Zero roadworker harm: ethical and legal challenges

Burbridge, Andrew; Troutbeck, R J · 2016 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1680/jmapl.16.00016

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper examines the ethical, legislative, and economic conflicts inherent in the pursuit of "zero harm" for roadworkers in Queensland, Australia. The authors address the tension between governmental commitments to eliminate road fatalities and serious injuries and the practical requirements for efficient, cost-effective infrastructure management. Specifically, the study investigates the challenges practitioners face when selecting positive protection for roadside workzones, where the road serves simultaneously as a traffic corridor and a workplace. The research is motivated by the observation that ethical discourse is largely absent from Australian road safety policy, despite the significant trade-offs between individual safety, collective mobility, and financial cost. The authors employ a qualitative review and reflection of existing literature, policy documents, and legislation. They analyze the ethical frameworks of libertarianism, paternalism, and utilitarianism to contextualize road safety governance. The study specifically contrasts the *Transport Infrastructure Act* (1994), which mandates "value for money" and efficiency, with the *Work Health and Safety Act* (2011), which requires risk elimination "so far as is reasonably practicable" (SFAIRP). The authors interpret SFAIRP through legal precedents requiring a demonstration of "gross disproportion" between the cost of mitigation and the risk of harm. They also evaluate the "Safe System" approach and the "willingness to pay" economic model used in road safety evaluations. The findings reveal significant disconnects between legislative instruments and policy aspirations. The authors argue that transport legislation promotes a utilitarian approach based on economic rationality and least aggregate disutility, whereas work health and safety legislation imposes a precautionary principle that values roadworker welfare disproportionately higher than the community’s declared "willingness to pay." This creates a paradox: complying with the strict legal requirement to demonstrate gross disproportion may render road projects economically unviable, potentially compromising safety for the wider community. Furthermore, the SFAIRP principle inherently accepts a quantum of residual risk, which contradicts the absolute nature of "zero harm" visions. The authors conclude that current "zero harm" commitments are largely philosophical constructions rather than achievable targets, as they lack supportive legislative alignment and could lead to unaffordable outcomes or unintended increases in community mortality. The paper calls for a paradigm shift in regulation and further discussion to resolve these ambiguities.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• regulatory evaluation