The Evolution of Urban Risk Assessment: Moving Beyond the Obvious
For decades, urban planning and public safety assessments relied on “expected use”—the idea that people would generally stay on paths and avoid hazardous areas. However, recent legal proceedings and expert testimonies are pushing the industry toward a more rigorous standard: the “possible access” model.
In the ongoing inquest into the death of 14-year-old Noah Donohoe, a pupil at St Malachy’s College, the testimony of risk assessment expert Dr. Mark Cooper highlights a critical shift. Dr. Cooper stated he was “quite certain” that a “public safety issue” existed at the entrance to a culvert in north Belfast where the schoolboy was found.
The core of the future trend in risk management is the removal of assumptions. When experts observe that an adult can walk through security screens or bars, the risk is no longer theoretical—It’s eventuated. Future urban safety audits will likely prioritize physical accessibility over intended use, ensuring that if a space can be entered, it is either secured or deemed a high-priority hazard.
The concept of “eventuated risk” means that once a safety breach has occurred, the evidence of that breach fundamentally changes how the risk is viewed by experts and the courts.
Combatting “Hindsight Bias” in Infrastructure Law
One of the most complex challenges in modern safety litigation is “hindsight bias.” This occurs when an event happens, and observers believe the outcome was predictable, even if the available evidence at the time did not clearly point to that result.
During the Noah Donohoe inquest, civil engineer Brian Pope acknowledged that there is a “risk of hindsight bias,” noting that he was “acutely aware” of this when analyzing scenarios. This tension is becoming a central theme in how government bodies, such as the Department for Infrastructure, defend their safety protocols.
Moving forward, we can expect a trend toward “predictive auditing.” Rather than reacting to a tragedy, infrastructure managers will be required to produce documented “worst-case scenario” logs. This shifts the legal burden from proving what was known after a death to proving what was actively sought before an incident.
For more on how safety standards are evolving, notice our guide on modern urban liability laws.
Preventing Entrapment: The Future of Storm Drain Design
The physical design of culverts and storm drains is under renewed scrutiny. The inquest heard discussions regarding people becoming pinned against screens at culverts, a specific type of entrapment that can lead to drowning.
The trend in civil engineering is moving toward “anti-entrapment” geometry. This includes:
- Non-linear Screening: Replacing flat bars with angled or curved gratings that prevent a person from being pinned against the surface by water pressure.
- Enhanced Perimeter Hardening: Moving beyond simple fences to integrated barriers that are physically impossible for an adult to bypass.
- Smart Monitoring: Integrating sensors in high-risk water tunnels to alert authorities when unauthorized entry is detected.
When reporting a public safety hazard to local councils, use the term “unrestricted public access” and provide photographic evidence of how a person could enter the site. This terminology often triggers a higher priority response in risk assessment logs.
Government Accountability and the Shift Toward Proactive Audits
The role of the Department for Infrastructure (DFI) in the Noah Donohoe case underscores a broader trend: the decline of “passive maintenance.” In the past, if a culvert wasn’t reported as broken, it was often considered safe. That era is ending.
We are seeing a transition toward mandatory, periodic “stress tests” of public infrastructure. This means that instead of waiting for a report, agencies must proactively prove that their sites are secure. The use of expert witnesses like Dr. Mark Cooper to challenge the “adequacy” of current barriers is becoming a standard part of public inquests, forcing government bodies to adopt a “zero-failure” mentality.
You can read more about national health and safety standards to understand the benchmarks these agencies are measured against.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is hindsight bias in a safety investigation?
Hindsight bias is the tendency of people to overestimate their ability to have predicted an outcome that could not possibly have been predicted. In legal terms, it is the challenge of determining if a risk was truly obvious before an accident occurred.
How is “public safety risk” determined for urban culverts?
Experts evaluate the physical accessibility of the site, the likelihood of a person entering, and the potential for entrapment or drowning once inside. If an adult can easily bypass security measures, it is often classified as a public safety issue.
Who is typically responsible for the safety of storm drains and water tunnels?
Responsibility usually falls on the regional or national infrastructure department (such as the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland) or the local municipal water authority.
Join the Conversation
Do you believe urban infrastructure is designed with enough foresight to protect the public? Share your thoughts in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more deep dives into public safety and law.
