Gloves and machine tools - my stupidity.

Sounds quite reasonable to me. It means that you can easily identify the clowns that are not familiar with the site.

regards Martin

I have a friend who likes to fly a fairly large kite. He is usually accompanied by another friend because it's hard to control such a large kite alone, but on one occasion he decided to fly it alone. With the cord looped around the end of his thumb he had a happy time until a strong gust of wind gave a hefty tug on the cord - and cut the end of his thumb right off.

Post's on H&S often worry me because they suggest the system isn't understood. Not unusual for chaps to believe 'common sense' should trump the apparent madness of rules but is it justified?

H&S isn't about rules and regulations. It's purpose is to assess risk and apply suitable countermeasures, both of which change over time.

Nigel's goggles are one such example. Stage 1, risk of eye-injuries caused the employer to impose goggles. But, stage 2, it's found permanent goggle wearing causes a new risk, so the system adapts. That's how H&S should work - it doesn't depend on a prescient H&S supremo expertly foreseeing all possible outcomes from day one. Beware If your organisation's H&S Guidelines aren't reviewed regularly!

More misunderstandings. Staff are often told to retain safety gear to stop them forgetting it on the way back. Forgetfulness is the risk, not canteen hazards! Nigel didn't spot it, but someone else did. Likewise visitors are often required to take extra precautions because organisations owe them an extra duty of care. They're at risk because they are unfamiliar with the territory, untrained, and probably slow to react in an emergency. By equipping visitors with PPE, the organisation demonstrates it isn't completely negligent, which is important if there's an insurance claim or prosecution. Nigel thinks being routed safely around a dockyard whilst wearing a hard-hat is daft, I suggest it's a reasonable precaution. Not from Nigel's point of view, but it's advantageous to the host.

Do shock-arresting harnesses work on a 2.5 metre drop? I don't know, but those I've seen would reduce the impact - surely a good thing. But as Nigel and I haven't seen the Risk Assessment, we can't tell. Similarly the chap dangling from a travelling crane. Possibly the crane could be moved if he fell off? I don't know - maybe the risk had been assessed, maybe the chap was so focussed on getting the job done he had ignored all the guidance. Many accidents are caused by people rushing to get the job done. Humans are wired to take risks, which is unfortunate because we estimate it so badly.

Nigel's comment 'No-one knew. No-one had thought' is guesswork. It supports the cosy notion that we know what others don't, but there's no evidence Nigel's assessment is correct. Maybe he's right, maybe not.

I've some sympathy with 'rules is rules' because all too often individual judgments are ignorant, lazy, pressured or unwell. The workforce rarely consider all the risks, especially responsibility and cost. I was briefly involved in a case were someone removed a steel safety catch to improve access (saving about an hour) and caused a visitor to receive a serious head injury. He would have been killed but for his helmet. Never saw the end result but just before the case got to court, the incident had cost over £2,000,000 and was still rising. As far as I know the person who removed the latch was never identified. Typical! People are outspoken about the stupidity of H&S, but don't own up when they get it wrong.

From the perspective of responsibility, it's wise for managers to avoid on-the-job short-cuts because worker assessments are often too narrow. Unfortunate because people doing the job are well placed to judge what's safe or not. Well worth listening to in my experience, but necessary to make sure they've thought it all through rather than just venting frustrated over-confidence! Ignorance may be bliss, but H&S is about getting the balance right.

Dave

Great post Nigel, it could be used on a training course for how not to do H&S. Why goggles are not better than safety glasses, when builders hats just give you a pain in the neck. the difference between fall arrest and fall restraint harness. All are examples of poor selection and use of PPE.

I think that blaming the HSE is a little unfair. They publish loads of stuff and none of it says do any of the above, (there is a legal obligation to use appropriate PPE if anyone wants it spelt out). It does say that management must take responsibility and the reality is that they don't. They delegate to others, this sometimes means the little Napoleon who is too incompetent to be allowed to anything else, it almost always involves people who don't have the time to talk it through properly with the "experienced hand" who has never had an accident and knows how it should be done, because he has seen loads of idiots have accidents.

Safety management has improved hugely this century as has the equipment, the number of fatalities has steadily dropped and being killed at work is now an unusual thing. Amateurs would be wise to look at what the professionals are doing nowadays and bearing in mind that when working alone in your workshop there is no one to stem the bleeding when you have passed out.

Great thread this.

H&S isn't about rules and regulations. It's purpose is to assess risk and apply suitable countermeasures, both of which change over time.

The ‘lowest common denominator’ has to be the idiot. The untrained, visitors, etc are then catered for, irrespective of their abilities, understanding or their knowledge - above that of the idiot. Simply ‘the worst case scenario’.

Among the very possible fatal instances I came across was that of someone with one foot inside a coil of rope (with a hook on the end, which could easily be snatched away under tonnes of loosened stone (in the hopper below) and pulled him along with it.

Another was when I stopped the whole plant because someone was straddling a running screw (about 900mm wide) perched on two feed chutes, either side of the screw, about 2-300mm above floor level, and shovelling material into the uncovered screw. No protection whatsoever for the fellow. Actually, the whole plant need not have been stopped - it could have been kept running, but I think the supervisor on duty disapproved of my action - I simply hit the emergency stop button for the screw.

I had to make a visit to the works directors office within the hour because of the reported stoppage. A chat with him to explain why I hit the stop button was obviously accepted and I didn’t hear anything more of the incident. He clearly agreed with me that had the fellow slipped and fallen in, the whole plant would have been shut down for a lot longer - to investigate his death

There are often 'hidden' improvers of safety too. If you insist on a visitor wearing safety gear they do not forget they are in a hazardous area.

I suspect the next generation will not be having this conversation, kids are very used to safety gear these days.

regards Martin