The Social Affairs Unit

Print Version • Website Home • Weblog Home

Use the buttons below to change the style and font size of our site.
Screen version     Print version:   
July 21, 2005

7/7: What kills you matters - not numbers

Posted by John Adams

The death toll from the London bombings represents six days of death on Britain's roads. The death toll from the Madrid bombings represents twelve or thirteen days of death on the Spanish roads. In the 25 "busiest" years of "the troubles" in Northern Ireland twice as many people died in road accidents as were killed by terrorists. In Israel, between 27th September 2000 and 26th September 2003, 622 civilian Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists; the annual road death toll over this period was about 550. It is estimated that last year more than 1.2 million people were killed in road accidents globally – more than one 9/11 every day. Yet the public fear of terrorism - and reaction to it - is on a completely different scale to that of death on the road. Prof. John Adams - Britain's leading academic expert on risk and the author of the seminal Risk - asks why this should be so.

7/7 is Britain's 9/11.  After the events of the 7th July 2005 most of the British press adopted 7/7 as its shorthand symbol of Britain's terrorism victimhood. The eight most-powerful-men-in-the-world, coincidentally assembled for the G8 in Gleneagles in Scotland, stood shoulder to shoulder before the World's television cameras. Tony Blair proclaimed their solidarity, outrage and defiance. The Prime Minister then helicoptered to London to assume command of the emergency. The 60-fold differential in numbers of lives lost was a negligible inconvenience. London, like Madrid, like New York, was a victim of terrorism.

In the following days the Government and the media choreographed the nation's grief, anger and resolution. (As I write I am listening to a BBC radio programme devoted to explaining why it pulled programmes from its schedule the following week for fear of treading on the sensitivities of a traumatized nation.) One week on, millions stood in silence for two-minutes at mid-day to commemorate the events, and tens of thousands assembled in Trafalgar Square in the evening to manifest their ... what?

In Britain on an average day nine people die and over 800 are injured in road accidents. The mangled metal, the pain of the victims, and the grief of families and friends, one might suppose, are similar in both cases. Measured in terms of life and limb, 7/7 represented six days of death on the road. But thousands do not gather weekly in Trafalgar Square to manifest their collective concern. Why?

The 191 people killed by the Madrid bombers on 11th March 2004 were equivalent to the number killed in road accidents in Spain every 12 or 13 days. The latter tragedies usually merit only a few column inches in the local press. The former evoked three days of national mourning in Spain and a 3 minute silence all over Europe. On the first anniversary there was another 5 minute nationwide silence in Spain.

Other examples:

  • In the 25 "busiest" years of "the troubles" in Northern Ireland twice as many people died in road accidents as were killed by terrorists. Most people in England have never seen a report on television or in the press about a road accident in Northern Ireland;
  • In Israel, between 27th September 2000 and 26th September 2003, 622 civilian Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists. The annual road death toll over this period was about 550;
  • In the first half of October 2002 two people per day were killed in Washington and its suburbs. They were killed suddenly and without warning by a stranger they had never met. There was no discernible pattern in their age, sex or ethnicity. Their families and friends grieved, but otherwise their fates attracted virtually no media attention. They were victims of road accidents. Over the same period someone was killed every other day by the Washington Sniper. Again there was no discernible pattern amongst the victims chosen by the anonymous killer. Their fates attracted massive media coverage all around the world and led, far beyond the vicinity of their occurrence, to extraordinary changes in behaviour - ranging from a massive policing operation to people jogging to their cars in zigzag patterns with their groceries in supermarket car parks;
  • In 2003, worldwide, 23 Americans were killed by acts of terrorism (compared with 25 in 2002 and about 2800 in 2001). No terrorist attacks against the U.S. homeland were reported in 2004. In each of these years about 42,000 were killed on American highways. And yet the resources devoted to countering the terrorist threat continue to increase, and the revocation of traditional civil liberties continue apace.

Outside Baghdad, almost everywhere one might travel in the World, the risk of being killed in a road accident greatly exceeds the risk of being killed by a terrorist. Last year the World Bank and WHO estimated that more than 1.2 million people were killed in road accidents – more than one 9/11 every day.

Figure 1 suggests the way in which acceptance of a given actuarial level of risk is likely to vary widely with the perceived level of control an individual can exercise over it and, in the case of imposed risks, with the perceived motives of the imposer.

Figure 1 Amplification of perceived risk

With "pure" voluntary risks, the risk itself, with its associated challenge and rush of adrenaline, is the reward. Most climbers on Mount Everest know that it is dangerous and willingly take the risk. With a voluntary, self-controlled, applied risk, such as driving, the reward is getting expeditiously from A to B. But the sense of control that drivers have over their fates appears to encourage a high level of tolerance of the risks involved.

