Suchergebnisse

Since 1974, the UK has followed a risk-based approach to safety that, in the event of an incident, is enforced through the courts. The legislation is intentionally non-prescriptive and thus requires duty holders and the courts to decide what control measures were reasonable in the circumstances from ex ante and ex post positions. This has proved challenging for all parties involved. This paper describes a series of cases that have shed light on the thought processes of the courts. It appears that there is some variability in decision-making that can be attributed to several factors, including understanding of the word "risk", the acceptability of residual risk and the validity of historical data as a means of measuring risk. In the aftermath of incidents, there is a real danger that psychological factors may intervene when the prior risk is being assessed for sentencing purposes. It is argued that while the risk-based model continues to enjoy widespread support in the UK and is not challenged, its implementation could be much eased by attention to details. This would serve to simplify courtroom debates, support those practising risk-based regulation and enable risks to be better prioritised.

This book aims to encourage a more reflective, multidisciplinary approach to public safety, and the 'reenfranchisement' of those affected by this new phenomenon. Over the past decade health and safety has become a major issue of public interest. There are countless stories of health and safety activities interfering with public life, preventing some beneficial activity from taking place - even creating absurd or dangerous situations. On the one hand, risk assessment, properly conducted, is highly beneficial - it saves lives and prevents injuries. But on the other, it can damage public life. Wh

Since 2000, the reputation of health and safety in the United Kingdom has been tarnished, so much so that it has become the subject of both a media circus and a government inquiry. This not only threatens the worthy goals of health and safety, but also impacts upon the associated tool of risk assessment itself such that "risk assessment" is increasingly seen by the public at large as a term inviting ridicule, even abuse. The main thrust of the government's examination of health and safety has been its concern that safety requirements were placing a disproportionate burden on business. However, there is another source of discontent, which is public chagrin over the impact of injury control measures upon life beyond the conventional workplace, in particular upon the public spaces that people frequent in their leisure time and on the activities they engage in there. This article provides a perspective on this second dimension of the crisis in confidence. It describes how many U.K. agencies with responsibilities for a wide portfolio of public amenities ranging from the provision of play spaces for the young to the management of publicly accessible countryside, the maintenance of urban and rural trees, the stewardship of sites of cultural heritage, and the pursuit of outdoor educational activities have responded to some conflicts posed to their services by the new safety culture. It concludes with a discussion of implications for the management of public space and for risk assessment itself.

Following a tragic accident in 1993 involving the deaths of teenagers while kayaking a new regulatory regime was imposed upon some adventure sports providers in the United Kingdom. In particular, a new regulatory body, the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA), was established to oversee the sector. Yet in 2010, a government‐sponsored review recommended that AALA be abolished and this recommendation has been quickly accepted by government. This article explores the background to these developments through documentation, interviews with those affected by the AALA regime, and court cases. Evidence reported here, perhaps surprising, is that AALA itself is seen in a very positive light by many, even those it regulates. What may have happened is that AALA became caught up in a wider debate about the place and management of risk in life beyond the workplace, which has been simmering in the United Kingdom for a decade or more, and of which it fell foul. It may also be that adventure sports, because they entail voluntary engagement with high consequence hazards, starkly expose serious questions about the application of conventional, factory‐originated risk assessment approaches to life in general.