To wear or not to wear: Is that the question?

[Originally posted on Facebook, 19 Jan 2013]

Recently, I had a conversation with a fellow practitioner and the topic of wearing helmets in climbing activities emerged. I am not going to go into the specifics about the whys, whens and wherefores of helmet wearing (or not). Instead, I would like to comment on a disturbing trend that, for all I know, may have started more than 10 years ago by who knows whom.

I’m sure many would agree that when a policy is implemented by an organisation (in the business of providing outdoor or adventure-based activities), it would be on the basis on a what is hopefully a properly conducted risk assessment, and not because other (competing) organisations do it.

One rationale (or excuse, more like) whenever a decision is to be made about implementing certain safety-related policies e.g helmet-wearing is that ‘other organisations do it’ or ‘it’s an industry practice’. I have been guilty of this too.

Another refrain commonly surfaces that a certain ‘leading’ organisation does it, and since it is an opinion leader in the industry and for clients, then other organisations should fall into line. [An aside here: who made a certain organisation the ‘representative’ of our industry? I don’t remember candidates being nominated and I certainly don’t recall that ‘candidates’ having to work hard to convince the rest of us why we should take after them.]

This is not a good sign for the professionalisation of the outdoor education industry. If we as practitioners cannot objectively and confidently perform good risk assessment and make sound safety decisions, then should we even be in the industry in the first place? Just how far can “But it’s industry practice” or “Other provider organisations do it” take us and enable us to be taken seriously? It’s nothing less than a cop-out.

What is also disturbing is the consequent implication that organisations that don’t ‘toe the line’ aren’t safe. This is extremely unprofessional, not to say defamatory, in the absence of context and background information. I have personally heard comparisons made between organisations by people, saying things like: “Oh, but our Company has a helmet-wearing policy, whereas Company X doesn’t, so that leaves some question marks about its attitude to safety.” Gross generalisations and snide jibes are not the hallmarks of professional practitioners like ourselves.

I of course realize that there are instances where policies are meant to reduce or eliminate uncertainty and doubt, thus enabling the staff to perform their primary duties in delivering outdoor education activities. However, it is more of a sin if we don’t help them understand and instead expect blind obedience to a set of rules and regulations. Instilling a culture of fear and apathy does not an effective outdoor educator make. Just imagine what they might tell their participants when asked. And don’t get me started on people who retort with this: “But what if something does happen and your participant isn’t wearing a helmet?” That’s what risk assessment is for, lunkhead!

Arguably, there is no certainty in outdoor or adventure education. The dynamic nature of the environment is impetus for us to never stand still and just rely on a document listing out do’s and don’ts.