Better Safe Than Sorry!

October 31, 2012

We have just seen the back of mega-storm Sandy and thank goodness for that. But while the memory and experience of it is fresh in our minds, we have a very special opportunity to learn; specifically to learn what to do after the next Sandy, or nuclear accident, or terrorist act, or power outage, And make no mistake; they and other disasters are waiting to happen. We know that as a fact of life. So, isn’t there something we can do to reduce the damage from catastrophes, whether climate, accident, or terrorist/criminal act related?

Well, actually there is, and we can have a much better system up and running in time for the next horror story. starting right now. We spend a lot of time and money trying to learn from these experiences, and that work is essential and valuable, but we can do something else which is guaranteed to save lives, property, time and trauma. Think about it for a moment. You’re caught in a difficult or life-threatening situation and you have to act right now or things will get worse, possibly much worse. At those moments, a thought is likely to go through your mind: ‘I wish I had (fill in the blank).

Of course there are many different sorts of things that could fill in the blank, and we know that the thoughts that run through people’s heads at times like that cover an enormous range, literally from “I wish I had my pajamas on” to “I wish our town was covered with a protective and super-strong dome.”  But in the middle of that range, there is something that we could do; something we can learn, by asking a simple question of everyone who has been in or involved with a catastrophe. of almost any kind. This is the question.

What specific things might have helped you avoid problems you had in this event ?

This deceptively simple question could lead to a dialogue or discussion that would flesh out and concretize that “what.” There are several general categories of answers, all of which would be helpful in redesigning our communities and helping people enhance safety and reduce costs.

·         More information, particular not general.

·         Objects that could help.

·         People in positions with responsibility to help.

·         Other people, neighbors etc

So, for example, in the case of the late unlamented Hurricane Sandy, someone might have had a problem getting out of their flooding home. A rubber inflatable might help. Or people might need to call their neighbor(s) but do not have the phone numbers at hand, or might simply have forgotten them. A list would help, as would other people having your number convenient or pre-programmed in their phone system. For many reasons, a handheld with emergency information set up and operated by long-lasting (permanent?) power sources. Or again, roads less than 50 feet above local water level could have sensors to tell anyone what’s safe and what’s not. Similar sensors could exist in cars so they simply wouldn’t go towards deep water.

To collect the necessary information, people who’ve been through some traumatic event, if they’re willing, would participate in a carefully designed discussion or interview, either in groups or alone, at their homes, by Internet or in person.

Some answers to these questions are obvious (eg, simply having a list of neighbors’ telephone numbers) but it would be important not to simply accept the first or  easiest answer. The critical test of adequacy or utility is this: does it suggest, lead to or enable a non-human system, process or device that could help in the event of a disaster. We know absolutely that people are not at their best when confronted with these problems. Apart from the intrinsic stress at such times, there are many things to be considered or attended to. The right approach is to make as many of them automatic as possible.  And, not least, there could be much more effective automatic telephone or computer programs than currently exist.

It is simply not credible to argue that the cost, including development, of such systems would be too high. Too high for what? This overall process would also lead to many innovative approaches to non-life-threatening events or situations. The cost of Sandy is now reckoned at over 50 billion dollars and that doesn’t count (as such calculations never do) the loss in people’s productivity, health and life. The problem lies, in part, in our well-established tendency to ask how existing systems and procedures could be improved, rather than what could we construct as a safety net – essentially a floor under people’s lives and livelihoods.

This program could be launched at a low and affordable level. In fact, this is essential because people rapidly forget or re-imagine the experience of being in the situation about which we would be asking them. Here’s a very brief example of what such a dialogue might look like.

Questioner: Did you have any problems getting to safety?

Respondent: I certainly did.

Q: Can you give an example of that?

A: Yes. I tried the front door but water was coming under it so I went to a window instead.

Q: You thought there might be a lot of water on the other side of the door?

A:Yes, of course, Another exit seemed better.

Q: And did you get out that way OK?

A: Yes I went through a window, but it wasn’t easy.

Q: Why not?

A: It was very hard to open. It had been shut for a long time and we didn’t use it very often.

Q: Did you try to get in touch with anybody for help?

A: Well, I probably should have but I was really scared and I didn’t want to take the time.

Etc, etc.

In this short dialogue there are probably a dozen ideas for ways to improve the ability of that person to stay safe, be less frightened and get useful/critical information. A systematic process of this sort could provide fodder for new directions in catastrophe safety. What’s more, such an approach would not be expensive, even in absolute terms. What is important is to get at it ASAP, while the experience is fresh. We believe that actions have to be seen in context, and as responses to a situation as experienced. It would be easy to improve safety on both dimensions, by getting more insight into contexts, which define or at least strongly influence people’s choices and actions.