The panic button lecture talked of designs that prepare for risk. I think it would be interesting to talk about recently proposed safety gear. Reading other blogs on this topic I don’t believe this area has been discussed in much depth. When thinking of risk I think of some form of protection that acts as a deterrent. Ulrich Beck proclaims that “The essence of risk is not that it is happening, but that it might be happening”.

Safety; “like love, it is a universal feeling and, as such, has inspired endless analytical thinking and motivated science, literature, religion and art. On our sleeves we not only wear our hearts but also big red panic buttons” (Safe, design takes on risk, Paola Antonelli). Do we necessarily need an object to condone our panic? This is an appealing subject I thought about whilst reading Lena’s blog (06 March 2007) “How would pushing this panic button assist me in remaining calm and to act accordingly in a given situation?” Beck argues that “risks are manufactured, not only through the application of technologies, but also in the making of sense and by the technological sensibility of potential harm, danger or threat”. In some cases he is right but this gear can “deal with self-preservation. Created to protect body and mind from dangerous or stressful situations convey information, promote awareness, and provide a sense of comfort and security”.



Fig. 1

Helmets prepare us for risk, in case we fall off our bikes we are more likely to survive by wearing one. “Protective garments of accessories, however, rely mainly on materials that allow them to perform as thicker skins or outer shells of the human body”. There are advance types of protection such as the design ‘Suited for subversion’ (Fig. 1) “A civil-disobedience suit to be worn by street protesters to protect themselves from police batons”. As a designer I am often thinking about how to prepare for a mugging. Often I carry a deodorant spray, other than a rape alarm. The only concern is that the objects can be used against you. Fascinatingly the ‘Design against crime’ (Fig. 2) company produced some bags made of material consisting of electronic and durable textile material (Cordura) “resistant to abrasion” and a built in “anti attack alarm” to scare off the criminal. “The philosophy of this design initiative is that the best protection against crime is awareness and willingness to take some basic precautions in public places”.



Fig. 2

We have talked about safety gear for ourselves but what about animals? It could be argued that animals should be able to fend for themselves. Are animals already equipped with protection? Do they need our help? We take pets in as part of our family and it should be part of our responsibility. Some people dress their pets but I think that is often a fashion piece. It seems awful given a fire you are advised not to save your pet if they are in danger. Bill Burns exhibited a “curious collection of safety gear for small animals”(Fig. 3)This is quite tongue in cheek. But there to provoke thought about protecting animals rather than its actual use. “He exploits the ridiculous to spark conversation about serious questions”. In depth art news reviewed that “Safety Gear for Small Animals is about animal rescue, relocation and rehabilitation”. There have been various solutions to protect animals; such as horse shoes to prevent from damaging their hooves. I can envisage further design solutions to prepare for risk.



Fig. 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Indepth Arts News: “Bill Burns: Safety Gear for Small Animals”
2004-06-25 until 2004-10-31
Tom Thomson Memorial Art Gallery

The risk society and beyond: Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck and Joost Van Loon.

Safe: design takes on risk: Paola Antonelli.