OT: Kids driving legalities?

I think that this is fine until an ambualnce chasing lawyer suggests to the parent of the child who was driving that the landowner was responsible for the ditch edge that collapsed or some other similar scenario. If as a landowner you know that a 10 year old who can't appreciate such risks is driving you may well be regarded as culpable. If I allowed a child of my own to drive underage I could be prosecuted, I suspect that the same applies if I knowingly allow someone else to use a field for this purpose.

OK, don't do it then.

I've been involved in organising large outdoor events for decades now.

So far nobody has sued me.

Perhaps I've been lucky.

But I think I'm good at this stuff.

At how many of these events did you sanction illegal activity?

Part of being good at it and not getting sued is operating within the rules!

Yes but the wiser man can also multi-task but has got himself into a position where he doesn't have to!

I think this one could run and run..

I cannot see this if the proper safeguards and supervision are in place, a bit different from allowing a child to drive around willy nilly. I think the only age limit is for farm machinery (13 IIRC whether supervised or not). A local large landowner near here lost a

15 year old child whilst gamboling around the woods on a quad but there was no suggestion that the activity was unlawful in any way, just unwise.

There's no question that a landowner is not able to abrogate or delegate his responsibilities under HSaW.

AJH

Define 'illegal' in this case.

All activities have risk.

All risk should be managable, either through the use of training or equipment.

It is the task of the designated manager to evaluate this risk and produce a risk assessment that quantifies that risk and details the special equipment and training necessary.

The problem with health and safety legislation is that you make your own rules and if it goes wrong you're to blame.

The advantage with health and safety legislation is that if you've made a "reasonable effort to avoid risks'' you're in the clear.

Aye, or just simply putting the problem completely aside for 24hrs and let the subconcious get to work on it. Sometimes I'll have something that I

*know* must have a simpler solution but just can't see it or work it out but after not thinking about it at all for 24hrs the simple soultion is blindly obvious. "Why didn't I think of that before"...

Agreed.

Agreed.

Cunning bit of legislation, really.

Generally, but not always. The law says that you have to take "all reasonably practicable steps" to minimise the risk to employees and those affected by your actions. "Reasonably practicable" allows you to balance the benefits of the action against the costs to yourself - you aren't expected to spend a hundred grand to prevent someone cutting their finger. But people tend to assume that if they have warned someone that a risk exists, they have done enough to protect temselves. For example, if have people coming onto my land under a commercial arrangement and there is a 10' drop to one side of a pathway, I could put up a sign saying "caution 10' drop", but this would not protect me from prosecution. The court would ask if I had taken all "reasonably practicable" steps to safeguard the public, and would find that I had not. I had this same argument with a friend the other day. He maintains that as long as he has warned someone that a risk exists, he cannot be prosecuted (he's in the tool hire business). He's utterly wrong, bt it will take an accident and a court case to convince him.

The key to it all is that we are talking about the Health and Safety AT WORK Act, which only covers people's actions in the course of employment or business. It doesn't cover people's normal day-to-day activities. Which is why charging 2p for the hire of the field may be a bad move. If you charged them for the use of the field and an accident occurred, you would be liable under the HSWA 1974. If you allowed them as a friendly arangement, you could still be prosecuted, but it would be for common-law negligence.

To return to your original remark, the problem is that many people believe that all risk can, and should, be eliminated. To my mind, this is very unhealthy way of thinking, but it's common, especially when the prospect of a bit of compo is in the air.

A wise man might might think that these things could run and run, but - oh never mind.

Yup. If it's been a particularly nagging problem, it often comes to me in the middle of the night. The subconscious brain has obviously been churning away, background processing as it were, and when the answer comes - ding!

Yes I'm too lazy, er, wise to stick at it too!

Horribly so.

Under certain specialised circumstances involving explosives and firearms when all actions come under the act and you don't have to be empolyed.

I find the people who take it all too far are usually the employees of local authorities involved with the issue of various licences, especially entertainment licences.

I remember being grilled by one person about what would Ido if the sound equipment became lethally faulty. I told him about RCDs and similar and he started banging on about 'But what do you do if you're safety equipment fails during a performance and something else goes wrong then?'

I tried to explain that this wasn't reasonable but in the end had to produce charts showing mean time between failure and prove to him it was a 'once in a thousand years chance'.

Yes but if I don't make a note before going back to sleep then it's completely gone again by morning and I'm back to square one.

Martin

In message , Tim Jones writes

And you don't spend 3 hours a day or more sitting in a car in the car park known as the M25.

In message , Tim Jones writes

But can I ask again what is illegal in allowing someone without a driving licence or under 17 to drive a motor vehicle off the highway? And throw in without 3rd party insurance for good measure.

Short answer - nothing.

Short answer - nothing.

There may be risks, even ridiculously esoteric risks but nothing that can't be managed with just a small bit of common sense. But as for laws against so doing - nothing.

No-one's saying it's illegal (I don't think). It's the public liability issues, and the associated avenues of litigation, that are the main concern.

Nothing.

Right up to when there's some sort of accident involving a 'third party'.