Risk assessment is an imprecise art. Because it covers every conceivable activity there are few rules that can be applied to it. Current UK law probably had it about right when, in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, it required employers to safeguard the health safety and welfare of employees,
as far as is reasonably practicable. The term 'risk assessment' first came to UK citizens' awareness in 1992 through the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations: employers were required to make a 'suitable and sufficient' assessment of the health and safety risks to employees. The intent was good, but the whole process was soon muddied by lawyers forcing spurious claims, aided by insurance companies unwilling to contest those claims with enough vigour. Insurance companies now charge premiums for taking on clients' risks then proceed to burden them with processes designed to eliminate risk. This is totally unnatural and unreasonable. All life is a risk. Without risk life loses its stimulation, and without overcoming the risks presented, life's rewards are lessened. We should try to move back to the original principle of 'reasonable practicability'. Two examples of risk assessment gone wrong: On the macro scale - The Japanese nuclear power authorities had undertaken design risk assessments for the effects of seismic activity on their reactors located on the coast but patently miscalculated the likelihood and effects of tsunami. On a micro scale, the writer witnessed a contractor erecting a floor-mounted sign to warn of an eneven floor. A lady fell over the sign.
