matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,603
I hear you and agree and to an extent also get angry about the "complexity inflation" that leads to cost multiples in all our large infrastructure projects. But the problem that is always overlooked is that this is not created by privatisation and therefore won't be solved by nationalisation. The problem is the "Regulation Industry" - an entirely public sector set of Government Agencies whose own existence depends on producing regulation - and to ensure they do they are also monitored by the National Audit Office stood behind them. I have had several years of dealing with OFGEM and OFCOM and exactly the same applies to the ORR and the myriad of departments responsible for different aspects and layers of safety. I'n not arguing against safety, of course not, but the Government's Regulation Layer exists as much to protect politicians as it does to assure safety, and it will not go away. I can tell you that the (private sector) Civil Engineers and Project Managers are as sick to death of the constant need to back up a plan by months and start again because of some new regulation that some bright spark in some department has thought to bring in - and in many cases the Regulators themselves when rarely called to account, come up with some lame excuse about "aligning with EU directives " or some such drivel because they forgot to ask for a derogation despite repeated prodding from NR. Perhaps I am as angry as you after all
Happy to agree with all of the above
Safety Industry
Of course in the safety industry, it is necessary to ensure that everyone's back is completely covered and the way to do it is to design an over-zealous safety regime which causes costs to balloon to such an extent the project gets cancelled (or never started) - hence no risk incurred! If you work in 'safety', then you take not even the smallest risk whatsoever as there is no personal gain from doing so and if by any unbelievably small mischance something does go wrong, you will likely get sacked. Its also incumbent on you to create ever-increasing amounts of paperwork and checking, such as inordinately detailed safety cases, as the volume of such stuff likely determines your chances of promotion. Actually enabling something to actually be implemented in a cost-effective and timely manner with appropriate levels of safety is not in the remit of the safety industry (particularly rail safety).
I should add that a nod towards relative safety might be worth considering. eg, safety case says the railway needs to fence in hundreds of miles of track (at huge cost) to stop some idiots straying onto the track, but the same idiots can just walk off the roadside into the path of a car whilst texting on their iphone - yet this is either not deemed unsafe as safety case isn't bothered that there are no barriers or its just not worth it? This means that rail costs are disproportionately high, fares higher to cover costs, so people go by car or bus (how many buses are disability compliant? and yet trains take all the stick).
