IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v227y2013i4p360-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Compliance versus risk assessment: when have we done enough?

Author

Listed:
  • Howard J Parkinson

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Howard J Parkinson, 2013. "Compliance versus risk assessment: when have we done enough?," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(4), pages 360-367, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:4:p:360-367
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X13493240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X13493240
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X13493240?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:4:p:360-367. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.