[SystemSafety] MISRA publishes Guidelines for Automotive Safety Arguments

[Olwen Morgan]

My recently reported experiences with a Ford Grand C Max do not 
encourage me in the belief that automotive "industry norms" are fit for 
purpose. I'm still struggling on occasion with what I regard as  
somewhat-less-than-felicitous cruise control and speed limiter behaviour.


Olwen




On 27/09/2019 17:10, Martyn Thomas wrote:
>
> On 27/09/2019 16:46, Derek M Jones wrote:
>
>> How does anybody figure out where "so far as is reasonably practical"
>
> HSE says:
>
> /The definition set out by the Court of Appeal (in its judgment in 
> Edwards v. National Coal Board, [1949] 1 All ER 743) is:/
>
> //
>
> /“‘Reasonably practicable’ is a narrower term than ‘physically 
> possible’ … a computation must be made by the owner in which the 
> quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in 
> the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time 
> or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that 
> there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being 
> insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge 
> the onus on them.”/
>
> //
>
> /In essence, making sure a risk has been reduced ALARP is about 
> weighing the risk against the sacrifice needed to further reduce it. 
> The decision is weighted in favour of health and safety because the 
> presumption is that the duty-holder should implement the risk 
> reduction measure. To avoid having to make this sacrifice, the 
> duty-holder must be able to show that it would be grossly 
> disproportionate to the benefits of risk reduction that would be 
> achieved. Thus, the process is not one of balancing the costs and 
> benefits of measures but, rather, of adopting measures except where 
> they are ruled out because they involve grossly disproportionate 
> sacrifices. Extreme examples might be:/
>
> //
>
>   * /To spend £1m to prevent five staff suffering bruised knees is
>     obviously grossly disproportionate; but /
>   * /To spend £1m to prevent a major explosion capable of killing 150
>     people is obviously proportionate./
>
> //
>
> /Of course, in reality many decisions about risk and the controls that 
> achieve ALARP are not so obvious. Factors come into play such as 
> ongoing costs set against remote chances of one-off events, or daily 
> expense and supervision time required to ensure that, for example, 
> employees wear ear defenders set against a chance of developing 
> hearing loss at some time in the future. It requires judgment. There 
> is no simple formula for computing what is ALARP./
>
>
> There's more detail on how HSE expects its inspectors to apply the law 
> here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/expert.htm
>
>
>
> HSWA explicitly says 
> <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/section/40> that the 
> burden of showing that a risk has been reduced SFAIRP falls on the 
> person who seeks to rely on it.
>
> *40 Onus of proving limits of what is practicable etc.**
> *
> /In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory 
> provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or 
> requirement to do something so far as is practicable or so far as is 
> reasonably practicable, or to use the best practicable means to do 
> something, it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) 
> that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more 
> than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that 
> there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy 
> the duty or requirement.//
> /
> Martyn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> Manage your subscription: https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20191001/a8c8c82b/attachment.html>