Safety - say it like it is...

[Gary Prentice]

Derailing the thread slightly, my personal opinion is too often the H&S culture removes the idea that the individual has to think for themselves - to think about the circumstances or position they are in.

 

A few years back, shortly after being examined a 4 legger broke, a concrete sewer ring fell and injured or killed a groundworker. The comment I heard was that the fault was the examiners!

 

So the worker thought it was okay to be under a load cos the chains were 'tested' and therefore failure proof. Common sense, to me, says don't be under there in the first instance, chains fail, hoses burst, the operator can make mistakes (or may have a skinfull the night before/lunch time or even before setting off for work).

 

You can't take stupid out of the equation, no matter how you legislate, train, write RAMS etc,etc

 

We have two entry doors into our office, both of which have warning signs on, "KNOCK - DO NOT ENTER!", because we keep the dogs in the office and they worry some people. We have now been advised to lock ourselves in, to prevent problems, despite the fact that they have no history of aggression, have never bitten anyone but do bark. This is after we were told that it would be better to not have them there at all.

 

As most of our visitors are actually wanting MOT's - (from the next door premises) we have additional signs directing them appropriately, I have now started to enquire about their literacy - no-one admits to be alliterate, they just don't think the signage applied to them. Go figure.

[difflock]

Derailing the thread slightly, my personal opinion is too often the H&S culture removes the idea that the individual has to think for themselves - to think about the circumstances or position they are in.

 

A few years back, shortly after being examined a 4 legger broke, a concrete sewer ring fell and injured or killed a groundworker. The comment I heard was that the fault was the examiners!

 

So the worker thought it was okay to be under a load cos the chains were 'tested' and therefore failure proof. Common sense, to me, says don't be under there in the first instance, chains fail, hoses burst, the operator can make mistakes (or may have a skinfull the night before/lunch time or even before setting off for work).

 

You can't take stupid out of the equation, no matter how you legislate, train, write RAMS etc,etc

 

We have two entry doors into our office, both of which have warning signs on, "KNOCK - DO NOT ENTER!", because we keep the dogs in the office and they worry some people. We have now been advised to lock ourselves in, to prevent problems, despite the fact that they have no history of aggression, have never bitten anyone but do bark. This is after we were told that it would be better to not have them there at all.

 

As most of our visitors are actually wanting MOT's - (from the next door premises) we have additional signs directing them appropriately, I have now started to enquire about their literacy - no-one admits to be alliterate, they just don't think the signage applied to them. Go figure.

 

With this post I wholly agree.

Erm:001_tt2:

Ah tink hits "illiterate":lol::lol:

[Gary Prentice]

With this post I wholly agree.

Erm:001_tt2:

Ah tink hits "illiterate":lol::lol:

 

Ya got me:biggrin: I think far quicker than I type - too late to edit, it'll be on the web forever:blushing:

[steve@black]

I haven't read all of these posts but it is my belief health and safety has become a curtain for the bon idle and incompentant to hide behind . As I agree whole heartedly with the Health and Safety at work act ect for which I am constantly reminded by staff members who wont perform task but in the next breath will boast how they dismantled a large tree on thier own the previous day.

[Mortimer Firewood]

when I worked in steel construction if there was somthing a little bit iffy to do it was done on a Sunday morning nice and early. Usually involved getting to a point a cherry picker could not get to and climbing beyond it

 

It was usually the HS guy telling us to do it aswell said it all really.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I think they are more likely to get killed by a passing vehicle getting in and out

of the van than falling off the back. Covering the van in beacons means everyone is driving past blind and can't see the workers for all the dazzle.

 

Yes, it's possible to go round and round the 'what ifs' roundabout. Sometimes it can even be useful because the first solution might not be the best. That has to be seen as a positive outcome of the RA process?

 

Agree the issue with beacons. Where there are multiple vehicles on site (motorway works for example) the RA probably says beacons on. The cumulative effect of 30 vehicles LEDs can be more of a distraction than a benefit and I've often wondered why the site safety dude can't see the problem - that's just poor understanding / lack of dynamic assessment - blind adherence to the RA regardless - as Gary says earlier, just because it's got a RA doesn't make it safe.

 

What cannot be disputed though, is the action of riding in / on the back of the truck is contrary to the RTA. If it was analysed and assessed as the best option, then a suitable platform would be needed and compliant with PUWER probably, but it's totally illogical and would surely never be seen as the best option....? I can't believe anyone would actually advocate riding on the tow hitch / back of the truck as an appropriate action?

 

It could have resulted in a ticket from a traffic copper, it could be viewed by the general public to the detriment of the company reputation, it could have resulted in the tow hitch rider falling and being dragged along the tarmac out of view of the driver. None of those "coulds" could of happened if that action was identified as inappropriate, staff were trained and supervised appropriately.

 

Perhaps the bigger concern could be that, despite all the accreditations and the full time suit looking after safety and well being, there are still behavioural issues that could indicate a broader / systemic disregard for safe working practice? Working smart and safe should be an entrenched ethic, a habit, a positive choice. If that ethic is absent or deficient in one area, it's a fairly safe bet that it will be absent in other areas.

 

I would not work with people that aren't 'tuned in.'

[Gary Prentice]

when I worked in steel construction if there was somthing a little bit iffy to do it was done on a Sunday morning nice and early. Usually involved getting to a point a cherry picker could not get to and climbing beyond it

 

It was usually the HS guy telling us to do it aswell said it all really.

 

Watched a fellow working from a cherry picker, cutting the head off of an old street lamp. Holding the lamp with one hand and a Stihl saw with the other. This was above traffic at traffic lights. No ear, eye or hand protection. No attachment to the basket.

 

We suggested to his workmate that the highways or their own companies h and s officer would go mental. The reply was that their own h&s officer was sat in the van.

 

I presumed that working for the LA's highways department, the company would be fully accredited and strictly adhere to safe working practices.

[Safety Steve]

I have never been the best person to write risk assessments and method statements. I would be interested in how you would identify the risks in the video. What precautions would you put in place and how would you change the operation for the better.

 

Much easier than already attempted, although I will approach from a RCM perspective (backwards);

 

Risk of contractors not working to ssw - medium, invoke H&S contract clause for frustration. Refuse to settle for any outstanding works done

 

risk of contractor in breach of RTA - provide police with evidence and get rid of cowboys from contractor approval scheme, alert other clients in consortium

 

risk of contractor injury during illegal 'riding' on road vehicle on public highway - report contractor to HSE and supply evidence

 

Open tendering process for new contractors

 

:thumbup::thumbup:

[gensetsteve]

Much easier than already attempted, although I will approach from a RCM perspective (backwards);

 

Risk of contractors not working to ssw - medium, invoke H&S contract clause for frustration. Refuse to settle for any outstanding works done

 

risk of contractor in breach of RTA - provide police with evidence and get rid of cowboys from contractor approval scheme, alert other clients in consortium

 

risk of contractor injury during illegal 'riding' on road vehicle on public highway - report contractor to HSE and supply evidence

 

Open tendering process for new contractors

 

:thumbup::thumbup:

 

 

I may have the wrong end of the stick but how does that help the contractor improve. I would have thought that would just move the problem on to another site. The owners /managers may not realise the staff have deviated from the paperwork . Hence people who work in h&s are sometimes viewed as gestapo hell bent on putting people out of work.

[Mortimer Firewood]

Watched a fellow working from a cherry picker, cutting the head off of an old street lamp. Holding the lamp with one hand and a Stihl saw with the other. This was above traffic at traffic lights. No ear, eye or hand protection. No attachment to the basket.

 

We suggested to his workmate that the highways or their own companies h and s officer would go mental. The reply was that their own h&s officer was sat in the van.

 

I presumed that working for the LA's highways department, the company would be fully accredited and strictly adhere to safe working practices.

 

One incident that sticks in my memory for me was being asked to show a gang of polish lads how to bank a crane. They were working with a tower putting lattice steel work over us putting in beams.

That was at 8am was driving out the gate with two other erectors by 830 the firm was the biggest steel construction firm in the uk