Edited 24 May 2013 10:25, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about unless it is a "major catastrophe" when everything really does get picked to pieces, because I am sorry to say that eveything does not necessarily get picked to pieces in court over smaller incidents like the death of a single employee. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process, probably because it is easier and more politically expedient to argue in court that worker X broke a rule than to dig into whether or not the rule provides sufficient controls and reduces risk SFAIRP - even if they did go that far in a special commission of inquiry I'd say the corporation would likely end up wearing it more than any individual risk assessor.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for the national rules project. I can understand why the pyrotechnics industry would not call them detonators because that term has a well established meaning.

It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals.
Also known as fog signals, the Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 10:04, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about unless it is a "major catastrophe" when everything really does get picked to pieces, because I am sorry to say that eveything does not necessarily get picked to pieces in court over smaller incidents like the death of a single employee. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process, probably because it is easier and more politically expedient to argue in court that worker X broke a rule than to dig into whether or not the rule provides sufficient controls and reduces risk SFAIRP - even if they did go that far in a special commission of inquiry I'd say the corporation would likely end up wearing it more than any individual in the back office.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for the national rules project. I can understand why the pyrotechnics industry would not call them detonators because that term has a well established meaning.

It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals.
Also known as fog signals, the Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 10:03, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about unless it is a "major catastrophe" when everything really does get picked to pieces, at least not in NSW, although maybe they should. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process, probably because it is easier and more politically expedient to argue in court that worker X broke a rule than to dig into whether or not the rule provides sufficient controls and reduces risk SFAIRP - even if they did go that far in a special commission of inquiry I'd say the corporation would likely end up wearing it more than any individual in the back office.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for the national rules project. I can understand why the pyrotechnics industry would not call them detonators because that term has a well established meaning.

It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals.
Also known as fog signals, the Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 10:02, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about unless it is a "major catastrophe", at least not in NSW, although maybe they should. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process, probably because it is easier and more politically expedient to argue in court that worker X broke a rule than to dig into whether or not the rule provides sufficient controls and reduces risk SFAIRP - even if they did go that far in a special commission of inquiry I'd say the corporation would likely end up wearing it more than any individual in the back office.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for the national rules project. I can understand why the pyrotechnics industry would not call them detonators because that term has a well established meaning.

It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals.
Also known as fog signals, the Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 10:01, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW, although maybe that's how it should be. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process, probably because it is easier and more politically expedient to argue in court that worker X broke a rule than to dig into whether or not the rule provides sufficient controls and reduces risk SFAIRP - even if they did go that far I'd say the corporation would end up wearing it.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for the national rules project. I can understand why the pyrotechnics industry would not call them detonators because that term has a well established meaning.

It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals.
Also known as fog signals, the Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 09:57, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW, although maybe that's how it should be. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process, probably because it is easier and more politically expedient to argue in court that worker X broke a rule than to dig into whether or not the rule provides sufficient controls and reduces risk SFAIRP - even if they did go that far I'd say the corporation would end up wearing it.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for the national rules project. I can understand why the pyrotechnics industry would not call them detonators because that term has a well established meaning.

It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals.
The Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 09:53, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW, although maybe that's how it should be. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process, probably because it is easier and more politically expedient to argue in court that worker X broke a rule than to dig into whether or not the rule provides sufficient controls and reduces risk SFAIRP - even if they did go that far I'd say the corporation would end up wearing it.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for the national rules project. I can understand why an explosives manufacturer would not call them detonators because that term has a well established meaning that the railway diverges from.

It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals.
The Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 09:50, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW, although maybe that's how it should be. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process, probably because it is easier and more politically expedient to argue in court that worker X broke a rule than to dig into whether or not the rule provides sufficient controls and reduces risk SFAIRP - even if they did go that far I'd say the corporation would end up wearing it.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for national rules project. I can understand why an explosives manufacturer would not call them detonators because that term has a well established meaning that the railway diverges from. It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals. The bureaucracy is becoming more and more detached from reality...
The Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 09:45, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW, although maybe that's how it should be. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process, probably because it is easier and more politically expedient to argue in court that worker X broke a rule than to dig into whether or not the rule provides sufficient controls and reduces risk SFAIRP - even if they did go that far I'd say the corporation would wear it and maybe a senior manager who signed off on it.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for national rules project. I can understand why an explosives manufacturer would not call them detonators because that term has a well established meaning that the railway diverges from. It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals. The bureaucracy is becoming more and more detached from reality...
The Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 09:45, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW, although maybe that's how it should be. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for national rules project. I can understand why an explosives manufacturer would not call them detonators because that term has a well established meaning that the railway diverges from. It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals. The bureaucracy is becoming more and more detached from reality...
The Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 09:40, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW, although maybe that's how it should be. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats who can show that they followed an established SMS process.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for national rules project. It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals. The bureaucracy is becoming more and more detached from reality...
The Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 09:37, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW, although maybe that's how it should be. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats.

So why use one word, when three will do the same job and confuse everybody?

Apparently to standardise terminology using the manufacturer's name for their product, which is already in use elsewhere, for national rules project. It still seems silly and I imagine few people in NSW would actually be calling them railway track signals. The bureaucracy is beoming more and more detached from reality...
The Americans called them torpedos.

Edited 24 May 2013 09:32, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW, although maybe that's how it should be. The corporate bodies and front line workers involved seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats.

Edited 24 May 2013 09:28, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

Maybe that's how it should be, and I'm sure they do not want to be sued, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW. The corporate bodies and front line workers seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats.

Edited 24 May 2013 09:27, 8 years ago, edited by HeadShunt

perhaps we need to accept that the people conducting the risk assessments do not want to be sued or held responsible for an incident

That's probably how it should be, but with certain recent events in mind I'd say they don't have too much to worry about, at least not in NSW. The corporate bodies and front line workers seem to be far more likely to cop it than individual bureaucrats.