Publisher's Synopsis
This study was undertaken with the aim of establishing the extent to which the interpretation placed, by the management of Britain's railways, on the concept of reasonable practicability in common and statute law meets the probable expectations of those who were instrumental in making relevant judgements and guidance. In doing so it examines, with respect to health and safety law, the use and interpretation of the term 'reasonably practicable' in statute and case law, it reviews the development of the concept of 'as low as reasonably practicable' (ALARP) and draws conclusions. The views of 297 railway managers and staff and others closely involved in the railways were sought through a questionnaire. Over 46% of those targeted responded so providing a valuable sample of views across the industry. The findings confirmed a strong awareness of issues related to judgements of reasonable practicability and also some polarisation of views. The study concludes that the philosophy behind the ALARP principle and the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSW Act) are the same. However it also concludes that the way that ALARP has been used as a tool on the railways does not necessarily satisfy the spirit of the HSW Act and that more must be done to help managers understand how the constraints within which railway undertakings have to operate relate to obligations under the Act. On completion this thesis was submitted in part fulfilment of the Masters Degree programme at the University of Surrey for which a distinction was awarded. It should be noted that descriptions of the railway network, organisational structure and legislative framework relate to those in place in 2004.
