Risk and responsibility

Legislation that impacts on personal behaviour has expanded exponentially in recent years, to the point where it seems the automatic response to any situation that might contain even a modicum of danger or risk.

This pertains to the workplace, to public spaces, and to the home environment.

There is a valid question to be asked as to the overall impact of such regulations and primary among these is: does such an environment cultivate a reliance on state or district agencies rather than on a native, or learned, common sense in our interactions with the physical world; and how is it to be sensibly gauged where personal initiative and responsibility should end and regulation begin?

These are questions that the New Zealand Transport Agency might grapple with as it contemplates recommendations which the Otago-Southland coroner David Crerar says he will make in his report into the death of a cyclist near Mosgiel last year: those recommendations will likely include that the NZTA investigate making high-visibility vests and brightly coloured helmets compulsory for cyclists; and, likewise, the use of headlights at all times for vehicles on the open road so as to make them as visible as possible to other road users.

Striking a balance between personal responsibility in the face of potential danger, and attempting to legislate in such ways as to eliminate that danger altogether, is one of the more problematic tasks for our times.

And if it sometimes seems that regulators have the upper hand, that society is increasingly wrapped up in cotton wool and bound with red tape, there is often good reason for this.

In the 21st century we are avid collectors of statistics, the degree of social interdependence is probably higher than it has ever been, and interest groups have greater access to media and thus publicity.

When an activity undertaken by individuals has the potential to result in injury to either the person undertaking it, or to others, when that injury with its subsequent rehabilitation impost is likely to come at a cost to society as a whole, through, for instance, ACC contributions, and when the collation of statistics or other evidence pinpoints with some degree of accuracy the likelihood of the event occurring, then many would say it is irresponsible of governments, legislators and persons of influence not to intervene.

So it is, for instance, with traffic accidents and the regulations that constrict speed and require people to wear seat belts.

When the seat-belt law was first proposed there was considerable resistance; likewise, when it became illegal to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet.

In part, the objections pertained to the costs of compliance - the costs of retrofitting seat belts in cars that did not have them, the price of a cycle helmet - but, partly, objections were raised around what was seen, and continues to be seen, as unwanted intrusions by the state into individuals' personal choices.

Thus, it is argued by some, that all human activity contains a degree of risk, and the most effective risk management strategies reside in personal awareness and learned responses.

The debate will have been given fresh impetus by the release last Thursday of a Department of Labour report on safety in adventure tourism, and last week's coroner's inquest into the Mangatepopo canyoning tragedy in which seven people died.

The report, the first in a three-phase process, included consultation with operators in compiling an industry overview.

It shows that 29 people died while taking part in adventure tourism activities in New Zealand in the five years to June 30, 2009.

The next phase will look at any gaps in safety and make recommendations for improvements.

This is where the real import of the process will sit and, once again, will inevitably confront the pathology of risk: on the one hand, adventure tourism operators must act in such as way as to eliminate any evident gaps; on the other, it is impossible to eliminate risk altogether whether in organised adventure tourism, or in the everyday lives of ordinary people.

Whether legislation or personal responsibility is the more effective in the latter, or where exactly the balance lies, is a discussion that yet has some way to run.

In the meantime, individual awareness, preparation and careful assessment of the conditions under which any activity is undertaken should continue to be stressed, rather than hastily inflicting blanket rules on the many to counteract the irresponsible or careless actions of a few.