• Home
  • RRC
  • About this Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Register
  • Logout
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Your Health, Safety and Environment Partner

  • Health & Safety
  • Environmental Management
  • Events
  • Show Search
Hide Search
Loftstedt – Chapter 3

Loftstedt – Chapter 3

David Towlson · 08/12/2011 ·

Yesterday, I happened to be in the Stoke-on-Trent area, hoping to cut across the A50 to pass by Loughborough on my way back down South. The A50 was unfortunately closed, the radio lady said, due to a diesel fuel spill. The ‘road ahead closed’ signs confirmed this but offered little advice as to an alternative. I occasionally use a SatNav but this insisted that I keep returning to the blocked route in some voyeuristic tendency.

The point is, accidents are costly. The costs go way beyond the immediate accident and can be difficult to predict or estimate with any certainty. In my case, it was easy to see the effects spread as people searched for alternative routes, causing severe delays elsewhere.

Loftstedt reminds us, in chapter 3 that regulations also have cost implications. In negative terms, this is often referred to as a burden on business. All the time and effort spent in even trying to understand what is required, let alone misinterpreting it and even over-complying with. For example, ridiculously detailed quantified risk assessments for obvious risks with obvious solutions. There have been attempts to estimate this financially and it is always a large figure. In boy-racer terms, it’s at least several hundred Bugatti Veyrons or several billion beer tokens. It seems, that most of the costs are associated with a small number of demanding regulations; echoes of the Pareto principal. These regulations seem obsessively bureaucratic and administrative.

Overall, the cost of accidents can dwarf the cost of compliance with related regulation. In other words, compliance with regulation avoids those accidents. Not all regulation is effective or has a proven ‘protective link’. Indeed it is quite difficult to prove such a link. Nonetheless, there is a “generally accepted” negative correlation between them i.e. that regulation reduces accidents or at least it is a significant factor. Clearly there are many factors at play, including the insurance industry and changes within our industrial profile over the years.

Complying with regulations designed to avoid said accidents means that you may not be entirely convinced that such accidents would ever have happened.

Prof Loftstedt reminds us that one of the main problems in practice is misapplication (over-compliance). This is the concept of, over-restrictive rules having been created and health and safety blamed. The real reasons may not even be health and safety-related. But health and safety is conveniently hated and ridiculed already.

Some of these will be identified in the next blog.

Tweet
Share
Pin
Share

Filed Under: Health & Safety, NEBOSH Tagged With: benefit, Cost, Loftstedt, regulation, Towlson

Primary Sidebar

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram

Popular Posts

Considerations of management system integrationConsiderations of management system integration0 Total Shares
Phew, what a scorcher!Phew, what a scorcher!0 Total Shares
Invasive speciesInvasive species0 Total Shares

Categories

Latest Articles

  • Considerations of management system integration
  • Phew, what a scorcher!
  • Invasive species
  • Naughty Naughty!
  • Operational Control 101
  • Reflections on the return of the Expos
  • NG2/IG2 – Helpful hints and common errors
  • A risk creates an opportunity
  • Don’t touch that phone!
  • NEBOSH Environment Management Certificate Practical Assessment (2021 syllabus) – Passing First Time

Article Archive

Count per Day

  • 3280Visitors per month:

Admin

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
Copyright © 2022 • Daily Dish Pro on Genesis Framework • WordPress • Log in