Compliance versus risk assessment: when have we done enough?

Howard J Parkinson

Journal of Risk and Reliability, 2013, vol. 227, issue 4, 360-367

Abstract: In the UK railway it is necessary to show that risks relating to any design solutions are as-low-as-reasonably-practicable. It is a legal requirement and in certain instances complying with a standard may be enough. However, in other circumstances we may have to perform a formal risk assessment. It seems clear that there is a continuum between the two positions but how do we know what to do and if that is enough? This article seeks to address the question. The UK risk acceptance approach, including the as-low-as-reasonably-practicable principle, is explored and the recent initiative of the common safety method is discussed. An example of a compliance safety process against standards is given using a case study based upon changes to rolling stock. A further example where risk assessment and a cost benefit analysis have been employed to support a safety argument for a non-compliant gradient is then presented, followed by concluding remarks.

Keywords: Risk acceptance; as-low-as-reasonably-practicable; compliance; risk assessment; cost benefit analysis; common safety method (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X13493240 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:4:p:360-367

DOI: 10.1177/1748006X13493240

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Risk and Reliability
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().