At SAMS Ltd we complete a lot of work around outdoor events and as such this brings us into regular contact with local authorities and blue light services whose only interest in the event is around licensing conditions and public safety.
Having the same objectives, we have no problem with this but we regularly cross swords over the control of crowds either watching or leaving an event in which large numbers of persons come together for what is effectively a common cause.
I am therefore grateful to Lawrence Waterman who is the director of health and safety at Battersea Power Station who in a recent article outlined a view that
“…there is a crucial distinction between the work place where an employer has deliberately brought people together to work and the public domain in which people make personal choice. “
Mr Lawrence then goes on to describe the situation outside of the Natural History Museum where a deliberate interaction between moving vehicles and pedestrians takes place in which it is necessary for persons to adapt their behaviour and manage the risks.
Such activity is seen at a high number of venues across the UK and certainly outside of every home game at the former ground of West Ham when tens of thousands of spectators poured out onto the street and blocked all roads in the immediate area without a single person being run over. It was also the case that the crowd thinned and dispersed very quickly a short distance from the ground. We are sure that such situations are acted out every day.
Taking the West Ham scenario what would have been interesting is what would have happened if the police, local authorities or indeed West Ham themselves had sought to control this movement to ensure the safe passage of persons leaving the ground which would undoubtedly have caused greater problems as people either sought to ignore or worse actively looked at disrupting such measures. To again quote Mr Waterman:
… With accidents infrequent, what will be noticed is officious interference with the way that people wish to behave in their own sphere
This is something that SAMS staff have seen time and again during our work and it was certainly a factor that brought about a recommendation to do away with an unnecessary road closure at an event which generated 100% more complaints from road users than injuries sustained since its removal. This is a good example of where a safety control was introduced on gut feeling to manage a perceived risk.
It is the view of SAMS that a crowd or audience will collectively find its own level within the environment set out by the organiser. As such the most effective controls are those that control without the audience being aware of them all of which are identified and introduced before the event takes place including. Such measures include good profiling of the audience, employment of competent contractors, site layout with good level of fencing, toilets, food outlets, competency checks, etc all brought together by engaged management and staff.
It is only after the audience is present that reactive controls come to the fore to deal with issues arising from security, first aid etc, all of whom are deployed against good planning and audience profiling.
To summarise the view of Mr Waterman, the employer brings together the workers to work on a process which allows the audience to make their own choices within a safe environment which is the very essence of good event safety.