Kerry Howley | September 13, 2006
The New York Times profiles someone who thinks Britain is full of pansified, over-mothered wimps: the British safety czar.
Britain has indeed become more risk-averse in recent years, largely because of a pervasive public fear of American-style litigation. But as [Health and Safety Commission head Bill] Callaghan points out, payouts in liability cases in Britain are far lower than they are in the United States -- about one-third as much per capita -- and most lawsuits are dismissed before ever getting to trial.
By the same token, he said, he believes that many of the decisions made in the name of health and safety in Britain are indeed asinine. These include schools requiring children to wear protective goggles when playing with nuts that have fallen from trees; schools banning bandages because of fears of latex allergies; and village fairs forbidding people to sell homemade cakes in case they contain contaminated eggs.
Actually, he's not terribly gung-ho, and he seems profoundly concerned about the dangers of British stepladders. But the article suggests his anti-goggle pose is a response to media attention -- specifically, the relentless mocking of the government's regulatory fetish. And that can only reflect well on Britain's brand of snark-filled pseudo-journalism.
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|9.13.06 @ 1:53PM|#
Goggles for conkers? The mind boggles.
Robert|9.13.06 @ 2:48PM|#
I was hoping to read an explanation for the goggles requirement. I could see wearing them to protect from falling nuts, but nuts that've already fallen? How are they more dangerous to eyes than anything else on the ground?
wingnutx|9.13.06 @ 6:17PM|#
The goggles... they do nothing!