Miss nearmiss or a snitch ?????

[Andy Collins]

Under RIDDOR what is deemed a near miss... by this I mean is it just a major near miss such as a dislodged hanger narrowly missing groundie with the potential to cause major injury/death, or more "trivial" events?

In the past working for various companies, any reportable injuries were not written in the Accident book in case the HSE called in, the view being it would make the company "look bad". Not just talking about tree cos. here, but warehousing as well, so this seems to be common practise.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Under RIDDOR what is deemed a near miss... by this I mean is it just a major near miss such as a dislodged hanger narrowly missing groundie with the potential to cause major injury/death, or more "trivial" events?

In the past working for various companies, any reportable injuries were not written in the Accident book in case the HSE called in, the view being it would make the company "look bad". Not just talking about tree cos. here, but warehousing as well, so this seems to be common practise.

 

Try this, "The term 'near miss' refers to an event (accident) whihc did not result in personal injury, equip. damage or other loss BUT under slightly differenet circumstances could have done."

 

A 'near miss', if significnat i.e. could have resulted in death or serious injury, could be deemed a 'Dangerous Occurence' under RIDDOR and hence is reportable under the Regs.

However, even if it is not, in the opinion of the persons involved and the company 'competent H&S person', it should be subject to the compaines own investigation procedures. The primary objective being to establish the root cause, forgive the pun, of the incident and understand how it can be avoided in future...sorry, statingthe obvious!

I think it's down to the judgement of the person involved as to what is deemed a 'near miss' and if in doubt report it...within reason. We often get asked this question durirng AC assmts and I advise that 'if', in the opinion of the persons involved, the consequences could have resulted in an injury/incident that would be reportable under RIDDOR then it should still be.

 

As an industry we notoriously under report incidents (RIDDOR) and under record accidents (accident book) in part as we all accept it;s avery physical industryin whihc we work and 'yer gonna get knocks n scrtaches', whihc is fine, but ignoringthe cause of those can, statistically, result in an increased likley hood of a mjor injury occuring.

 

Very difficult to achieve I know but it starts from teh top,s o tospeak, with good management and a clear culture of good H&S, tidyness and cleanliness (not perosnally!) are a good indication of this culture in operation and strong leadership at all levels throughthe company checking the seemingly minor events as unacceptable and promoting good practice.

 

Sorry, abit H&S waffly but hope it adds something to the debate (apologies alos for rushed respone and poor pselilng!)

 

Cheers all.

Paul

[AndyGG]

Maybe you should put yourself in the position of someone that has the resposibility of the safety of his guys and aspires to a zero injury record, there is always a symptom to a near miss or a accident, the more near misses that are logged and acted upon reduces the chances of harm to yourself or a fellow employee. You are a liability with you current attitude IMO.

 

Thankyou for you opinion of myself after reading my post, nice to know how people who dont know you judge you as a pearson cheers. my point from it was some companies pressure you into filling out near miss reports as if you dont your being ignorant of on site incidents, not that nothing has happened. Thats where near miss reports get silly. ie a bee sting. almost hit a stump but didnt. How many people have been stung on site and didnt make a report of it or just missed that stump. Are you saying ever little near miss that occures no matter how miniscule has to be reported.

[Mark Bolam]

I personally think a lot of this type of stuff can be governed by a fairly out-there process -

 

C.O.M.M.O.N S.E.N.S.E

 

If it is genuinely potentially harmful, sort it yourself or report it and get it sorted immediately. RIDDOR is there to help us, not hinder us.

 

I sometimes get a bit f'd off with the 'if you've still got all 10 fingers you're not a real cutter' element in this industry.

 

Don't start slinging crap at each other fellas - getting home safe after having a good crack and making a decent wedge is what we all want isn't it?

[Andy Collins]

Thanks Paul very useful:thumbup1:

A lot can be learned from near misses, I mean the more serious type, and to at least discuss what went wrong in the event as well as making a report, in order that the event can be avoided in the future.

[Nick B]

I think that reporting near misses is Important any thing that prevents an incident in the future has to help

 

I think that what is important is filtering the near misses from daft things to the important things, some near misses could show a pattern of bad working practice and need to be addressed others may just mean you put the wrong pair of gloves on for the thorn hedge

[Treegeek]

What i starting to come to think is that if people are unclear of what the next step after reporting a true near miss, is that there is a fear of the unknow.

If there is a clear and constructive postitive action falling a near miss then blokes are more likely to do the nearmiss thing ???

[Taupotreeman]

Near miss reporting can be used to good effect in finding out where short cuts might be taken and then looking at resolving those issues. Most near misses I've dealt with are from lack of discussing site safety, having a proper tail gate meeting or just plain ignorance but then on the other hand you have those companies that have been told by various outfits such as OSH that no company is free of near misses and therefore OSH should be able to see a plantiful selction of them. Those companies are looking for benefits such as reductions in ACC (accident compensation) fees here in NZ and have to prove they have all systems in place including near miss reporting. They will then actively hunt down near misses to show the heirarchy that they do have them and something is being done about them and because they are nipped in the bud at near miss stage they are unlikely to have a major accident so deserve lower insurance premiums, if you undertsand that load of waffle. What it boils down to in many cases is not the company wishing to have a safer working enviroment but the company wishing to reduce its overheads.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Just an interesting (get a life Paul!) observation regarding accident avoidance that often crops up when we do the AAAC visits.

 

On the worksite audit we do just that, audit all aspects of the site organisation and operation and NOT just the poor fella in the tree, although he usually feels it the most (AND I hasten to add it's not a repeat NPTC assessment, hence you can 'cross your hands on the steering wheel' (ANALOGY) and the occasional no visor use is overlooked...but not to teh point where we think maybe you have 'grow back' eyes...anyway, I digress!)

 

What's interesting is we ask in the morning do you do any active monitoring/auditing of your site operations and often the contractor will trot out a number of previous records...great, box ticked! However we then go to the worksite, usually to see their most expereinced/competent gang, and things become quite interesting as often bad, bordering on unsafe, parctices are observed, i.e. regular/inappropriate one handed chainsaw use and sometimes cut & hold, or chipper use without visors down at all and standing directly behind the feed chute, or pedestrians walking through the worksite uncontrolled. We say nothing initially and often then enquire with the manager as to whther he is happy with the worksite...hmmm!

 

My point here, and the issues above are no exageration and even allowing for nerves..NO, NO, NO!, is that effective, periodic, suite auditing with follwo up 'tea cup talks' (thanks Arbocop!) are, IMO, probably the most effective way fo avoiding accidnets/incidents/'near misses' occuring. Joking apart I often suggest the manager have a 'white' hard hat when auditing so he takes on a different (questionable parentage) 'persona' and the guys can immediately identify that he's theer to audit not problem shoot...until he pust his orange/yellow hat on.

In terms of how to go about these, either 'follow your nose' as you understand the worksite requirements and just make general observations. OR take a more structured and systematic approach (HSE, n AA, 'll luv ya) and use either the AFAG leaflets (tick boxes in l/hand margins) OR email me and I can make a form from the AA H&S Package avaibale to you, I've also produced one for quality audits I'm (very) happy to release.

 

SOrry for waffle..hope tis of use/interest!

 

Cheers..

paul

[Treegeek]

Thanks AA Teccie you come from a good stand point i have worked for a few different companies and my current employer has a, lets say an "alternative way" of doing things.

I have been on site during two AA site visits so have a insight into the practicises looked for in a safe site and your comments hark back of more familiar days.