Council prosecuted after worker's near-death fall

[Andy Clark]

Not sure if anyone's already posted this (apologies if so), but something to be aware of in this increasing wet and rainy country of ours......

 

Council prosecuted after worker's near-death fall

[alex_m]

Blimey, sounds like the lad was both lucky and unlucky given the circumstance.

Definitely will think twice about using those small mats in the future.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Could it be possible that, being overly "risk averse" as most councils tend to be, they had elected to use the MEWP rather than SRT because HSE could be interpreted as requiring the MEWP to be used in preference to climbing. Perhaps the council did a risk assessment for climbing, identified the risk involved in climbing, mitigated that risk by using a MEWP. Wouldn't mitigate the responsibility to use the MEWP properly of course. Just a thought....

[Peter]

There is no factor of interpretation Kevin, the hierarchy of risk for work at height is first avoidance, ie can the work be done from ground level, then mewp then rope access.

 

Good point raised by hse regarding training though, nearly all ipaf type training happens in a nice Tarmac car park, they really should be getting out on site and doing the job properly.

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[difflock]

Uncommon common sense should surely have seen that the small mats were either insufficient for the ground conditions, or needed to be monitered closely, if they were to be used at all.

I gather the mats were either not correctly centred, or the cherry picker shifted (but that should have been noticeable, surely?), or when the picker slewed round to over the poor ground the mat sank in.

Being somewhat respectful of heights, i would probably be over particular, regarding the stability of the set-up, before I would dare to go up in a cherry picker.

And I appreciate familarity breeds contempt.

From a 54 year old farmers Son perspective.

[Dean Lofthouse]

If I'm unsure of the ground conditions I always go out to full outreach just off the floor over the leg I'm not happy with then bounce the boom up and down, if it stands that loading it will stand normal use,

Its pointless for me to speculate on setup as there is insufficient information to do so,

 

Its just a good tip to do the above when setting up on soft ground and do it over the legs you will be mainly working over

[Chris Wills]

Just read the original article and looked at the pics. Probably larger mats may have avoided this accident but are people really aware of the inclination that some trucks can work at, some are as low as 1.5 degrees which is nothing, barely a road is this flat! and when operating for periods of time the machine will move on its mats and the weight shifts, do guys when being trained get taught that it is a good idea to reset outriggers occasional, especially in the wet.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

There is no factor of interpretation Kevin, the hierarchy of risk for work at height is first avoidance, ie can the work be done from ground level, then mewp then rope access.

 

Good point raised by hse regarding training though, nearly all ipaf type training happens in a nice Tarmac car park, they really should be getting out on site and doing the job properly.

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

 

Not sure what it is you're trying to convey there, similarly though, I'm not sure my point was made very well as I was , rushing, eating, typing and thinking at the same time (maybe in a different order though)

 

What I (think) I meant was...

 

I wonder if the supervisor thought he/she was following the appropriate risk reduction by electing for a MEWP but in actual fact, made matters worse because the ground conditions were not suitable or the stability aids were inadequate. Only those involved will know.

 

My point was, although perhaps poorly articulated, is there a risk that 'just because a procedure exists' people will follow it, probably in good faith, but actually the presence of the procedure has diminished the ability to look at the problem with clarity and apply the most appropriate solution?

[difflock]

I have attempted to explain this very conundrum to our current H & S guy.

Once everything becomes a proscribed procedure.

(Which they seem to think is how all work should be conducted.)

Following written risk assessments and safe methods of work.

No one has cause to think any more.

That has been done for them.

This process may well work in a production line sceanario, on unchanging terrain.

But not in the real world, with a multiplicty of changing conditions and circumstances.

One can however work safely in a potentially hazardous situation.

As long as one identifies the potential hazards, and makes due allowance to mitigate the harmful outcome.

"THINK"

Edited July 3, 2013 by difflock

[Peter]

Another way of looking at it is that specifying the wrong mewp is dangerous, but that doesnt mean that a different mewp wouldnt be an appropriate choice, and still preferable under the WAH risk hierarchy.

 

I do totally agree with your point that just specifying a mewp without considering whether it is the right choice is a lazy and dangerous habit.