People in authority very often have to make a commercial decision to stop something simply because of the financial implications should that something go wrong - this is the main reason why Elf 'n safety gets such bad press. The likes of Councils are easy targets for the professional claims seekers, and the Claims 'R Us solicitors with their no win, no fee adverts just feed the claims culture. The only winners from making claims are the usurping f@@$%&g solicitors! Sensible risk management is exactly that - look at some of the things we have in place in our area of interest: Hans restraining device, good quality helmets, protective clothing, scrutineering before a race, marshalls on the track, an ambulance standing by with trained paramedics in attendance, straw bales or old tyres in front of walls etc.etc.etc.the list goes on and these measures do not detract from the thrills of Motorsport but are there in case something goes wrong - I reiterate: this is sensible risk management. "We cannot legislate for stupidity" - well actually, they have tried and in doing so have placed the onus on the employer to protect the health, safety and welfare of employees as far as is reasonably practicable. If an employee (or non-employee for that matter) has an accident on the employers premises, the law states that the employer has to have done everything that is reasonably within their power to prevent that accident from occurring (which as we all know is virtually impossible)and therefore, that employer is liable and there is no defence in law to put the blame solely on to the individual. So, spare a thought for the decision makers when they decide to stop or ban something - it is invariably a commercial decision based on financial risk to the company, but it is far easier (and more topical) to blame h & s for the unpopular decision. Apologies for the lecture...
|
|