The deadly dance with danger: Lessons from the Fuel Tank Tragedies in Uganda

By Sebaggala Richard

Within the space of a week, two catastrophic tanker accidents occurred in Uganda and Nigeria, in which numerous people lost their lives. These events, characterized by overturned tankers being ignited while onlookers gather to siphon fuel, are indicative of a broader pattern rather than isolated incidents. This incident is reminiscent of previous tragedies in Uganda. In 2013, a similar accident in Kampala killed 31 people, and in 2001, 90 people died in eastern Uganda in almost identical circumstances. Despite the well-documented dangers associated with such actions, people continue to engage in this dangerous behavior, which raises an important question: What motivates people to engage in such life-threatening activities even though they are aware of the risks involved?

While poverty is often cited as a major factor in these decisions, it is not a sufficient explanation on its own. A critical understanding of these recurring tragedies requires research into the psychological underpinnings of risk-taking behavior, particularly the cognitive biases that drive people to make dangerous decisions.

The immediate reason for these actions often has to do with economic desperation. Many people see these accidents as an opportunity to obtain a valuable resource — fuel — that they can use or sell for their financial gain. From a rational economic standpoint, such decisions can be interpreted as an expression of desperation, as individuals are willing to jeopardize their safety for short-term monetary gain in a context characterized by great scarcity. However, eyewitness accounts reveal a more complex scenario. One witness reported that the truck driver fled the scene while cautioning people to keep a safe distance. Footage from another observer shows an urgent request for others to leave the area, indicating that people were aware of the impending danger. Despite these warnings, many people continued to siphon fuel, indicating that they were aware of the potential consequences and were not deterred. This behavior indicates that the motives for such risky behavior go beyond mere economic need. Insights from behavioral economics that explore irrational behavior and cognitive biases — mental shortcuts that can distort decision-making in high-risk contexts — provide valuable clues as to why people engage in such dangerous practices.

The Limits of Rational Perspectives

The immediate reaction to fuel siphoning incidents often focuses on the obvious: poverty creates desperation, and desperation leads people to take risks. While poverty can indeed drive desperate acts like fuel siphoning, this rational economic explanation has limitations. Banerjee (2000) study, The Two Poverties, distinguishes between "poverty as desperation" and "poverty as vulnerability," which provides deeper insights into why people engage in risky behavior even when the dangers are clear.

Poverty as desperation suggests that individuals make high-risk decisions because their economic situation leaves them with little choice. In this view, people are driven to siphon fuel because the immediate need for survival outweighs long-term safety considerations. This framework aligns with the idea of rational decision-making, where the need to secure valuable resources, such as fuel, justifies taking extreme risks. However, poverty as vulnerability focuses on the precariousness of people's lives and the constant exposure to risks that make them more likely to engage in dangerous behaviors. Vulnerability is not just about immediate desperation but also about the chronic uncertainty and lack of safety nets that prevent individuals from making safer choices. In this context, even when people are aware of the risks or receive warnings, they may still engage in risky behavior because they have become conditioned to taking chances due to the absence of viable alternatives.

 

This distinction highlights that desperation alone does not explain why people knowingly place themselves in danger. Vulnerability compounds this issue by revealing how the structural conditions of poverty limit people's capacity to make safer, long-term decisions. Therefore, while the rational perspective explains part of the behavior, it overlooks the cognitive biases and psychological factors that interact with the chronic vulnerability experienced by many, leading to repeated engagement in high-risk activities.

 

Let us now examine how cognitive biases come into play, offering a broader framework for understanding these tragedies. Cognitive biases are psychological tendencies that influence decision-making, often leading to flawed judgments, particularly in complex or stressful situations. Several key biases help explain why people continue to ignore the clear dangers of siphoning fuel:

 

Optimism Bias: This bias leads individuals to believe that they are less likely to experience negative outcomes than others. In the case of fuel siphoning, people may acknowledge the risk of fire but assume that it will not happen to them. They believe they can extract the fuel quickly enough or that previous experiences of taking risks without harm mean that they will be safe this time.

Normalcy Bias: Many people involved in these incidents have likely encountered hazardous situations before, whether through handling fuel or being exposed to other dangerous materials, without serious consequences. This experience reinforces the belief that things will continue as usual, leading them to underestimate the risk of a catastrophic explosion.

Herd Behavior: The sight of others siphoning fuel creates a powerful social dynamic. When a few individuals begin to engage in the activity, others quickly follow suit, assuming that the collective action somehow reduces individual risk. This herd mentality overrides personal caution, as people rely on the behavior of the group rather than independent risk assessment.