Cycling from A to B (I write as a London cyclist) is done with a diminished sense of control over one's fate. This sense is supported by statistics that show that per kilometre travelled a cyclist is 14 times more likely to die than someone in a car. This is a good example of the importance of distinguishing between relative and absolute risk. Although 14 times greater, the absolute risk of cycling is still small - 1 fatality in 25 million kilometres cycled; not even Lance Armstrong can begin to cover that distance in a lifetime of cycling. And numerous studies have demonstrated that the extra relative risk is more than offset by the health benefits of regular cycling; regular cyclists live longer.

While people may voluntarily board planes, buses and trains, the popular reaction to crashes in which passengers are passive victims, suggests that the public demand a higher standard of safety in circumstances in which people voluntarily hand over control of their safety to pilots, or to bus or train drivers.

Risks imposed by nature - such as those endured by those living on the San Andreas Fault or the slopes of Mount Etna - or impersonal economic forces - such as the vicissitudes of the global economy - are placed in the middle of the scale. Reactions vary widely. They are usually seen as motiveless and are responded to fatalistically - unless or until the threat appears imminent.

Imposed risks are less tolerated. Consider mobile phones. The risk associated with the handsets is either non-existent or very small. The risk associated with the base stations, measured by radiation dose, unless one is up the mast with an ear to the transmitter, is orders of magnitude less. Yet all round the world billions are queuing up to take the voluntary risk, and almost all the opposition is focussed on the base stations, which are seen by objectors as impositions. Because the radiation dose received from the handset increases with distance from the base station, to the extent that campaigns against the base stations are successful, they will increase the distance from the base station to the average handset, and thus the radiation dose. The base station risk, if it exist, might be labelled a benignly imposed risk; no one supposes that the phone company wishes to murder all those in the neighbourhood.

Less tolerated are risks whose imposers are perceived as motivated by profit or greed. In Europe, big biotech companies such as Monsanto are routinely denounced by environmentalist opponents for being more concerned with profits than the welfare of the environment or the consumers of its products.

Less tolerated still are malignly imposed risks - crimes ranging from mugging to rape and murder. In most countries in the world the number of deaths on the road far exceeds the numbers of murders, but far more people are sent to jail for murder than for causing death by dangerous driving. In the United States in 2002 16,000 people were murdered - a statistic that evoked far more popular concern than the 42,000 killed on the road - but far less than the 25 killed by terrorists.

Which brings us to terrorism and Al Qaida. How do we account for the massive scale, world-wide, of the outpourings of grief and anger attaching to its victims, whose numbers are dwarfed by the those of other causes of violent death?

Up to this point we have been discussing individual responses to a range of risks. Terrorism targets governments. Terrorists pose a threat not just to individuals but to the social order - and to those who purport to maintain it. Murderers and careless drivers are not seen as threats to the ability of the government (the Hierarchy) to govern.

And governments have multitudes of press officers and IT experts to amplify their anxieties. Leading the way is the US Department of Homeland Security. I now have on the toolbar of my Internet browser an icon provided by them. It is currently set at amber - "Significant Risk of Terrorist Attacks". The Patriot Act, the US Department of Justice proclaims:

has played a key part in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life.

Others see the Patriot Act itself as the more significant threat to the American way of life. The American Civil Liberties Union observes:

Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.

Until recently terrorists could be relied upon to choose iconic targets, such as the World Trade Center. But as these targets have been "hardened" - the Houses of Parliament in London now have highly sophisticated screening of entrants, and barriers to prevent car and lorry bombers getting near - terrorists have begun conferring iconic status on more mundane targets - such as bars in Bali, commuter trains in Spain, and buses in London. 

Taking an advantage from a necessity the terrorist now seeks to spread the idea that nowhere is safe. But this makes the selection of victims more random, as with road accidents. If acts of terror continue to be more widely dispersed, might we become more fatalistic about them, and begin to treat them with the same indifference with which, as a society, we react to road accidents? An actuary asked to pronounce on the risk of terrorist incidents, comparing them to road accidents, would conclude that everywhere is very safe.

Such a perspective, by putting the perceived threat into a context with which most people feel less anxious, would undermine popular support for "security" measures - such as those currently invoked to detain "terrorists" in Belmarsh and Guatanamo without the need to provide traditional proofs of guilt, and the further police-state powers of surveillance that governments are in the process of granting themselves.

Or might this perspective also foster a reassessment of the equanimity with which we accept the toll of death on our roads?

[An extended version of some of the ideas discussed below can be found in Science and Terrorism: Post-conference after-thoughts, World Federation of Scientists, International Seminar on Terrorism, Erice 7-12 May 2004.]

