Health and Safety; which is the right approach?

[Pigeon]

No, you have not got my point. My life is my own to do with as I please, and if that includes its premature termination because I freely choose to do something dangerous then that is no concern of anyone but myself. It is certainly no concern of the law, and any law which does attempt to concern itself with it has no right to exist. It is the law that is wrong, not me.

 

[sbt]

It is very much the concern of those who have to witness and clean up after your demise (ask any Train Driver about that one). Its the concern of your friends and family, particularly any dependants you may have acquired along the way. It is also the concern of your employer who, disregarding any humanity they might have, will have to deal with the loss of your labour and obtaining a suitable replacement, downtime, any damage you cause during the incident that leads to your demise, the effects of the distress of your work colleagues and the almost inevitable investigation to prove that it was indeed entirely down to you.

It is also, in some circumstances, very much the concern of anyone, plus their family, friends, etc. who spots your potential demise and places themselves at risk in order to prevent it.

 

[Smudger105e]

No, you have not got my point.... It is the law that is wrong, not me.

I got your point entirely.


And you really think that the law is wrong in preventing you putting yourself at risk of injury or death? Frankly, I find that view astounding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with him. To me, the law exists to protect people from the bad actions of others, not from themselves. Where I differ from him is that I would say that while it is as it is, it is necessary to comply to it.

Edit: I do concede to whatever someone said above that banning putting your own health and safety at risk at work stops that culture getting entrenched, and thus protects a worker who doesn't against losing their job to one who does, however.

 

[dysonsphere]

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


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 ---


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.

Yes I know that however in my old job might be used twice a month and was our personal kit choosen and paid for by our selves so a bit differant from the rope acess kit that is used week in week out.

 

[90019]

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

See Here

A ladder isn't a single use item; you don't have to pay £450 every time you want to use it to change a bulb (or for any other purpose).

 

[dosxuk]

To me, the law exists to protect people from the bad actions of others, not from themselves.

Those are the same people - lets say Pigeon did fall off his forklift - what would happen to the pallet he was stood on but left unsecured? That could easily come crashing down on someone else. As you say - the law is there to protect people from the bad actions of others - in this case Pigeon.

However, the law, as it stands, also requires employees not to do stupid things that put themselves or others at undue risk, and it requires employers to ensure their employees don't get put at undue risk, be that their own fault or the actions of others.

What Pigeon did was incredibly stupid, dangerous and he's lucky to not have sustained life changing injuries. The fact he considered this earlier in the thread to be a positive example of common sense, and an appropriate method of changing a light bulb is enough to confirm to me that he shouldn't be allowed out into the real world. If I was his employer, and caught him doing what he said I would sack him straight away. If he considers this incident good practice, who know's what other things he's got away with where he acknowledges he was pushing the boundaries of what he can get away with (everyone does it)? How many other near-misses litter his path? He is most definitely one of the people H&S try and protect the rest of us from.

 

[NSEFAN]

My life is my own to do with as I please, and if that includes its premature termination because I freely choose to do something dangerous then that is no concern of anyone but myself. It is certainly no concern of the law, and any law which does attempt to concern itself with it has no right to exist. It is the law that is wrong, not me.

The chances are that if you're happy to put yourself at risk then you're also increasing the risk to others around you. You may not care if you fall and break your neck but if you hit someone else in the process then you're making it their problem. How is that fair at all?

It's the same reason that dangerous driving is illegal, as you may cause harm to other people who otherwise have nothing to do with you. Taking care of your own safety helps reduce risk to people you may be working with or near. That is why everyone's safety is everyone's responsibility.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The chances are that if you're happy to put yourself at risk then you're also increasing the risk to others around you. You may not care if you fall and break your neck but if you hit someone else in the process then you're making it their problem. How is that fair at all?

It's the same reason that dangerous driving is illegal, as you may cause harm to other people who otherwise have nothing to do with you. Taking care of your own safety helps reduce risk to people you may be working with or near. That is why everyone's safety is everyone's responsibility.

It's also about setting a good example.

 

[QueensCurve]

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.

Thje employer has a duty to take all steps, in so far as reasonably practicable, to protect the health and safety of employees and other persons. This includes the duty to provide safe means of access and egress.

In this case, the employer had failed to provide safe means of access and egress and, as part of their duty to protect your safety, they had a duty to stop you accessing the workplace the way you did.

Your decision or not, it was foolhardy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your decision or not, it was foolhardy.

In UK terms. In some other countries it is normal - you do dangerous things, you take more care doing so. Which is why I have difficulty with absolute views on this. What he did was certainly not allowed in a UK business[1] context - but was it wrong?

I took the train to Poland from Germany last week (see the Germany on strike thread for details of how, shall we say, fraught it was). Taking the local train across from Frankfurt(Oder) to Rzepin, we got to the first small stop in Poland running wrong-line, which it seems was not announced. A mother with a small child in a basket was waiting, and once we stopped she stepped down onto the track and walked across in front of the train. The guard opened the door for her and sold her a ticket. Can you imagine that not having resulted in at the very least a stern telling off and refusal of boarding were it the UK? Quite possibly the BTP and arrest?

Different places have different standards - it is worth looking at the full picture.