Temporal Discounting: This bias causes individuals to prioritize immediate rewards over future risks. In the context of poverty, where survival often depends on day-to-day gains, the short-term benefit of obtaining free fuel can eclipse the long-term danger of a fire or explosion. The immediate need for fuel or the potential to sell it for cash can blind individuals to the potential for fatal consequences.

These cognitive biases don’t only explain behavior in fuel siphoning incidents; they extend to many aspects of life in African countries, shaping decisions related to health, education, and economic opportunities. These biases, combined with economic challenges, perpetuate cycles of poverty and suffering.

 

Broader Implications

The effects of cognitive biases are not limited to fuel siphoning. These psychological tendencies influence decision-making in various areas, lead to risky behavior and contribute to major social and economic challenges. A recent example is the COVID-19 pandemic, where governments around the world, including Uganda,  struggled to convince people to take preventive measures. Despite the obvious dangers posed by the virus, many people were reluctant to take health precautions such as wearing masks and social distancing.

The difficulty in enforcing these safety measures across the board can be attributed to cognitive biases such as the optimism bias (the belief that “I won’t get sick”) and the normalcy bias (the expectation that life will go on as usual despite the warnings). This bias made it difficult for public health campaigns to convince people to change their behavior in the face of an invisible but deadly threat.

A similar pattern is evident in the context of the upcoming general elections in Uganda. In previous elections, reckless behavior has claimed many lives, especially among boda-boda riders who ride dangerously on their motorcycles during campaign rallies. This behavior, often driven by the excitement of the campaign season, reflects both herd mentality and temporal discounting. Riders are influenced by the actions of like-minded individuals and focus on the immediate thrill or potential rewards without considering the long-term risks to their safety.

Delays in emergency response to accidents, such as tanker truck explosions, exacerbate the dangers posed by risky behavior. If emergency services take too long to arrive and secure the area, people are more likely to congregate to siphon fuel, which can have deadly consequences. Quick intervention could stop this behavior and prevent loss of life. However, Uganda’s emergency response capacity remains limited, especially in densely populated areas with many fuel stations, which are effectively “time bombs” if not properly managed.

As the country continues to urbanize, the growing number of petrol stations in close proximity to residential areas and businesses increases the risk of future fire disasters. Countries such as Brazil and India, which also face similar risks, have invested heavily in faster emergency response systems, including firefighting hubs near high-risk areas and advanced training for emergency personnel. These countries also enforce strict regulations on the placement of fuel stations and ensure that emergency response teams are equipped to deal with fuel-related accidents quickly. Uganda can look to these examples to strengthen its own fire prevention and emergency response systems.

Lessons for Uganda

To prevent future fuel tanker tragedies in Uganda, a multifaceted approach is needed—one that addresses both the root causes of poverty and the cognitive biases that contribute to risky behavior. While tackling poverty requires long-term solutions, raising awareness of cognitive biases and implementing targeted interventions can more swiftly mitigate their impact.

For example, public safety campaigns must do more than just inform people about the dangers of fuel siphoning. They should also address the cognitive biases that lead to risky behavior, such as optimism bias and normalcy bias. Campaigns could employ powerful stories of past tragedies to make the risks more tangible and immediate to the public. Community-led initiatives that engage people at the local level can further enhance the effectiveness of these campaigns by building trust and making the messages more relatable.

In addition, the government must strengthen its ability to quickly secure accident sites and prevent people from accessing hazardous areas. Institutional vigilance—through faster emergency responses and the enforcement of public safety regulations—will act as a necessary deterrent to dangerous behavior. Moreover, ensuring that disaster response teams are well-trained to manage crowds and protect public safety is essential for preventing future incidents.

Conclusion

The tragic fuel tanker fires in Uganda are not merely the result of poverty; they are part of a deeper issue rooted in cognitive biases—psychological tendencies that drive people to make risky decisions in high-stakes situations. These incidents illustrate a deadly dance with danger, where individuals, despite knowing the risks, are drawn to perilous behavior due to desperation and mental shortcuts. While poverty remains a significant factor, understanding and addressing these cognitive biases is key to preventing future tragedies and improving decision-making across various aspects of life in Africa.

To move forward, Uganda must adopt a multifaceted approach that tackles both cognitive biases and poverty, strengthens public safety governance, and creates economic opportunities. By raising awareness and providing safer alternatives to risky behavior, the country can begin to break free from this dangerous cycle of poverty and tragedy. These lessons extend beyond Uganda, offering valuable insights for all African nations striving to create safer and more prosperous futures for their people.