IF formula

[sean69]

Hi,
Wonder if I articulate this as half coherently as possible to enable someone out there to assist…
I’d like to write create a calculation that will work out whether a safety measure is adequately reasonable or not based on the cost of an accident and the cost of the mitigation measure. This would be based on three factors: the cost of a serious accident – which would be a fixed figure, i.e. let’s say for the sake of the equation this would be 5000, the cost of the mitigation measure which will be variable depending on what it is, and finally the probability of that accident happening over the lifespan of a bit of work, which would also be variable.

I know that’s little information, but does anyone get the gist of what I’m on about and how such a formula might look?

 

[Greasy]

Trying to understand this, you want to find out if Accident>Mitigation, and then the odds that the accident will actually occur? So say the accident is $5,000, mitigation is $3,000, and if the odds are 80% it will happen then mitigation is a good idea? If so the calculation is basically up to you, you have to determine the difference between the accident and mitigation, then based on that difference, is the percentage high enough to make it worth taking action. So basically, you can make a calculation like that, but in the end it comes down to being your call because you set the percentages as far as what you want the outcome to be.

But I also could be completely misunderstanding this....

 

[Dryver14]

If you are discussing ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable)

There is no real formula it is instinct based and court ruled.

In some cases for instance someone getting hit by a truck in the yard where no matter what the likely hood of the
incident the severity will remain the same.

you would not be expected to put a bridge footpath in the yard but you would need clearly defiined walkways and signage.

If you feel you have done eveything you can do to counter act the risk assesment then you have done it.

If a court thought you had a formula where you had considered someone could get hurt but that was ok as you were
willing to pay out as that was cheaper.....you could be in trouble.

 

[sean69]

This is all theory, I don't have a business etc and I'm not trying to work out if I can get away with injuring someone. But it is about ALARP, more in the sense of whether an improvement is worth doing or not. It's entirely true that these kinds of things are not, and should not, be subject to calculations, and are more down to judgement and thorough assessments, but like I say I'm purely looking at the theory of how such a calculation would supplement that judgement and assessment.