It's also interesting how things progress - on a night train across Germany in the 1990s I recall a man standing waiting for us on the wrong platform, on which the displays were showing our train - oops. The member of staff on the platform gestured over to us, he stepped down and boarded on the wrong side. Completely normal back then. Was it wrong? Or has safety simply progressed?

[1] What I do in my own house is my business, and I certainly don't adhere to all H&SAW principles when doing DIY (I do, however, at work, as I am required to do so). The results are to building regulations, but my DIY work practices when it's just me are more like what you'd see in India. My safety, my choice. Nobody else involved at all.

 

[dosxuk]

In UK terms. In some other countries it is normal - you do dangerous things, you take more care doing so. Which is why I have difficulty with absolute views on this. What he did was certainly not allowed in a UK business[1] context - but was it wrong?

Yes it was. UK law says it was, and common sense says it was. He put himself at risk of death and unknown other workers as risk of serious injury.

A mother with a small child in a basket was waiting, and once we stopped she stepped down onto the track and walked across in front of the train. The guard opened the door for her and sold her a ticket. Can you imagine that not having resulted in at the very least a stern telling off and refusal of boarding were it the UK? Quite possibly the BTP and arrest?

Do we have comparable rules / laws regarding passengers and the public being on railway lines? If not, you can't really compare the situations.

[1] What I do in my own house is my business, and I certainly don't adhere to all H&SAW principles when doing DIY (I do, however, at work, as I am required to do so). The results are to building regulations, but my DIY work practices when it's just me are more like what you'd see in India. My safety, my choice. Nobody else involved at all.

That's fair enough, and you need to remember the "at Work" portion of the H&SaW Act name. That said, it's too many people not caring about H&S while doing DIY in the home that has made many things illegal - e.g. at work I can design and build three-phase electrical distribution systems, but I'm not allowed to put in an extra 13A socket in my kitchen.

Anyway, the biggest risk of eroding our current H&S laws, as some people on here apparently wish to do, is the risk of employers then requiring their employees to do unsafe things to stay in work. This is the reality in much of the world, and results in thousands of deaths a year. We should be proud that we don't, not complaining because we have to do a bit of paperwork, or that we can't change light bulbs while risking our lives, even if we choose to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do we have comparable rules / laws regarding passengers and the public being on railway lines? If not, you can't really compare the situations.

You can, because railways aren't any more dangerous just because of the laws applying to them.

That's fair enough, and you need to remember the "at Work" portion of the H&SaW Act name. That said, it's too many people not caring about H&S while doing DIY in the home that has made many things illegal - e.g. at work I can design and build three-phase electrical distribution systems, but I'm not allowed to put in an extra 13A socket in my kitchen.

Yes you are. Part P has been ramped right back (under the previous version you still could, but would have to have it inspected by Building Control at a fee) - now the only things you can't do without building control involvement are certain bathroom work and full new circuits/rewires/CU replacements.

Anyway, the biggest risk of eroding our current H&S laws, as some people on here apparently wish to do, is the risk of employers then requiring their employees to do unsafe things to stay in work. This is the reality in much of the world, and results in thousands of deaths a year. We should be proud that we don't, not complaining because we have to do a bit of paperwork, or that we can't change light bulbs while risking our lives, even if we choose to do so.

I certainly can't disagree with that - it comes back to protecting employees from unscrupulous employers.

 

[dosxuk]

You can, because railways aren't any more dangerous just because of the laws applying to them.

Somebody in this country crossing the tracks isn't going arrested by the BTP for H&S offences. The rules that say you're not allowed on the tracks far out-date the H&S laws.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Somebody in this country crossing the tracks isn't going arrested by the BTP for H&S offences. The rules that say you're not allowed on the tracks far out-date the H&S laws.

Indeed, but those laws are primarily for health and safety (if not Health and Safety) reasons.

 

[AM9]

Indeed, but those laws are primarily for health and safety (if not Health and Safety) reasons.

Isn't there a slight difference with platform heights in much of continental Europe meaning that trains have steps and (particularly rural minor stations) passengers are still routinely climbing aboard from relatively low platform heights, - typically 550mm in Poland.

 

[NSEFAN]

Indeed, but those laws are primarily for health and safety (if not Health and Safety) reasons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood the origins of the trespass laws on the railways to be a political thing to convince rich land owners to allow railways to be built on their estates. There was a fear that a railway line would provide easy access for poachers to what was previously secured land, and so making trespass on the railway a criminal offence would make poachers think twice! Of course these rules nowadays are instead used as extra legal ammunition against cable thieves and other such trouble makers!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't there a slight difference with platform heights in much of continental Europe meaning that trains have steps and (particularly rural minor stations) passengers are still routinely climbing aboard from relatively low platform heights, - typically 550mm in Poland.

Very true, but while it does make the running lines relatively more accessible, it doesn't make running across them any more or less acceptable.

 

[AM9]

Very true, but while it does make the running lines relatively more accessible, it doesn't make running across them any more or less acceptable.

Other than that places where such low platforms are normal the practice of nipping across the tracks is more common, indeed, there are places where the railway has only recently bothered to provide safe crossing infrastructure because of the relative ease of getting between low platforms. This means that the practice is ingrained behaviour and will take a generation to break the habit. In Norway, hardly the home of dubious safety attitudes, twin track two platform stations have had fences built between the platforms to actively prevent passengers from dashing across the tracks rather than use the footbridges.