As it is still Friday, I thought I would try to start a discussion on a topic that might, perhaps, upset some on this forum, but that is one that has been exercising my mind for some time and that I would like to have some thoughts on from others. If we look back to the time when British industry led the world, the time of Trevithick, Stephenson, Telford, Brunel, Darby, et al., how many of them were certified, chartered, or academically qualified for the trade they practised? Yet they were, in their own way, leaders in the development of industrial technology. This was an exciting time when new techniques and methods appeared. Without them where would British industry have been? Are we, perhaps, by our insistence on ‘qualifications’ and our need to comply with the ‘standard approach’ that these tend to produce, and our concern with ‘compliance’ stifling originality and ‘thinking and acting outside the box”? Are we really encouraging new thinking and new ideas, or are we concerned merely with doing what has already been done and approved as meeting the standards and regulations? After all, regulations and standards can only apply in the majority of cases to a ‘standard world’, and, as we all know, this simply does not exist for many of us. So my question for discussion is: “How do we ensure competency and quality without stifling originality and development of original, “outside the box” approaches that can lead health and safety world-wide? Chris

It is very easy for us to view the 19th Century as a golden age. The reality was not quite so golden. While huge technological advances were made, so were horrendous mistakes, which cost many lives and led slowly but surely to the kinds of regulation and standard that we have today. To give you a flavour, have a look at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/...i/Wooton_Bridge_Collapse This was a clear case of using a material that was inappropriate to the application, and it wasn’t the only one. The 19th Century was littered with such events (even Charles Dickens got caught in a rail disaster and wrote from first hand experience in his novels). On some occasions, quite famous and well respected engineers came under the spotlight. Robert Stevenson was accused of negligence following the Dee Bridge disaster in 1847. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_bridge_disaster 40 years later we find another catastrophe from a similar cause at Norwood Junction http://en.wikipedia.org/...d_junction_rail_accident In the aftermath of that failure several thousand bridges had to be replaced on the rail network. The engineers of the time had difficulty taking on board the growing evidence of the existence of fatigue crack growth and the inadvisability of loading a brittle material (cast iron) in tension. Not to mention th fashion for designing the bridge in the shape of a 'trough' and putting the wooden sleepers in the trough where they would becme water logged. More suitable materials were available (wrought iron and steel). By the way, many of the Victorian Bridges still exist, and present a headache to many today. One collapsed in 2009. I work in a very high tech R&D environment, and I can assure you that innovation is most certainly alive and well. However, we try to learn better from the mistakes and findings of the past. Indeed we would be negligent if we did not do so. Sometimes we do have to do risk assessments entirely from first principles, with very little to go on. This is a challenge, but it is not normally an insurmountable one.

OK I concede that I should more accurately have said that they were using the material inappropriately, That is, they did not use sufficient material, considering its known properties. The proof of this is in the failures. There are designs that do not require the use of materials in tension, granted these designs can only cover limited spans. I agree that Wikipedia is not always great. However it is written in an accessible manner. If you want to improve it, then it is possible to do so as it is written by people minded to inform others. I stand by the comment on fatigue. It was first researched in 1830s, but it was not until the beginning of the 20th century that the crystallisation theory was dispelled, and fatigue is still misunderstood by far too many. While they may not have been available when the bridges were built, it took a long time for the decision to be made to reinforce or replace the weak bridges. It is depressing when a failure is, on investigation, attributed to a well known cause.

Probably one of the most poignant and truthful statements to date on this forum site.

Just one further thought with regard to stifling SMEs. Is it not true that many new developments start in SMEs? If we stifle them and prevent original thinking and approaches to solving problems, what hope do we have? Chris

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here - on the one hand you apparently champion R&D and innovation, and then you say the above - criticising engineers for not making all bridges arches (the only structural form with span that avoids material in tension). You can't coherently celebrate innovation and in the next breath lambast engineers who used a 40 years old material for not understanding a behaviour not properly understood until 60 years later. However, returning to the original question - I'm with P48 - initiative and enterprise are alive and well (in engineering and outside it). However, I'd add that the golden past was not necessarily as innovative as it is portrayed. One of those institutions he references - the IStructE (www.istructe.org) - for example was founded over 100 years ago principally because the old fuddy-duddies in the ICE (www.ice.org.uk) didn't want to embrace the use of the new-fangled material reinforced concrete.

