An idle muse on speed cameras and Health & Safety
Discussion
I have been reading, with a good deal of interest, recent threads on here about whether or not speed cameras cause accidents, are the catalysts for accidents to happen, and who is actually to blame if an accident happens next to a speed camera site.
I’d like to explore a new tangent.
We all seem to be ruled by Health & Safety legislation these days. Kids are no longer allowed to play conkers in case one of ‘em gets a fragment in the eye; the railways are investing millions in putting up security fencing along their tracks in case some berk, accidentally or on purpose, gets on to the line and gets himself killed or maimed; we will shortly no longer be able to have a fag in a pub in case we kill someone through passive smoking; I have even heard of restaurants that will no longer serve rare steaks because of Health & Safety concerns about eating undercooked food. Etc etc - the list goes on and on … and on .... and on ......
Health & Safety legislation these days seems increasingly biased towards the “victim,” whether or not that victim was being an arsehole in the first place in doing whatever he/she was doing.
My question is this. If there is even the remotest possibility that the sight of a speed camera van will cause some Neanderthal half-wit to panic brake and cause an accident by so doing, then are the camera partnerships not under some duty of care under Health & Safety legislation to make sure that their actions do not bring about the circumstances to make this happen?
Could it not be argued that the partnerships should have known, or should reasonably have anticipated, that their actions in placing a speed camera at a given site, was detrimental to Health & Safety? Could an action brought by a “victim” of such an accident be brought against them?
Any thoughts, anybody?
I’d like to explore a new tangent.
We all seem to be ruled by Health & Safety legislation these days. Kids are no longer allowed to play conkers in case one of ‘em gets a fragment in the eye; the railways are investing millions in putting up security fencing along their tracks in case some berk, accidentally or on purpose, gets on to the line and gets himself killed or maimed; we will shortly no longer be able to have a fag in a pub in case we kill someone through passive smoking; I have even heard of restaurants that will no longer serve rare steaks because of Health & Safety concerns about eating undercooked food. Etc etc - the list goes on and on … and on .... and on ......
Health & Safety legislation these days seems increasingly biased towards the “victim,” whether or not that victim was being an arsehole in the first place in doing whatever he/she was doing.
My question is this. If there is even the remotest possibility that the sight of a speed camera van will cause some Neanderthal half-wit to panic brake and cause an accident by so doing, then are the camera partnerships not under some duty of care under Health & Safety legislation to make sure that their actions do not bring about the circumstances to make this happen?
Could it not be argued that the partnerships should have known, or should reasonably have anticipated, that their actions in placing a speed camera at a given site, was detrimental to Health & Safety? Could an action brought by a “victim” of such an accident be brought against them?
Any thoughts, anybody?
deltafox said:
As soon as the operator sees the panic braking they will be aware of the possibility of a crash, so yes would be the answer.
Which is why they pack up their tents and run when it does happen in front of them.
Have had to stop with the Mrs more than once at an accident (she's a doc), do the police have some similar obligation ?
I've just come off the phone to Northants SCP.
My licence has now been with them for SEVEN weeks for endorsement.
Spoke to a very nice lady who said they were snowed under with work and had months of backlog to deal with.
She did agree to send my licence back this afternoon, which is good as I'll need it this weekend.
Poor cow, I did feel sorry for her, shes at the front end of this misery, thanks to the gutless cowards in the vans.
My licence has now been with them for SEVEN weeks for endorsement.
Spoke to a very nice lady who said they were snowed under with work and had months of backlog to deal with.
She did agree to send my licence back this afternoon, which is good as I'll need it this weekend.
Poor cow, I did feel sorry for her, shes at the front end of this misery, thanks to the gutless cowards in the vans.
rs1952 said:
My question is this. If there is even the remotest possibility that the sight of a speed camera van will cause some Neanderthal half-wit to panic brake and cause an accident by so doing, then are the camera partnerships not under some duty of care under Health & Safety legislation to make sure that their actions do not bring about the circumstances to make this happen?
Could it not be argued that the partnerships should have known, or should reasonably have anticipated, that their actions in placing a speed camera at a given site, was detrimental to Health & Safety? Could an action brought by a “victim” of such an accident be brought against them?
Any thoughts, anybody?
My thoughts are logically yes, however it could backfire in that they may be encouraged to hide them to prevent this possibility............
No duty of care in respect of people panic braking (much like people panic braking when they see a police car) but if camera vehicle is parked dangerously or illegally then it's a big no no and they would be very liable if it caused an accident.
