1.4. Continued Challenges in Measuring Risk

Now, the question comes, can we really measure risk, can risk be measured? (Refer Slide Time: 23:35) There is a person Lord Kelvin, he is saying that anything that exists; exists in some quantity and can, therefore, be measured, if there are 5 people, we can say 5 people so, it exists so, anything that exists, that exists in some quantity, a glass of water; yes we can tell it. (Refer Slide Time: 23:56)

The question of whether risk can be measured is presented first. Lord Kelvin's statement emphasizes that anything which exists can be quantified. This serves to establish the philosophical foundation for measuring risk, implying that if risk exists, it can be quantified in some way, similar to how we can count people or measure water volume.

Think of risk measurement like measuring ingredients for a recipe. Just as you can measure how much flour or sugar is needed in cups or grams, you should be able to measure the risk of various activities—such as driving on a busy road—based on certain statistics.

So, distinction should be made between real, actual, objective measurable risk, which follow the scientific rules, scientific law of statistics. So, statistically we can say how much risk is there, another one is the subjective one that perceived by non-expert, there is nothing called cultural risk, it is your problem man, but there is a scientific. (Refer Slide Time: 24:24)

This chunk emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between two types of risk: objective and subjective risk. Objective risk can be measured scientifically using statistical methods, while subjective risk is based on personal perception and may not align with actual danger. This differentiation is critical in understanding the nature of risk we are dealing with.

Imagine a person afraid of flying because they perceive it as dangerous (subjective risk), even though statistically, flying is much safer than driving (objective risk). Their fear may lead to avoiding flights despite evidence showing flying is low-risk.

Now, Britain Department of Transport, they are saying that yes we can measure the risk, it is very simple, we can measure it based on casualty record, how many people are dying in a particular time and a particular road. The consequence of real accidents, these are simple parameters to tell people how much risk is there. Also, this is actual danger because if you want to be flamboyant, you can be, no problem but that is the consequence. (Refer Slide Time: 25:19)

The British Department of Transport suggests that risk can be quantified through casualty records—essentially, statistics on traffic accidents and deaths. This data provides a clear metric for understanding road safety and indicates where the real dangers lie. The use of such data helps create an informed basis for assessing risk confidently.

Consider a road where statistics show a high number of accidents. Just as you would avoid a neighborhood known for high crime rates based on data, you might avoid using that road for travel based on accident statistics that indicate it is dangerous.

So, really; can we really measure the risk? so that is a big question, these questions that whether we can really measure, can we really distinguish between objective risk and perceived risk that challenge will continue. In our next series, we will discuss on this aspect that how, when, what extent we can distinguish between objective risk and subjective risk and can we really do it, so and what and how extent it will affect the preparedness. (Refer Slide Time: 25:38)

This closing chunk revolves around the ongoing debate about the ability to measure and distinguish between objective and perceived risk. It acknowledges that while there are methods of measuring risk, the distinction between different types of risk is complex and may affect our preparedness and response to potential dangers.

When planning for a trip, you might consider both the statistically proven risks of certain activities (like swimming in the ocean) and your own anxieties or fears regarding those activities. Just as each traveler weighs their objective safety data against their subjective fears, professionals in risk management must balance these distinct perspectives.

--