Burbridge, A and Troutbeck, R (2017) Zero roadworker harm: Ethical and legal challenges. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 170(2), pp. 77-84. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Governments are required to make difficult decisions, requiring policymakers to strike a balance between equity for individuals and the collective good. Specifically with regard to road safety at roadworks, policymakers must find an acceptable balance between cost, mobility and the safety of both road users and workers. Discussion of the ethical and legislative challenges associated with finding such a balance is largely absent from the Australian road safety context. By means of review and reflection relating to literature, policy and legislation, this paper explores aspects of governmental intervention and management of risk through the general lens of road safety ethics and regulation of the road network. More specifically, this paper presents a discussion of the ethical, legislative and economic challenges confronting practitioners required to select positive protection for roadside work zones in Queensland, Australia. The 'so far as is reasonably practicable' principle is explored for consistency both with legislation governing the management of road infrastructure and with governmental commitments to achieve zero harm. This paper concludes that disconnects exist between requirements for practitioners to manage the road efficiently and requirements for practitioners to provide a workplace that is 'safe'.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | government; health & safety; temporary works |
| Index terms: | commitment, Queensland, legislation, regulation, practitioner, ethics, Australia, mobility, reflection, temporary work |
| Subjects: | professional development, political science, infrastructure and transport systems, practitioner, legal systems, ethical practice, operations management, psychology, Geography |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Geographical Context, Urban Studies, Site Management, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Information Management, Governance, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here