elf and safety gone mad

I must agree with Julian here, they are RIDICULOUS.

When I was a newly graduated engineer, the professional institute here put out a document about the management of risk. One of the important points was that we as humans tend to be very bad at assessing risk. A good example is that we tend to be more afraid of flying than of driving in a car, although I think that even airline pilots have a better chance of dying in a car accident than in a plane accident. The difficulties of risk assessment are not helped by the multidimensional nature of the problem...some things that are low probability have extremely high consequences, nuclear accidents being a classic case. Even if nobody is directly killed, the consequences of having an area the size of say Scotland unavailable for habitation would be pretty severe.

Someone mentioned papercuts...well, on another thread here recently there was mention of someone once having to have a limb amputated as a result of a rose thorn. So it might seem overkill to rush off to the first aid cabinet for every minor thing. On the other hand, it might save your life. If you were the employer, how would you feel about being sued over the consequences of an injury that was not treated or recorded at the time?

It's all very well saying the guys on the job know best...The Pike River mining accident in New Zealand demonstrates that they don't. The report of the Royal Commission is available on line if you want to know the full details. Having read the report, my own feeling is that anyone who knew anything about mining, particularly in coal known to be gassy, would have avoided going down that mine like the plague. Of course they needed jobs, and the company was going to go under if they didn't get into production.

John

As our the workshop of my club is on council property we have our fair share of run ins with council Health & Safety Officer. One particular officer took exception to fact that our lathes did not have full safety cabinets around them, though we pointed out it would then be impossible to operate the machines. She had told us the ones at the local college were fully enclosed so should ours be. When we pointed out that the machines in the college were probably computer controlled and having safety cabinets was valid, whereas our machines were the manually operated. Her reason for having these cabinets was because if someone was to break into the workshop and hurt themselves but accidentally turning a machine out the council would be liable. Apart from the fact the doors have reinforced (due to a breakin many years previously), power is turned off circuit breaker which supplies the workshop complex, and each machine you turn on two if not three switches, no machine can be turned accidently, it has to be deliberate act.

The point I trying get across is that it seems that H&S officers at council (and probably many of those in business) are more concerned about liability rather than safety. This makes wonder about the legal system where we have to worry about the safety of someone who was where they should not be and you have done your level best to keep them out.

In the UK you can easily find yourself in this situation, whereas other countries like France the case would not even be considered. I also wonder if there any link in countries that operate a 'No Win No Fee' Compensation system and overly complex H&S rules and countries that do not have 'No Win No Fee' and have a more relaxed safety regime.

Regard Luigi

Ooop's what have I started here? I think its good to let vent and I hope this thread has given people the room to put into words what drives them mad around this whole subject.

I really have some strong views myself on the whole subject and I know this might sound strange but I subscribe to the HSE bulletins and when I was a H&S rep would like to keep myself of any potential banana skins that I would have to bring to the attention of my fellow union members at work. If you take a look at the HSE website its quite well constructed.

The HSE is grossly underfunded as are the investigation dept's for most industries the MAIB for my own particular industry. The rates of pay to be a HSE inspector are so low for what you need to know that any practical person would turn their nose up at it. There are dept's of most firms called compliance, now my take on this they are there to make sure the company remains compliant with rules and regs, truth be told they don't really do that because anything to save money is their raisin d etre is to keep the insurance premiums low, There my dear friends is the real reason MONEY! The real driver for these petty "jobs worth's" if they can prove they have tried to minimise the outlay of an insurer if the worst that can happen QED the premiums don't go up..

I could write my take on the rules for H&S but it would be a very large and boring tome with many words that would be un-printable… anyway take a look at this and have a giggle next time you are faced with a pettifogging jobs worth and as many have said in they thread ask them which reg (chapter and verse) are they basing their opinion on… and remember opinions are like A£$£ holes we ALL have them.

enjoy: http://www.hse.gov.uk/Myth/myth-busting/index.htm

Martin

Watched a section from the news on tv sometime back, before the first train pulled out the newly refurbished St Pancras station. Standing on the platform were a dozen or so dignatories, of whom included a government minister, a few MP,s, and railway management, ALL dressed in high viz jackets, hard hats and eye protection. They then stepped on the train and off they went. Beaurocrasy gone bleeding mad.