John Adams is emeritus professor of geography at University College London.

Comments Notice
This comments facility is the property of the Social Affairs Unit.
We reserve the right to edit, amend or remove comments for legal reasons, policy reasons or any other reasons we judge fit.

By posting comments here you accept and acknowledge the Social Affairs Unit's absolute and unfettered right to edit your comments as set out above.

The difference is that there is utility in travel, whether for pleasure or business. People put up with the (remarkably few) numbers of accidents and deaths to get the benefits of modern transport. They also freely choose to run the risks. Terror murders benefit no one. And they are imposed by incomprehensible death cultists on normal innocent people. Hardly comparable.

Posted by: Robert Speirs at July 21, 2005 06:41 PM

This is a fascinating article, enough that I hesitate to suggest a contributing factor, and as a communications specialist I worry that, as Prince Metternich said, we are sophists of our passions.

But commercial media makes money by inflaming rather than by informing its customers. When I visit elderly parents in Florida, with some of the most idiotic media in the so-called first world, the first hint of a distant hurricane has the adenoidal news readers literally slavering over what death and destuction might be on the way. Here in England the species is no different, just somewhat more subtle, and so any pretext for a national catharsis results in a barrage -- be it the death of a member of the Royal Family, a bad storm or a terrorist attack.

I think that 7/7 caught the British media unawares and they accidentally behaved well. But they regrouped and within hours of last week's attack you could hear their language grow ever more purple, 'broadcasting live from the City of Fear.' I often wonder if the West, like so many of its beloved popstars, will end up choked to death on its own vomit.

Posted by: s masty at July 23, 2005 10:36 AM

Professor John Adams has hit the nail on the head. I am amazed and bemused at the events that are going on around us particularly the politician's perspective on terrorism. For goodness sakes let’s step back a moment, get some sanity into this debate, and see what is really killing and maiming our fellow countryman. Car crashes is by far number one by many orders of magnitude – not terrorism as our political leaders would have you believe. In Australia 5 people die and around 50 are seriously injured every day. In ten days of road carnage in Australia we will have killed the same number of people as in the London bombing.

Total Australian fatalities in all wars to date is 102,820 and since 1925 there have been just over 36,000 fatalities from war. This compares to around 171,000 fatalities total resulting from all road crashes in Australia since 1925, i.e. around 4¾ times as many. If we tally the number that have died in Australia’s past history of natural and man made disasters we obtain a figure of around 800 only [Cyclone Tracy (66 deaths), Fires (Canberra: 4, Linton: 5, Litgow: 2, Ferny Creek: 3, 1994 NSW: 4, Ash Wednesday: 75, 1967 Tasmania: 59, 1944 Victoria: 51, Black Friday: 71, 1926 Victoria: 3, a total of 371 deaths resulting from fire), Thredbo 18 fatalities, Bali bombing 202 fatalities, 1998 Sydney to Hobart 6 fatalities, Granville Train 83]. This is less than 6 months of road fatalities. The monetary cost of $15 billion caused by road trauma is equivalent in monetary value to Australia’s defence budget, education budget and half its health budget.

Despite all of this we do not see politicians lining up shoulder to shoulder declaring we will eliminate road trauma with the same tenacity and funding as terrorism seems to be evoking. Indeed, government funding priorities, that would help focus our “best brains” research efforts and technology to reduce this road trauma disaster of war like proportions confronting our modern society, is so disproportionate in comparison to funding priorities placed on anti-terrorism measures and research, it makes a mockery of the whole political process. Face it, you are at a much higher risk of being killed walking across your suburban street than you are of being killed by a terrorist bomb. Yes, you should be worried, but worried about your next car trip - not about whether you will die in a terrorist attack.

A/Professor Raphael Grzebieta
President Australasian College of Road Safety

Posted by: A/Prof Raphael Grzebieta at July 26, 2005 05:07 AM

From a risk perspective, Professor Adams has indeed nailed it. The risks of death or disabling injury from vehicle crashes far exceeds that of terrorism, even allowing for events such as 9/11 and 7/7.

However, the average punter does not understand actuarial risk. Despite evidence to the contrary, people perceive driving as "safe". Many people still seem to think smoking is safe for that matter. We are also somewhat inured to the risks posed by driving etc - we need the perceived benefits of driving so much that we accept the risk it poses, whatever we perceive that risk to be. There is also the tendency to discount risks that we take voluntarily, or those we feel we have some control over (and the "average" motorist, if asked, will tell you he is an above-average driver - i.e., in control).