Working in H&S I get really hacked off with cretins (often local authorities and insurance companies) who want to ban something, can't find a genuine reason, so play the 'elf n safety innit' card.
Safety should be sensible and contry to popular belief isn't absolute blck and white but there are three levels of duty in law and risk assessment.
No, because the rules don't apply to Blair's Bureaucratic Nazis.
There are standards and complaints organisations for all the people who do the actual work - Cops, Teachers, Doctors, Nurses and so on. There's also one for elected councillors.
There is nothing for unelected officials and quangocrats.
People used to complain about how ineffective the PCA was ; that was nothing compared to this. You complain to the entity itself, and even if you get as far as the Ombudsman you can take no action that is effective against the bureaucrat, whatever they have done.
Perfect example is Byers/Railtrack. If this was translated into Police-ese to get a conviction for a killing during a robbery would be impossible, because the killing wouldn't be the "primary motivation" (that would be the robbery) so therefore NFA.
There are standards and complaints organisations for all the people who do the actual work - Cops, Teachers, Doctors, Nurses and so on. There's also one for elected councillors.
There is nothing for unelected officials and quangocrats.
People used to complain about how ineffective the PCA was ; that was nothing compared to this. You complain to the entity itself, and even if you get as far as the Ombudsman you can take no action that is effective against the bureaucrat, whatever they have done.
Perfect example is Byers/Railtrack. If this was translated into Police-ese to get a conviction for a killing during a robbery would be impossible, because the killing wouldn't be the "primary motivation" (that would be the robbery) so therefore NFA.
Safety Engineer said:
Working in H&S I get really hacked off with cretins (often local authorities and insurance companies) who want to ban something, can't find a genuine reason, so play the 'elf n safety innit' card.
Safety should be sensible and contry to popular belief isn't absolute blck and white but there are three levels of duty in law and risk assessment.
There is some truth in this. The other big lies are "Data Protection" and "Doing It For The Children". The appearance of either of these is good evidence said person is lying through their teeth.
Having said that, yes "Safety should be sensible" but not everyone thinks like this. Quangos main aim in life is not their stated aim, but to build their empire. To do this they need to generate work for themselves and ideally scare stories.
Like it or not, there is a mass abdication of responsibility and a mentality that people should be protected from their own stupidity and the consequences of their own actions, and H&S are partly responsible for this (Compo culture sharing it).
autismuk said:
Like it or not, there is a mass abdication of responsibility and a mentality that people should be protected from their own stupidity and the consequences of their own actions, and H&S are partly responsible for this (Compo culture sharing it).
Is it not right & proper though that where somebody could lose their life through the stupidity of their own actions, but H&S regulation that only minutely curtails the otherwise legal actions of the brighter party, could still aid in saving the dimwit, we should have a moral duty to do that ? Is saving the unnecessary loss of life of the vulnerable not the primary aim in that & important so that they live & learn to become a more useful member of society rather than just a statistic to the state & heartbreak for their family ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 14th March 06:59
[quote=vonhosenIs it not right & proper though that where somebody could lose their life through the stupidity of their own actions, but H&S regulation that only minutely curtails the otherwise legal actions of the brighter party, could still aid in saving the dimwit, we should have a moral duty to do that ? Is saving the unnecessary loss of life of the vulnerable not the primary aim in that & important so that they live & learn to become a more useful member of society rather than just a statistic to the state & heartbreak for their family ?
[/quote]
No. The problem is "minutely". Before the factory acts and such like you had ungarded machines ; that needed some control. However, it is now *out* of control and the Population expects to be protected from *any* act by the Nanny State. It is infantilism.
You can't win anyway. You put up fences, children will climb over them, you put up signs they'll ignore them.
It has to be proportional. Businesses are drowning under pointless rules dreamt up by Blair's quango army in an attempt to keep themselves in work.
So, one could argue, are BiBs.
[/quote]
No. The problem is "minutely". Before the factory acts and such like you had ungarded machines ; that needed some control. However, it is now *out* of control and the Population expects to be protected from *any* act by the Nanny State. It is infantilism.
You can't win anyway. You put up fences, children will climb over them, you put up signs they'll ignore them.
It has to be proportional. Businesses are drowning under pointless rules dreamt up by Blair's quango army in an attempt to keep themselves in work.
So, one could argue, are BiBs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff