Health and Safety; which is the right approach?

[Busaholic]

So did the station staff (assuming there were any) know how he landed up on the platform? Just because you are drunk it doesn't mean someone else can't throw you out of the window, indeed it might be easier if the person was drunk.

About thirty years ago I was driving down Lewisham High Street, turning left at the lights up Loampit Vale. A routemaster bus with open rear platform was in the offside lane waiting to go straight on. A middle-aged, obviously drunken man swayed off the platform and made contact with the front of my car, the conductor on the platform making no attempt to stop him. Luckily I was only doing about 15 mph and the drunk picked himself up and waved me on: the bus didn't stop, though it was only going into the bus station should I have needed a witness. Rights and wrongs within the law I'm unclear about, but it seemed the obvious, commonsense thing to do in the circumstances, as the drunk went stumbling off.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Option 3: use a ladder



.

Option 4 : You can use the forklift with a proper personnel cage - advisable for those who haven't got feathers and can't fly in to the rafters if they fall.

 

[dysonsphere]

Option 4 : You can use the forklift with a proper personnel cage - advisable for those who haven't got feathers and can't fly in to the rafters if they fall.

As I said earlier

 

[QueensCurve]

Requirement: to change a dud light bulb 20 feet up in the roof of the unit.

Option 1: drag in a load of scaff tower from the yard, build it all up, change the light bulb, take it all down again, drag it all back into the yard.

Option 2: stick a pallet on the forklift so one guy can stand on it while another guy hoists him up.

To reduce it to these two options is absurd. Alternative options include using a MEWP with the basket operator harnessed or providing an access platform in a depot for the safe changing of those bulbs.

We would have been most displeased (substitute considerably stronger expression involving multiple swearwords) if there had been someone around tasked with forcing us to spend an hour or so and a whole lot of effort on Option 1, instead of 5 minutes and no effort on Option 2. And I say that as the one who went up on the pallet and nearly fell off because I forgot to spread the forks so it tipped up sideways.

Illustrating the obvious hazard of the method.

If I had fallen off it would never have crossed my mind to take legal action against the company. On the contrary, I would have lied to the hospital about how it happened in case some interfering busybody decided to report it.

Not just that, there is the possibility of enforcement action from the HSE. This could include a prohibition notice with enormous costs in lost production.

 

[DarloRich]

The key phrase associated with any HSEA situation, which the usual experts have missed, is: What does reasonably practicable look like?

The decision in Edwards v. National Coal Board, [1949] 1 All ER 743 is very helpful:

“‘Reasonably practicable’ is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ … a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them

To return to the OP: Was it reasonably practicable to stop the train and check all was safe? He assumes the train staff saw what he saw. They may simply have been told a man fell from the open window.

 

[AM9]

The key phrase associated with any HSEA situation, which the usual experts have missed, is: What does reasonably practicable look like?

The decision in Edwards v. National Coal Board, [1949] 1 All ER 743 is very helpful:

“‘Reasonably practicable’ is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ … a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them

To return to the OP: Was it reasonably practicable to stop the train and check all was safe? He assumes the train staff saw what he saw. They may simply have been told a man fell from the open window.

I haven't looked for any case examples since The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 overhauled the obligations of Employers, Employees etc., in the UK. With legislation prior to that there was no policed structure in place to prevent incidents, more of a means to assign notional blame after the event. The easement mentioned above in deciding whether adequate precautions might cost too much is the exception rather than a general get-out. It is no longer an excuse for an employer to say that the business isn't viable if they have to take steps to protect their employees, e.g. as was the case before the '74 act with asbestos product manufacture, handling and disposal. Such a defence that a few thousand jobs were dependant on a few workers dying every year would result in a few custodial sentences, - and so it should be.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Another issue is the powerful but often misinformed medical lobby. They have told us for 40 years that fat is bad for us, but there was never any evidence to confirm that.

So therefore we have been told low fat food is good for us. Since low fat food tastes awful, they have lace it with cheap sugar (high fructose corn syrup) which has caused an epidemic of diabetes and obesity.

The other big medical fraud is about salt being bad for us. It isn't it is an essential mineral.

Increased salt is bad for you. Most significantly it causes high blood pressure which puts you at increased risk of stroke, heart attack and heart failure.

I'd also be interested to see your evidence for the statement that fat isn't bad for is. Whilst some fat in the diet is good, increased fat isn't. The PREDIMED study is quite interesting (NEJM 2013, vol 368, iss 14, Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet). It illustrated that following the mediterranean diet signficantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease compared to a control group who were only given advice to eat a low fat diet.

True no salt you die but to much can kill you as well but the body can cope with excess salt to a degree it cant cope with none at all.

The body can also cope with low salt levels to a degree as well. As an electrolyte, salt is very important in maintaining volume status and both low salt levels and high salt levels can result in some nasty complications. However, you don't need to add salt to your meals, enough can be gained from salt already in foods like bread.

*Too much* fat is bad for you, it makes you, umm, fat. Too much salt is bad for you.

Eat fresh meat, fruit and vegetables in the right quantities and you won't have a problem.

Absolutely, the key is to have everything in moderation.

However, it's not the medical lobby that publishes misleading and scaremongering articles full of half-truths about the wrong kind of fat, or vaccines causing autism, etc. :roll:

That's another thread altogether!

 

[DarloRich]

I haven't looked for any case examples since The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 overhauled the obligations of Employers, Employees etc., in the UK. With legislation prior to that there was no policed structure in place to prevent incidents, more of a means to assign notional blame after the event. The easement mentioned above in deciding whether adequate precautions might cost too much is the exception rather than a general get-out. It is no longer an excuse for an employer to say that the business isn't viable if they have to take steps to protect their employees, e.g. as was the case before the '74 act with asbestos product manufacture, handling and disposal. Such a defence that a few thousand jobs were dependant on a few workers dying every year would result in a few custodial sentences, - and so it should be.

that is entirely right, The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA) imposes a duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees.

The Edwards case is balanced by a presumption that the control measures in question should be implemented. The balance will be weighted in favour of health and safety, rather than the cost of the control measures. It is only where the control measures are grossly disproportionate to the risk that the measures can be ruled out.

That said there is s till an issue of size v affordability. Essentially, what might be good for Tesco may not be good for Jones & Co Family grocers. Just because some organisations can afford the latest means of reducing risk doesn’t make that control reasonably practicable for everyone else.


it is a while since i dusted off my HSEA learning

 

[edwin_m]

I haven't looked for any case examples since The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 overhauled the obligations of Employers, Employees etc., in the UK. With legislation prior to that there was no policed structure in place to prevent incidents, more of a means to assign notional blame after the event. The easement mentioned above in deciding whether adequate precautions might cost too much is the exception rather than a general get-out. It is no longer an excuse for an employer to say that the business isn't viable if they have to take steps to protect their employees, e.g. as was the case before the '74 act with asbestos product manufacture, handling and disposal. Such a defence that a few thousand jobs were dependant on a few workers dying every year would result in a few custodial sentences, - and so it should be.

In assessing hazards, likelihood and severity are combined according to a "risk matrix" which differs a bit according to industry and project but generally gives one of three results (some may be sub-divided and the names can vary a bit too).

The lowest risks are considered "broadly acceptable" so can generally be accepted subject to whatever mitigations have been defined and to adopting any others which improve safety but don't have high costs or other major downsides.

The highest risks are considered "intolerable" and cannot be accepted unless mitigations are introduced to reduce the likelihood and/or severity so the risk falls out of this category. If this is not possible at a price the proposer is willing to pay, then the activity in question cannot take place.
As in the quote above, most risk matrices would put a hazard killing a few people every year into the intolerable region.

In between is the "tolerable" or "ALARP" region, where the risk needs to be mitigated "as low as reasonably practicable". Cost is one element assessed when considering reasonable practicality, to the extent that it is possible to place a financial value on avoiding each fatality, although often people start turning interesting shades of green or purple when this is suggested.

 

[DarloRich]

In assessing hazards, likelihood and severity are combined according to a "risk matrix" which differs a bit according to industry and project but generally gives one of three results (some may be sub-divided and the names can vary a bit too).

The lowest risks are considered "broadly acceptable" so can generally be accepted subject to whatever mitigations have been defined and to adopting any others which improve safety but don't have high costs or other major downsides.

The highest risks are considered "intolerable" and cannot be accepted unless mitigations are introduced to reduce the likelihood and/or severity so the risk falls out of this category. If this is not possible at a price the proposer is willing to pay, then the activity in question cannot take place.

In between is the "tolerable" or "ALARP" region, where the risk needs to be mitigated "as low as reasonably practicable". Cost is one element assessed when considering reasonable practicality, to the extent that it is possible to place a financial value on avoiding each fatality, although often people start turning interesting shades of green or purple when this is suggested.

aka the upside down triangle of unpleasantness

 

[AM9]

Since the 1974 act, public and corporate attitudes to hazards, risk and safety in most industries, have improved greatly. There are still some areas where 'common sense' seems to be substituted for any real informed H & S strategy, with the inevitable KSI toll. Somehow, the attitude is that safety is all too difficult/expensive/inconvenient, so they usually get by with fingers crossed.
If the business is small, they take prosecution on the chin, but unless they are fully insured, there's no chance of compensation for the victims. If it's a multinational, they bring in the lawyers and drag things out for years, then threaten to take the jobs out of the country and get some local MP to plead their case.
Much of the improvements since 1974 have been introduced following EU directives. I wonder if this trend would reverse if the anti-Europe politicians got their way. Will they push some distorted logic that regards good H & S practice as commercially uncompetitive.

 

[QueensCurve]

Increased salt is bad for you. Most significantly it causes high blood pressure which puts you at increased risk of stroke, heart attack and heart failure.

A Cochrane Systematic review of the medical evidence found a reduction of only 4mmHg systolic and 2mmHg diastolic blood pressure:-

Analysis 1.1; Analysis 1.2 show the change in BP in individual trials included in the meta-analysis and the mean effect size. The pooled estimates of changes in BP were -4.18 mmHg (95% CI: -5.18 to -3.18, P<0.00001, I2=75%) for systolic and -2.06 mmHg (95% CI: -2.67 to -1.45, P<0.00001, I2=68%) for diastolic BP ( Summary of findings for the main comparison).

Despite the authors conclusion "A reduction in salt intake lowers blood pressure (BP) and, thereby, reduces cardiovascular risk", the reduction of blood pressure found with salt restriction is statistically significant but of little if any clinical significance since it is so small.

Another Cochrane Systematic Review found:-

There was weak evidence of benefit for cardiovascular events, but these findings were inconclusive and were driven by a single trial among retirement home residents

And yet the authors say "The findings of our review do not mean that advising people to reduce salt should be stopped" which illustrates that there are no bounds to medical paternalism.

I'd also be interested to see your evidence for the statement that fat isn't bad for is. Whilst some fat in the diet is good, increased fat isn't. The PREDIMED study is quite interesting (NEJM 2013, vol 368, iss 14, Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet). It illustrated that following the mediterranean diet signficantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease compared to a control group who were only given advice to eat a low fat diet.

The recent meta-analysis by Siri-Tarino and colleagues concluded:-

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Absolutely, the key is to have everything in moderation.

We are certainly agreed about that. But I will stop short of jumping out of train windows.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I would note that the risk of stroke has a linear relationship with SBP, so any reduction in SBP conversely reduces the risk of stroke (Lancet 2002, vol 360, iss 9349, Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies). I agree that a reduction of 4mmHg is unlikely to be of any clinical significance given SBP variations throughout the day normally, it seems odd that the authors would conclude that dietary salt reduction did reduce risk of CVS events if the data did not support it given how reliable Cochrane reviews generally are (disclaimer - I haven't actually read the full review, I'm too busy for that!).

 

[Strat-tastic]

Now that's the way to do a safe lift

 

[dviner]

personally, for an adult, I would like to see more cases fail where "stupidity" is the cause, provided the safety rules and procedures have been explained properly.

... explained properly and understood. That last bit would be a stumbling block. "... but yerhonner, he stood there reading out this stuff from a clipboard. I couldn't make head nor tail of what he was on about..."

 

[HilversumNS]

One contract I worked on last year had a site induction that was unique to each specific site and its dangers. Most had some sort of multiple choice questionnaire to complete to show understanding. Surely this could be used as evidence that training was given AND understood?

The company also banned anyone from using a mobile phone while driving even with handsfree. In the 4 months I was there, I heard of several people being dismissed for this.

We were told to always use the handrails on stairs, and we were not allowed to use mobile phones while walking in corridors.

The use of mobiles while driving was a bit of a problem when it came to contractors, as we weren't on company business as soon as we left the staff car park. Permanent employees with company phones couldn't use them while commuting.

 

[AM9]

One contract I worked on last year had a site induction that was unique to each specific site and its dangers. Most had some sort of multiple choice questionnaire to complete to show understanding. Surely this could be used as evidence that training was given AND understood?

In my experience, all employees had a general induction element that dealt with H&S including specific safety rules for office equipment etc.. Those who required access to controlled areas were obliged to sign that they had been briefed of all the relevant hazards, safety procedures and their obligations towards the safety of others. Only then would their electronic access be enabled. If their behaviour was not as required, such access could easily be removed.

 

[QueensCurve]

I would note that the risk of stroke has a linear relationship with SBP, so any reduction in SBP conversely reduces the risk of stroke (Lancet 2002, vol 360, iss 9349, Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies). I agree that a reduction of 4mmHg is unlikely to be of any clinical significance given SBP variations throughout the day normally, it seems odd that the authors would conclude that dietary salt reduction did reduce risk of CVS events if the data did not support it given how reliable Cochrane reviews generally are (disclaimer - I haven't actually read the full review, I'm too busy for that!).

Not familiar with that study, but it seems reasonable to postulate a linear non-threshold relationship (cf cancer caused by radiation) albeit that with very small increases (dose, SBP) very small risk would result.

I remain sceptical that it isn't just confounded by age.

Adler and colleagues found evidence of benefit for cardiovascular events, by salt reduction to be "weak and said but the findings were inconclusive and were driven by a single trial among retirement home residents, which reduced salt intake in the kitchens of the homes.

This is probably off topic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One contract I worked on last year had a site induction that was unique to each specific site and its dangers. Most had some sort of multiple choice questionnaire to complete to show understanding. Surely this could be used as evidence that training was given AND understood?

Yes.

The company also banned anyone from using a mobile phone while driving even with handsfree. In the 4 months I was there, I heard of several people being dismissed for this.

Enforced how?

We were told to always use the handrails on stairs, and we were not allowed to use mobile phones while walking in corridors.

The handrail one is increasingly common, but it is based on the false premise that a particular company stopped trips on the stairs by disciplining people to hold the handrail whereas they may simply have been frightened to report it for fear of being disiplined for not holdi9ng the handrail. The HSE published a systematic review of staircase accidents which shows what an evidence vacuum there is around this.

The use of mobiles while driving was a bit of a problem when it came to contractors, as we weren't on company business as soon as we left the staff car park. Permanent employees with company phones couldn't use them while commuting.

 

[HilversumNS]

Enforced how?

Due to the nature of the work we were doing in our department, we often needed to be at remote sites, yet in touch with colleagues elsewhere.

The number of phone calls made/received were therefore quite high. I was asked on several occasions while taking calls "Are you driving?" to which I replied "No, I just pulled up but haven't switched the car engine off, let me know if you hear the engine noise vary at all""

I did once take a call on a Saturday about an operational emergency, while I was driving (using a bluetooth headset.) When I was quizzed about this by someone from HR on the following Monday, I asked if I should invoice them for 7 days per week, and if I should renegotiate my day-rate to cover 24 hour working, in which case they could start asking me about how I use my phone on a Saturday. The conversation ended shortly afterwards with the words "Just be careful"

Some muppets were also silly enough to not even bother using hands-free when driving through the car park, which is covered by CCTV .......

 

[Pigeon]

The company also banned anyone from using a mobile phone while driving even with handsfree. In the 4 months I was there, I heard of several people being dismissed for this. ... The use of mobiles while driving was a bit of a problem when it came to contractors, as we weren't on company business as soon as we left the staff car park. Permanent employees with company phones couldn't use them while commuting.

Driving on the phone is one bit of health and safety type law that I do agree with, and it should also cover using hands free - the problem there of course would be enforcing it. It endangers everyone on the road, not just the person doing it, and it is a hazard that is universally dismissed with "it's just talking, what's the problem?" The problem is the coding/decoding delay on the signal. The audible cues, which you don't consciously notice, from the other end are delayed by an amount which is not long enough for your brain to decide to do without them (as on a walkie-talkie) but is long enough to bugger them up. The result is you end up putting far more concentration into the conversation than "just talking", but do not realise you're doing it, so your attention is off the road to a much greater extent than you think it is.

To reduce it to these two options is absurd.

No it isn't. That's what we had. A ladder, although we had them, would have been no use because with the light in the middle of the ceiling there's nothing to rest the top end against. We didn't have a cherrypicker, and we didn't have a cage for the forklift. The choice was scaff tower or pallet or incrementally increasing darkness.

 

[dosxuk]

No it isn't. That's what we had. A ladder, although we had them, would have been no use because with the light in the middle of the ceiling there's nothing to rest the top end against. We didn't have a cherrypicker, and we didn't have a cage for the forklift. The choice was scaff tower or pallet or incrementally increasing darkness.

You can buy hire a suitable ladder for £35.

I'd hope you* value your health as slightly more than that. If not, I hope I never end up going anywhere near you or your work.



* I'd say your employers too, but since it was you who decided to climb up there, the blame for any accident lies entirely with yourself.

 

[dysonsphere]

You can buy a suitable ladder for £35.

I'd hope you* value your health as slightly more than that. If not, I hope I never end up going anywhere near you or your work.



