Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Safety claims can be 'ludicrous'

LETTERS

Our Institution's objective is defined in our Charter as 'to foster and promote the art and science of civil engineering'.

However, our own Health and Safety Board describes its objective as 'to facilitate best practice in the delivery of Health and Safety Management Policy'.

Although such an objective might be very valuable, it is not 'civil engineering', and I would question whether any direct support of such a specific objective is appropriate for our Institution.

A Health and Safety Board may have a place within the structure of the HSE, and we would need representation on such a board. Our Institution needs a formal body charged with critical review of the many unsubstantiated allegations that face us, especially from the HSE and the National Audit Office.

They might start with HSE reports RR156 and RR218, both of which have recently been published to support the proposition that 'the engineer' is to blame for most accidents.

Instead of this, they tell us that the majority of accidents involve roofing, scaffolding and housekeeping.

Many claims against designers are frankly ludicrous.

We must support engineers such as Andrew Allen when they are faced with what many of us would describe as politically motivated prosecution, or we shall fail in our duty to foster and promote civil engineering.

David Cooper (M), david@dijacooper. fsnet.co.uk

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.