We ought not be doing what we do because the law says so.
But I am stunned OP can be studying a Grad Dip and the law isn't mentioned at all in the course. — Andrew
Normal answer to that is - "yes, but it is vague that you have to manage the risks of your work" and then turning the question back to them with some vein of "could someone potentially get hurt? And is there anything we could reasonably do now, that we would wish we would have done if they did end up getting hurt)?"Sadly, there are still dinosaurs out there who will ask "is there a legal requirement to do this or that", so personally I favour a prescriptive approach to a minimum standard, embellish all you want after achieving that.. — Steve H
Except if you are equating it to the HSWA approach each driver would be expected to make that assessment based on the relevant knowledge available regarding the risks - which would include considering the available knowledge regarding their own vehicle safety, the safety of other potential vehicles on the road, the engineering of road design, weather patterns, the maintenance schedule for the road they are driving to assess current condition of the road, notifications of damage to the roads (fallen tress, slips, etc.), work scope of any construction of maintenance road works, etc.I look at it this way, the road rules could say, do a H&S assessment and then drive at the speed that your assessment tells you you will arrive safely- not really going to work is it (although in the absence of traffic enforcement, that is what happens frequently)
Prescriptive standards in H&S are good in theory, but in practice do they not tend to exacerbating the problem? Since:My point is, even now, there are folk out there who will try and do less if they can get away with it, hence their question "is there a legal requirement for me to incur cost by having to do this" — Steve H
but I already need to finish my "The answer is capitalism, just ask Rasmussen" post for that one. — MattD2
I can't remember but I don't think the prosecution had any grounds to appeal - they can't appeal just because the don't like the judgement.In the case you cite, the beak sided with the driver, probably should have been appealed by the Police Traffic Prosecutor, but that's their call. — Steve H
If you are interested in workplace health & safety in New Zealand, then this is the discussion forum for you.