Terrorism, however, strikes the outrage chord. Here are people with some political or religious agenda to pursue, striking at innocent people. There is no control. Nowhere is safe, in that terrorists could strike anywhere. That the overall risk is low, in an actuarial sense, does not change the outrage and the consequent fear that goes with it. The media, whether they are controlled by government or not, will sensationalise this and raise the level of fear and uncertainty in the public, because that sells advertising space.

We can look at risk and rightly state that people should be more concerned about their next car trip, or their lifestyle choices such as smoking or a high cholesterol diet or lack of exercise. This is all true and good, but in the face of outrage, which is in itself irrational, it is unlikely to get much airplay.

Posted by: Charles King at July 28, 2005 10:56 PM

Indeed an interesting perspective. Two further small points:

First, there is a confusion of risk surrounding averages and totals, tempered by control and randomness. As observed, we think we will not be killed in a road accident if we drive in an above average way. We control one side of the accident equation, we are more careful in more risky locations, we are not young/inexperienced, our car is not souped up, we have no-one to impress and we don't use a mobile phone at all while driving. So we can simultaneously count the total but observe the factors that might help nudge us out of the statistics. Meanwhile, we believe other forces are on our side, such as manufacturers making bonnets crumple, police and law enforcement etc. So we choose to look at the statistics differently: back to "it isn't the numbers, it's the cause that matters", and that changes the safety equation for me, because I am looking at proportions killed out of people who drive like me. We accept the risk among young drivers in fast cars is very different. Insurance levels map this effect.

Second, there is the risk of repeatability (we should not just think about fatalities) and whether harm can be avoided. Here environmental issues stand out. If a neighbourhood suffers from toxic releases once, there is an expectation that it should not happen twice. Blame will be apportioned, toxins will be removed, people will move on from the event. Some will physically move to somewhere that the risk is less likely to be repeated-for-them. Some will trust the plant managers for better practice. Others will campaign for removal of the plant or tighter legislation. But largely, environmental issues such as these are not in the gift or control of general populations (imposed risk), so the class of risk is perceived quite differently. If you live near such a risk you are no longer an average. The injustice we feel about Bhopal is rightly qualitatively different from the (natural part of the) New Orleans disaster, and again different from people who against official advice choose to live on live volcanoes. Avoiding repeatability is sometimes more important than initial risk: we should be able to learn!

So it really isn't about the numbers. But is is about the reason and whether we can do anything about it. Elsewhere you write about campaigners and industries "shouting past each other". By and large it is because one side perceives lack of control in potential harm, and the other sees lack of benefit in embracing that view for dialogue. In the meantime it is generally long-term imposed risk rather than sudden risk that is perceived. So whilst we can easily quote road traffic accident deaths, we don't so readily quantify imposed health damage from particulates, nitric oxides, tyre particulates and other exhaust fumes that affect vastly more people than collisions.

Similarly, there are indications that mobile phones do cause neuromas, and that living near base stations causes chronic overload in some individuals. The first activity carries a high level of personal control, the second is constantly repeated and has no control. In the latter case, the numbers don't matter; if I am susceptible I am no longer an average - and it actually feels more deliberate and unavoidable than the bad luck of being the victim of terrorism (or lightning), and therefore it is seen as less acceptable than the more "chance" events.

Posted by: Andy Davidson at November 4, 2005 06:08 PM

I am a PhD student with Charles Darwin University in Northern Territory Australia. I am undertaking a study into Suicide contagion as a risk for completed suicide in NT. I agree with your comments on risk from MVA and applaud your study but in the NT you are twice as likely to die from suicide and a fifty/fifty chance of dying through homicide than MVA in the Northern Territory. The risk of harm to self and others at our own hands is remarkably high in our jurisdiction. Death through MVA is always a high risk in the north of Australia because of the huge distance we have to travel in our very isolated part of the world.
Leonore Hanssens
Mobile: 0428 927 686

Posted by: Leonore Hanssens at June 29, 2006 01:43 AM

Subjective safety is rather a different thing from actual safety. The manufacturers of cars have for many years being telling us that their vehicles are very safe, and people respond to this. They can sit in their car, separated from the nasty things in the world.

On the other hand, the perception of safety when riding a bike and being passed too close by a truck is rather low.

If you want to encourage people to do things that they currently find to feel dangerous then you need to make sure that those things are made to feel less dangerous.

I've written this up before, with particular emphasis on the feelings that people have when cycling. You can apply the same principles to anything.

Terrorism never feels safe. It isn't supposed to.

Posted by: David Hembrow at October 4, 2008 12:15 PM
Post a comment

Anti-spambot Turing code

Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise noted, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

The Social Affairs Unit's weblog Privacy Statement