* I'd say your employers too, but since it was you who decided to climb up there, the blame for any accident lies entirely with yourself.

The only free standing ladder Ill trust with that trick is a"Zarges" and high geniuine on costs abous £450

See Here

 

[dosxuk]

The only free standing ladder Ill trust with that trick is a"Zarges" and high geniuine on costs abous £450

See Here

My bad, I was looking at hire prices (which explains why I was surprised how cheap it was... ).

And yes, I was referring to zarges. I regularly use them to access roof spaces about the same height as this guy "had" to use a pallet on a forklift.

 

[Smudger105e]

No it isn't. We didn't have a cherrypicker, and we didn't have a cage for the forklift. The choice was scaff tower or pallet or incrementally increasing darkness.

The other option of course was not to repair the light. If conditions were then too dark to undertake your duties then a refusal to work on the grounds of H&S would have been justifiable.

In this instance you made the wrong decision. It could have quite easily ended in a fatality.

There are also regulations that must be adhered to when working at heights, and a pallet on a forklift is not suitable or adequate access equipment.

 

[dysonsphere]

The other option of course was not to repair the light. If conditions were then too dark to undertake your duties then a refusal to work on the grounds of H&S would have been justifiable.

In this instance you made the wrong decision. It could have quite easily ended in a fatality.

There are also regulations that must be adhered to when working at heights, and a pallet on a forklift is not suitable or adequate access equipment.

well there always climb the roof with suitable harness etc fix light then absail down. used to do it a lot and still have the kit. LOL H&S still used to hate it. Remember absailing of a lighting truss in wembly arena(the old one) and landing next to H&S man in the process of saying " there will be no absailing here it isnt safe" His face was a picture and got even worse when I pointed out at lengh it was the safest way down unless he faniced showing me how to climb down a wire rope ladder. (there a circus item). Cue H&S man in retreat. It would help if they dealt with things they have knowalge off. Oh and never wear a standard saftey harness get a mountainering kit there meant to be fallen in and absailing.

 

[QueensCurve]

No it isn't. That's what we had. A ladder, although we had them, would have been no use because with the light in the middle of the ceiling there's nothing to rest the top end against. We didn't have a cherrypicker, and we didn't have a cage for the forklift. The choice was scaff tower or pallet or incrementally increasing darkness.

I don't for a moment think that the HSE would have accepted that had there been a RIDDOR accident. There would almost certainly have been a prosecution had there been a fatality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it isn't. That's what we had. A ladder, although we had them, would have been no use because with the light in the middle of the ceiling there's nothing to rest the top end against. We didn't have a cherrypicker, and we didn't have a cage for the forklift. The choice was scaff tower or pallet or incrementally increasing darkness.

Or to bring in a contractor with the appropriate equipment to do the job.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh and never wear a standard saftey harness get a mountainering kit there meant to be fallen in and absailing.

Climbing gear is generally a bit less foolproof and robust than proper rope access gear (and I say this as a climber), because it is generally used (a) less often and (b) more carefully. In an industrial setting, the proper rope access gear should be used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The handrail one is increasingly common, but it is based on the false premise that a particular company stopped trips on the stairs by disciplining people to hold the handrail whereas they may simply have been frightened to report it for fear of being disiplined for not holdi9ng the handrail. The HSE published a systematic review of staircase accidents which shows what an evidence vacuum there is around this.

It's also one that is (because using stairs is such a day to day activity) something that gets H&S somewhat of a bad name. I can't help but think its overall effect is probably negative.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I take it that by now we have all seen this video of the use of a ladder ( or several! ) on YouTube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcW8Yo17qvs

 

[Pigeon]

In this instance you made the wrong decision. It could have quite easily ended in a fatality.

Yes - to the second part. It would have been me who died. The decision was mine, and I could perfectly well have said "stuff that for a game of soldiers" had I been so inclined. Therefore the only one who can say it was a right or wrong decision is me. Whether I live or die, as long as it's by my own hand, is none of anyone else's business.

I have no time for laws that purport to protect people against their own actions. The point of recounting that incident is to show that I am prepared to "put my money where my mouth is". I could have picked many others, but that one is about the shortest to describe and a very clear near-miss.

 

[Smudger105e]

The Government say this about the H&SAW Act 1974.

Employees’ responsibilities

Employees have specific responsibilities too - they must:

take care of their own health and safety and that of other persons (employees may be liable)co-operate with their employers not interfere with anything provided in the interest of health and safety.

Therefore I stand by my statement. You were completely wrong taking the course of action you did.