blame at one party or another. The important fact is that the incident occurred and we should all want to understand it as fully as possible to learn what can be done to improve the situation for everyone else. That aim is never aided by a blame culture.
We have to be very thankful that, in this case, there was not a more serious outcome but that is not always the case. Canals, especially locks, were built in an age when there was much less attention to safe operation, perhaps at the cost of lucrative income, and a significantly lower value placed on human life and well-being. The only way we can remove all of the hazard in boating is to close the canals to active boats and preserve them as heritage objects behind museum-like display cabinets.
Making it safer
Avoiding that wholly undesirable outcome requires all of us to take measured responses to incidents like that which befell Alan and his family and share openly ways of making it all just that little bit safer, yet not destroying the things which we value.