Is there a relationship between fatal and minor hazard exposures? Recent SIF research & movements suggest 'NO' - what kills people aren't the same as what hurts them.

But is that scientifically accurate?

Part 1 discussion with Dr Linda Bellamy, who undertook perhaps the largest study of this kind exploring the connection - and, there ** is ** a connection.

We discuss barrier/control systems & how they fail and succeed, weak signals, indicators and more.

Resources & Links:Website & Articles: https://safetyinsights.orgSupport the channel: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson

A bowtie or critical control register may be useful tools, but they aren't the work.In Part 4 of this series, I unpack what control / barrier models can leave out: e.g. changing conditions, competing goals, control dependencies, unintended consequences and the adaptations people make to keep work functioning.I also explore how controls can change the systems they are introduced into, why more barriers don't always mean greater risk control, and why successful work may conceal degraded controls and poor design.We should specify, support and verify barriers but also ask: "What do the people using the control know that the bowtie doesn’t show?"Part 1: https://youtu.be/qQfORHGC4BsPart 2: https://youtu.be/7sPqw5NAyiEPart 3: https://youtu.be/Ly1mEn_KCLQResources & Links:Website & Articles: https://safetyinsights.orgSupport the channel: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson

Today I interview Dr Marcin Nazaruk, who shares his practical experience and research on learning from normal work / daily work, HOP / New View / Safety-II, to improve learning and risk management.The discussion also explores themes around risk controls, work constraints, risk assessments, and error traps.Support the channel: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson

How do we set realistic and effective human performance expectations in our barrier approaches?In part 1 we looked at definitions of controls and barriers, whereas in part 2 we explored a deeper dive into their applications and escalation factors.This episode unpacks a few key sources to explore critical human factors and human performance considerations for barrier / control systems.Website & Articles: https://safetyinsights.orgSubscribe to the series for Part 4.Support the channel: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson

Today I interview Dr Marcin Nazaruk, who shares his practical experience and research on learning from normal work / daily work, HOP / New View / Safety-II, to improve learning and risk management.The discussion also explores themes around risk controls, work constraints, risk assessments, and error traps.Support the channel: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson

How do we translate a paper barrier system into one that's functional and verified as effective?Whereas part 1 looked at key definitions of control, barrier, safeguard, support, and verification activity - this episode dives deeper into the use of such frameworks.In particular, we unpack escalation / degradation / erosion factors, and the necessary support mechanisms to ensure controls work as intended, when intended.Key sources analysed in this episode:International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) – Critical Control Management FrameworkThe Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors (CIEHF) – Human Factors in Barrier ManagementConstruction Safety Research Alliance (CSRA) & Professor Matthew HallowellPetroleum Safety Authority (PSA) NorwayResources & Links:Website & Articles: https://safetyinsights.orgSubscribe to the series for Parts 3, and 4.Support the channel: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson

Part 2 of our interview with Dr. Guido Carim Junior, Associate Professor of Aviation, pilot, researcher, and safety scientist. We pick up the conversation with digital checklists, examining the potential role of AI and how "smart" features risk narrowing human decision-making rather than supporting it.Guido shares critical thoughts on the line between genuine organizational resilience and workarounds that mask underlying brittleness. We discuss the "tragedy of adaptability" and potential blind spots within Safety-II and HOP when organizations over-rely on human adaptation instead of fixing flawed systems.We also cover how to surface informal practices for learning without turning them into rigid, bureaucratic rules, and why safety audits need to look past green-checking compliance documents to tune into weak signals and daily operational reality.Please Like, Subscribe and Share. Also check out my blog at https://SafetyInsights.OrgSupport the channel here: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson

Is that a control, barrier, safeguard, support, or verification activity? Is it an object, a human act, a system or just a procedure? Does it actually address the hazardous energy, or does it sound good on paper?If we label every single checklist and administrative task a "critical control," do we risk diluting the operational focus required to prevent high-consequence events? If everything is critical, nothing is.Part 1 of this 4-part series unpacks how these terms are used (and misused) across the industry, evaluating the baseline definitions that dictate how we manage risk.Key sources analysed in this episode:International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) – Critical Control Management FrameworkThe Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors (CIEHF) – Human Factors in Barrier ManagementConstruction Safety Research Alliance (CSRA) & Professor Matthew HallowellPetroleum Safety Authority (PSA) NorwayResources & Links:Website & Articles: https://safetyinsights.orgSubscribe to the series for Parts 2, 3, and 4.Support the channel: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson

Interview with Guido part 1

When you're standing on the front line making an operational call, risk doesn't come with a green or red light. You have to make a binary decision: stop or go.We don't necessarily make it easy for our decision-makers to make good, defendable decisions.This video unpacks Andrew Hopkins’ 2011 Safety Science article, "Risk Management & Rule Compliance: Decision-making in hazardous industries". Hopkins argues that choosing between risk management and rule compliance is a false choice - they're complementary, not contradictory.Because risk sits on a continuum but decisions require a definitive line in the sand, high-hazard industries must translate broad risk management principles into clear operational rules for the sharp end.What is covered:a. Why risk management and rule compliance must co-exist and complement each other.b. Why frontline workers need clear "do it or don't" thresholds rather than numerical risk criteria.c. Goal, Process, and Action Rulesd. Why risk assessments can be more 'legitimation rituals'Support the channel: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson