ADUK Archive

revian wrote: I wonder if the tendency is to become increasingly risk-adverse?

Yes.

revian wrote:

vonhosen wrote:
If you were paralysed by fear you'd ban motor vehicles all together. That's quite different from responsible measures to limit the risks/impact they have on lives so that an acceptable social balance is struck between the positives they offer & the negatives.

I'd agree that 'an acceptable social balance' is the need/important. I wonder if the tendency is to become increasingly risk-adverse?

Ian

Individuals will have a personal view, the job of the government is to gauge the balance across the board. Of course that means there will be individuals who find their personal view doesn't reflect favourably with where it's pitched by the government & the more extreme their personal view the more out of kilter that may seem.

vonhosen wrote:Individuals will have a personal view, the job of the government is to gauge the balance across the board. Of course that means there will be individuals who find their personal view doesn't reflect favourably with where it's pitched by the government & the more extreme their personal view the more out of kilter that may seem.

I think my concern is that government (of any colour) seem less able,or even willing, to gauge the 'balance across the board'. 'Short-termism' / 'knee jerk' are the common accusations. Maybe it's too off topic but doesnt this sit there under all/most law changes including transport?

Maybe Im getting a bit more dinosaur with each day...

Ian

revian wrote:

vonhosen wrote:Individuals will have a personal view, the job of the government is to gauge the balance across the board. Of course that means there will be individuals who find their personal view doesn't reflect favourably with where it's pitched by the government & the more extreme their personal view the more out of kilter that may seem.

I think my concern is that government (of any colour) seem less able,or even willing, to gauge the 'balance across the board'. 'Short-termism' / 'knee jerk' are the common accusations. Maybe it's too off topic but doesnt this sit there under all/most law changes including transport?

Maybe Im getting a bit more dinosaur with each day...

Ian

The problem is that most people are incredibly bad at both quantifying and understanding risk. There is almost no-one in government with scientific experience to be able to understand and explain risk - never mind the problem of trying to explain it to the media/population at large.

jont wrote:

revian wrote:

vonhosen wrote:Individuals will have a personal view, the job of the government is to gauge the balance across the board. Of course that means there will be individuals who find their personal view doesn't reflect favourably with where it's pitched by the government & the more extreme their personal view the more out of kilter that may seem.

I think my concern is that government (of any colour) seem less able,or even willing, to gauge the 'balance across the board'. 'Short-termism' / 'knee jerk' are the common accusations. Maybe it's too off topic but doesnt this sit there under all/most law changes including transport?

Maybe Im getting a bit more dinosaur with each day...

Ian

The problem is that most people are incredibly bad at both quantifying and understanding risk. There is almost no-one in government with scientific experience to be able to understand and explain risk - never mind the problem of trying to explain it to the media/population at large.

+1 And the threads on alcohol levels/speed limits join up! Don't challenge it though. You don't want to be 'on the wrong side of history'!

Ian

revian wrote:

vonhosen wrote:If you were paralysed by fear you'd ban motor vehicles all together. That's quite different from responsible measures to limit the risks/impact they have on lives so that an acceptable social balance is struck between the positives they offer & the negatives.

I'd agree that 'an acceptable social balance' is the need/important. I wonder if the tendency is to become increasingly risk-adverse?

Ian

Yes, I think it is, and I certainly do not like it. It's all very well trying to ensure reasonable protection against excessive risk, and I support that approach, but IMHO we seem to be losing freedom rather too much. There is far too much official interference in our lives, and I'll mention a (non-motoring) example that is increasingly apparent.

In August, Eileen and I moved to a new home, a detached bungalow with a large garden in a beautiful location, and we love it. However, it is a property built in the 1960s and the central heating system needs improving, so that we can maintain satisfactory comfort levels at lower cost, lower energy consumption, and lower emissions etc.

I'm therefore gathering information about the various options with a view to carrying out some heating/plumbing alterations: the sort of thing I've done successfully with three previous homes during tha past 30+ years, without any interference from anybody.

Now, however, every time I look on the internet or in books on the subject, I'm seeing frequent references to the need for planning permission (maybe), compliance with building regulations, consultation with building control etc., and finding that I'm supposed to present my detailed plans to the local authority, and submit a formal application to carry out the work, and pay a fee for them to consider my proposals, and hopefully receive their permission to carry out the work.

As far as I'm concerned this is ridiculous and highly objectionable, but it is but one more example of officialdom intruding further into the way we run our lives. I accept that it is appropriate to have some basic framework of rules to avoid, for example, unsafe constructional work being carried out, but it looks as if I'm no longer allowed to carry out plumbing work in my own home, a home bought and paid for by Eileen and me.

Many people may feel that this sort of thing is all quite logical and reasonable, but I do not. To me there is already far too much of this regulatory inteference, and I see no sign of it ceasing. let alone being reduced. Unless something is done to put a stop to it, it could get much worse: where is it all going to end?

I think officialdom is out of step with the majority of normal folk. Normal folk are happy to accept risk in their lives. Government thinks it will be blamed whenever something goes wrong and is ludicrously intolerant of risk. The media occupy both extremes, blaming government whenever something goes wrong but laughing at government for their 'elf'n safety' efforts to prevent anything going wrong.

Ah yes... Part P! I'd agree. I'm very happy and reasonably competant to extend ring mains and do other 'dangerous' stuff. I've been doing that since I was a kid... If I'm uncertain then I step back for someone else. Joan and I have bought a house to retire in which needs some work. I'm now always asking not 'can I do this?' But 'Am I allowed to do this?"

I share the frustration...

Ian

waremark wrote:I think officialdom is out of step with the majority of normal folk. Normal folk are happy to accept risk in their lives. Government thinks it will be blamed whenever something goes wrong and is ludicrously intolerant of risk. The media occupy both extremes, blaming government whenever something goes wrong but laughing at government for their 'elf'n safety' efforts to prevent anything going wrong.

We & the government accept risk, if that wasn't the case we'd do nothing & everything would be banned. That's not the case though. It's not just the media occupy both extremes, parts of the population do too (with everybody else covering all the ground in between).

TripleS wrote:There is far too much official interference in our lives

Indeed. There is always the option to treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it, but we shouldn't be being forced into having to consider that approach in the first place. A contemptible level of interference should never have come about, but we've made the mistake of giving people who seek to control others too much tolerance.

It seems government is going to be rather short of money for rather longer than we thought. Perhaps that might be the impetus for hearing a bit more of "while xyz is a problem government could address, it's not an appropriate area for us to poke our noses into people's lives." Even if it's just an excuse when the real reason is "we can't afford to", more of it would till be welcome. I don't hold out much hope though.

GJD wrote:

TripleS wrote:There is far too much official interference in our lives

Indeed. There is always the option to treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it, but we shouldn't be being forced into having to consider that approach in the first place. A contemptible level of interference should never have come about, but we've made the mistake of giving people who seek to control others too much tolerance.

And of course the problem is the vast majority do treat many rules with contempt (rather than oppose the restrictions) only to then to seem surprised and upset when caught out.

vonhosen wrote:It's not just the media occupy both extremes, parts of the population do too (with everybody else covering all the ground in between).

The problem is when the more risk averse elements of the population are allowed to impose their views on others. There's no reason they shouldn't be free to pay somebody else to refit their central heating, but they are forcing Dave to do it their way too. That is extremely unpleasant, selfish behaviour on their part and it shouldn't be tolerated.

GJD wrote:

vonhosen wrote:It's not just the media occupy both extremes, parts of the population do too (with everybody else covering all the ground in between).

The problem is when the more risk averse elements of the population are allowed to impose their views on others. There's no reason they shouldn't be free to pay somebody else to refit their central heating, but they are forcing Dave to do it their way too. That is extremely unpleasant, selfish behaviour on their part and it shouldn't be tolerated.

But there will be occasions that somebody fits their central heating & other people's lives or property are damaged as a result. There needs to be an assured standard of fit. If the incidence of the former is low then a simple checking system may suffice, whilst if the incidence of the former are judged to be too high then more draconian systems are likely to be imposed.

GJD wrote:

vonhosen wrote:It's not just the media occupy both extremes, parts of the population do too (with everybody else covering all the ground in between).

The problem is when the more risk averse elements of the population are allowed to impose their views on others. There's no reason they shouldn't be free to pay somebody else to refit their central heating, but they are forcing Dave to do it their way too. That is extremely unpleasant, selfish behaviour on their part and it shouldn't be tolerated.

I'm a bit torn by this one. We've been on the other side of things - having to get DIY work by a previous owner of a house replaced/fixed as it was completely unfit for purpose (the same house we had to get transco out the day we got the keys to sort out a leaking gas fire ).

And as an Electronic engineer, the Part P regs annoy me too (and there's no guarantee a "certified" tradesperson will actually do a competent job).

The real problem I have with the regs is that they can't/don't stop the incompetent, while putting red tape in the way of those who are competent, but would also prefer to do things legally. I don't know how you fix that

jont wrote:

GJD wrote:

vonhosen wrote:It's not just the media occupy both extremes, parts of the population do too (with everybody else covering all the ground in between).

The problem is when the more risk averse elements of the population are allowed to impose their views on others. There's no reason they shouldn't be free to pay somebody else to refit their central heating, but they are forcing Dave to do it their way too. That is extremely unpleasant, selfish behaviour on their part and it shouldn't be tolerated.

I'm a bit torn by this one. We've been on the other side of things - having to get DIY work by a previous owner of a house replaced/fixed as it was completely unfit for purpose (the same house we had to get transco out the day we got the keys to sort out a leaking gas fire ).

And as an Electronic engineer, the Part P regs annoy me too (and there's no guarantee a "certified" tradesperson will actually do a competent job).

The real problem I have with the regs is that they can't/don't stop the incompetent, while putting red tape in the way of those who are competent, but would also prefer to do things legally. I don't know how you fix that

It's up to the regulatory body to get rid of the incompetent members.