Chris Your original posting asked the question is H&S etc holding back innovation etc in this country. The respondents then rolled off a load of stuff about 19th century technology-cast iron blah... blah... Back in the 21st century we are involved in developing genuine new technologies eg nanotechnology (small but important). What is interesting is how the H&S aspects of this are being managed. Firstly the fact that a H&S issue exists with this technology is recognised ( unlike the good old days of Isambard Kingdom Brunel) but the response is to this challenge is not to draft complex new regulations but rather to work within the existing laws, using the well founded principles of risk assessment to manage this work. This is being driven by the people developing the technology themselves not any outside regulator. It is quietly entering the world and will be commonplace soon. What will happen then is someone on the Daily Mail will wake up- the esteemed journalists will say all of this is the work of the devil and demand that something be done- then a whole load of pointless regulations will be drafted and fought over. Ho hum

Dear All One of the difficulties with this issue is actually being able to establish cause and effect between the introduction of a new regulation and a measurable improvement in health and safety. In addition, while innovation is likely to help develop sustainable organisations in the future, efficient use of what we already have is just as important. The fact that there are health and safety regulations means that various organisations will be innovative in providing guarding solutions or alternative equipment to reduce the risk of injury. Requirements to substitute hazardous materials with less hazardous alternatives mean that some chemical companies have produced safer alternatives and are reaping commercial rewards, while - at the same time - assisting reduce the number of sick people turning up on the NHS doorstep. The use of ergonomists in the design of work equipment has made such equipment more efficient to operate, safer to use and provided commercial gain for the companies using such techniques. There are may examples of where health and safety regulations have promoted innovative solutions that are commercially viable. Engineers have been building safety innovation into such vast numbers of commercial and consumer goods it is hardly recognised in the modern world - till something goes wrong, of course. The combined effective of this innovation through regulation means that workers will be more productive by becoming more efficient and less likely to be injured or diseased. An explosion in the use of mobile elevated working platforms was instigated by the Work at Height Regs. While some people have been killed in using such equipment, many organisations find it is quicker, cheaper and more profitable to use such equipment than the alternatives or more traditional methods. It is unlikely that such growth in MEWPs would have happened without the regulations. Unfortunately widespread innovation in management effectiveness remains quite elusive. Hence the Government believes that people working more hours in the day/week increases efficiency, despite historical evidence to the contrary; they believe that economic growth will be helped by making it easier to sack people, cut their wages, reduce their pensions etc which is hardly the greatest of motivators; and they continue to denigrate health and safety because they cannot seem to understand the benefits but appear animated by stories they acknowledge to be a myth! Meanwhile the HSE estimate that 60% of employees in Great Britain are not consulted by their employer on health and safety issues. This is, of course, illegal. Perhaps a bit more innovative thinking is needed - like enforcing the law, for example. Cheers. Nigel

'Perhaps a bit more innovative thinking is needed - like enforcing the law, for example.' Nigel, I like your style. ;) Too many people are finding too many excuses for not complying with the law. I'm not talking about minor breaches. I know like many other practitioners that h&s law can be very prescriptive, onerous and complex. Ye Gods, we often prevaricate about such matters on these forums to the ength degree. That said, the basic underlying principles have been around for quite some time - lest we forget.

Different discussions about different issues...churlish use of quoting IMO.

I don't really want to get into a needless spat just because someone has decided to cherry pick a quote, which incidentally I was not advocating breaking the law, just illustrating how people in my view do not apply it sensibly. The important issues raised in this thread deserve more constructive comments.

Perhaps what has significantly changed is the "degree of harm acceptable to society" now for carrying out aspects of invention/innovation compared to what was acceptable in the days of the Trevithick, Stephenson, Telford, Brunel, Darby, et al. What was being done during the industrial revolution has evolved from relatively less complex/simple steam engines, structures, machines etc to fairly complex, sophisticated and very high hazards chemical, nuclear, pharmaceutical, transportation industry, etc etc. The risks, whether chemical, biological, radiation, speeds etc are of a totally different order that does require assurance systems and competence that is underlined by qualifications and standards. However, I would agree that we should not become slaves to such systems where they are not required.