Ice creams cause drowning - correlation implies causation and the ratcheting of national safety standards.

Consider this; ice creams cause drowning.

Rationale; more ice cream is eaten when it's hot; more people drown when it's hot. So, ice cream causes drowning, it stands to reason.

In managing the risk in the public realm, there are lots of examples where confirmation bias ends up affecting decision , thus reducing the efficacy in addressing the root cause, and this ends up being a 'comfortable' position for duty holders to adopt in the belief this is in the public good.

Those that know me well, know I have a deep and sarcastic love of the orange life ring.

Correlation implies causation - life rings make water safe. It stands to reason. However, this correlation doesn't fully carry through. I've sadly been to a number of locations where life rings have been misused to enable weaker swimmers to accompany stronger swimmers in to areas beyond their ability, with the outcome being tragedy.

Orange rings used around beaches and lakes, are often designed and sold to be SOLAS compliant - this creates a standard that requires the ring to be at least 2.5kg and be able to withstand a vertical drop of 30m. Whilst there are inland applications (bridges for example) that justify this specification - the throwing of a 2.5kg robust ring accurately is unlikely to be beneficial for someone struggling in the water.

I often pose the question, "is water dangerous?" Of course, drowning, and hyperhydration require water to be present. However, facetiously, I've never been chased by water. Where, I have been at risk is a function of my behaviour, and that is always my choice.

So, if we have a common position, either as dutyholders, or as the public that "life rings make water safe" then we have a high chance of confirmational bias that dutyholders have done all that is reasonably practicable, or for the public that this body of water is safe. A near miss or incident is linked to the quick, cheap and easy installation of another orange ring. And, then, because one organisation does it, another follows suit, almost unthinkingly - following the correlation implying causation paradigm. And thus, risk managers adopt a position of creating an expectation, or normal way of managing a risk, that whilst common place is not effective at addressing the root cause.

We have seen the presentation of dutyholders applying good process, only to be penalised in common law in the High Court, and Court of Appeal, only, thankfully, to be reversed at appeal in the House of Lords. Preventing the loss of facility in the public realm.

Two of my favourite statements in Law centre on the decision made at that appeal in Tomlinson vs Congleton BC [2003].

To outline a sad incident, John Tomlinson (18), visited an artificial lake, part of a country park in Brereton, Cheshire in the borough of Congleton, with his friends. While there, Tomlinson dived into the water and hit his head on the sandy bottom, leaving him with paralysis. He subsequently attempted to sue the Council.

The judge found that there was "nothing about the mere at Brereton Heath which made it any more dangerous than any other ordinary stretch of open water in England. There was nothing special about its configuration; there were no hidden dangers. It was shallow in some places and deep in others, but that is the nature of lakes."

But, the High Court, and Court of Appeal were persuaded in favour of Tomlinson that the Council should have, or could have, done more. Articulating the point of Law, but being, perhaps skewed by correlation implying cause. Creating the obligation on the organisation, rather than allowing the individual some level of self determination, and responsibility for their own actions.

The House of Lords overturned the decision, in a landmark case, giving rise to some very valuable narrative for folk who manage outdoor spaces. I've added this to the end. Referencing back to correlation implying causation is an interesting one for risk managers. Dutyholders will frequently be concerned about their legal liability, and in so doing show a confirmational bias. This bias, as noted by the Lords, follows an invitation that is not a legal requirement. Noting that the placement of signs and rescue rings, for example, may be an attempt to address a liability position, but will not necessarily influence safe behaviour.

It does take a strong belief in a risk manager to be certain that decisions taken are reasonable, that risk assessments have been undertaken in a suitable and sufficient manner. That the logic of decisions taken are defensible.

Like blindly accepting that ice cream causes drowning, or that a life ring makes water safe, challenging the logic between correlation and causation is essential for good risk management and decision making.

Narrative from the appeal decision in Tomlinson vs Congleton [2003]

LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH

81. The fourth point, one to which I know that your Lordships attach importance, is the fact that it is not, and should never be, the policy of the law to require the protection of the foolhardy or reckless few to deprive, or interfere with, the enjoyment by the remainder of society of the liberties and amenities to which they are rightly entitled. Does the law require that all trees be cut down because some youths may climb them and fall? Does the law require the coast line and other beauty spots to be lined with warning notices? Does the law require that attractive water side picnic spots be destroyed because of a few foolhardy individuals who choose to ignore warning notices and indulge in activities dangerous only to themselves? The answer to all these questions is, of course, no. But this is the road down which your Lordships, like other courts before, have been invited to travel and which the councils in the present case found so inviting. In truth, the arguments for the claimant have involved an attack upon the liberties of the citizen which should not be countenanced. They attack the liberty of the individual to engage in dangerous, but otherwise harmless, pastimes at his own risk and the liberty of citizens as a whole fully to enjoy the variety and quality of the landscape of this country. The pursuit of an unrestrained culture of blame and compensation has many evil consequences and one is certainly the interference with the liberty of the citizen.

LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE

94.He [Tomlinson] was simply sporting about in the water with his friends, giving free rein to his exuberance. And why not? And why should the Council be discouraged by the law of tort from providing facilities for young men and young women to enjoy themselves in this way? Of course there is some risk of accidents arising out of the joie de vivre of the young. But that is no reason for imposing a grey and dull safety regime on everyone. This appeal must be allowed.