Two Rope Working Consultation

[Khriss]

Mate - half the industry dont give a fuck - those of us who have to comply are the worried ones . K

[Mick Dempsey]

1 minute ago, Khriss said:

Mate - half the industry dont give a fuck - those of us who have to comply are the worried ones . K

I’m in the first category btw.

[Khriss]

Dempsey - I took that fr granted K

[Khriss]

( We have several possible defendable situations at the mo - hence my interest )

[Mick Dempsey]

Looking at it from the outside, it’s a done deal, mupping’n’squealing about it will have no consequence, they’ll tell you to get a tracked mewp in.

 

In utility and public works they’ll get used to it, because they’re not against the clock in the same way as others.

 

Game’s gone, or at least it’s on the way out.

[Khriss]

Pains me so - but I must concur Dempsey , K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

And folk wonder why the likes of HS2 etc go stupidly over budget...

 

Like so many large commercial or publicly funded projects, some office walla cuts & pastes a contract tender doc which hasn't been reviewed (by an intelligent human being) since the last time it was cut & paste (and the time before, and the one before that etc, etc...) and which likely includes a whole raft of generic prerequisites that may, or may not, be relevant to the current scenario and the net result is that a whole range of unnecessary often contradictory or counterproductive 'requirements' are included and the tender price necessarily increases exponentially.

 

Big firms have office staff to deal with the paperwork and ensure token compliance is achieved which is then completely ignored when it gets to the sharp end - take the 'tree experts' as an example.

 

At least the smaller outfits have the honesty to say bollocks to that!

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

On 15/11/2019 at 18:28, Tom D said:

Paul. 

Will there be any possibility for consultation on the ICOP? perhaps a draft published here? I have been pleased with the large number of sensible and well thought out replies on this thread, perhaps if we were able to give a draft the once over it wouldn't be a bad thing?

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Hi Tom, the ICoP (an existing document since 2015 as you are aware) is currently subject to a review/revision in light of HSE's decisions / directive, I don't believe there's a proposal to put this out to consultation but I will check with Simon.

Obviously the Technical Guides, essentially new docuemnts, have been / are out to consultation (TG4 Cranes was posted on the FB forum recently - see 

Arboricultural Association - New Technical Guide 4 – Draft Consultation

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

---

<h2 class= green bold text-center >Technical Guide 4: Safe Use of Mobile Cranes in Arboriculture</h2> <h1 class= display...

)

Regards

Paul 

[Arboricultured]

When those hitches are loaded uneavenly is one going to pull the other down with it if they end up one above the other?
 
i would consider there to be NO safety benefit from that set up as with the ropes that close together if one was cut there is a very high chance the other would be compromised.
[/

In answer to your question. I found that they evened themselves out, I was actuating them both at the same time so didn’t notice them becoming uneven. It’s not perfect at all, and was nowhere as smooth as a wrench and one line. I am not suggesting it’s a definitive solution at all but it’s an idea, or a kernel of one.

In response to your statement about safety, of course it’s no safer in that instance. How far would you have to have a separate rope in order for it to be safe in that situation, it’s attached to the same bridge! Would that even be workable in a commercial situation?

I am not sure that’s the point though. We are where we are and if nothing is done to find a solution then we either..

A. Ignore it and work effectively without insurance which is a problem if one is an owner operator and you have a life changing accident and your insurance walks away but a POTENTIAL prison sentence or massive fine if it happens to an employee.

B. Have two completely separate systems that as I am sure most will agree is practically unworkable in most situations and still no safer.

Will it make it any safer? Probably not. Do we need to comply? Well at some point, someone out there will be the fall guy in a precedent case.

It’s just my opinion and I am really not suggesting it’s a finished solution to the problem but I do think that it has merit.

[monkeybusiness]

19 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Hi Tom, the ICoP (an existing document since 2015 as you are aware) is currently subject to a review/revision in light of HSE's decisions / directive, I don't believe there's a proposal to put this out to consultation but I will check with Simon.

Obviously the Technical Guides, essentially new docuemnts, have been / are out to consultation (TG4 Cranes was posted on the FB forum recently - see 

Arboricultural Association - New Technical Guide 4 – Draft Consultation

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

---

<h2 class= green bold text-center >Technical Guide 4: Safe Use of Mobile Cranes in Arboriculture</h2> <h1 class= display...

)

Regards

Paul 

Hi Paul - without wishing to derail this thread not everyone is on Facebook, would it be worth sharing the crane technical guide on Arbtalk as a thread too? (I’m fairly surprised you didn’t tbh). 

I’ve just seen it/read it/done the survey as a result of following this thread and think there is a fairly significant omission regarding tensioning before cutting. Looks very well thought through otherwise though, sorry if I sound negative!