Some good tales on this thread but the best so far is the bosun's chair from Hopper. Brilliant! I read it an hour ago and it's still making me chuckle. Here's a few of mine.
I joined the Fire Service in 1978, well before the effin safety regs appeared. In those days...

We had some adventures with Acetylene cylinders, which as you surely know are incredibly dangerous if involved in fire, and can explode long after they are stone cold to the touch. Nowadays an acetylene incident demands an immediate exclusion zone of 400m and cooling with water spray for many hours. Not so back then.
I was a 'sprog' when we attended a garage fire: on arrival it was a hell of a blaze. Quite a big old workshop with gear all over the place and two cars well alight in the middle. It took about twenty minutes to put it out, then we found the oxy-acetylene cylinders. Big buggers, and hot, so we cooled them with water. Unless there was a convenient lake close by, the procedure then was to split a short extension ladder into three sections and lash the ends together forming a triangle, then lay in a canvas salvage sheet, lash in place and fill with water to make a dam. Then place the cylinders in the water and leave them for somebody else to sort out. BOC if I remember correctly. So me and a mate had to carry this acetylene cylinder from the back of the garage the 30 yards or so to the dam and place it gently into the water. Despite being cooled with water spray it was still a bit warm, so we wrapped our tunics around it and carried on. We were VERY gentle with it and got the job done, but I occasionally look back and wonder 'what if...'

An interesting method had been devised sometime around the middle ages to test 10m wooden ladders. Firstly by fully extending them against the drill tower. The extending line and the extent of deflection was then tested by three guys hanging off a line attached to the centre. They hung with their full weight, knees bent and arms straight like three loopy apes, straining for twenty seconds. In those days some of the old hands were as wide as they were tall, so this bit often ended prematurely with some guys muttering 'oh that'll do...' The rounds (rungs) were then tested by one man, usually the sprog. I can say that because it was a men-only club in those days. The man (unencumbered by safety-line) climbed to the top, took a leg-lock and pulled and twisted the top four rounds. If they didn't break or bend too much, they passed the test. Excessively creaky cracky noises were generally ignored, If they weren't heard you weren't trying hard enough. The test then moved on to the remaining rounds. The man gripped the top round securely; in other words until the knuckles were gleaming white enough to light up a sewer. The man then jumped several times onto the fifth round. If the jump wasn't high or the landing hard enough the OIC and the rest of the crew would scream amusing obscenities. I knew they were amusing because it made them laugh oh so hard. Once a round was deemed to have passed it's test it was move on to the next and the jumping of the rounds repeated all the way down. The ladder failed it's test if a round broke when you jumped on it. Happily, one never did.

Of course they don't do things like that anymore, which occasionally is for the better. Fewer people get hurt, and of course no fun is had at all.

Many years later I had climbed the promotion ladder and was called at 3 a.m. one morning to attend an incident as a relieving OIC (Officer in Charge). The incident was a garage fire involving an acetylene cylinder. The garage was an industrial unit on a small estate just outside the town, and on arrival the fire was going well. The acetylene cylinder exploded before the crew knew it was there. The steel roller shutter door was blown off into two firefighters standing just outside on a jet: they went off to hospital, batterd but not badly hurt. The exploding cylinder became a missile and smashed itself though a concrete-block wall and straight overn the heads of the crew just outside. We found the remains of it 70 yards away in an adjacent woodyard when the sun rose some hours later. I was being sent to relieve the initial OIC because he had been knocked unconcious - not by the cylinder but because the dozey twonk fell into a ditch! Another man off to hospital but he was ok and returned to take his fair share of flak from the crew. And me.

Happy days!

Hope these few samples didn't go on too long and honestly - H&S is a good thing. Honestly it is. Really.

regards,
Steve

Edited By SteveM on 12/01/2015 03:09:36

Edited By SteveM on 12/01/2015 03:10:55

Percival Marshall had an inkling of what could happen, as in 'Our Point of View' of September 1923!

Wonder how he would respond today?

Any thoughts anyone?

Geoff - Workshop time today

I do feel for the HSE. They get the blame for all the over-enthusiatic ones like the officer who wanted the lathes cased in plastic.

> ALL dressed in high viz jackets, hard hats and eye protection. They then stepped on the train and off they went.

An excellent example. A few years ago they HSE was trying to get people NOT to use hi-viz, at least not to use it when it isn't needed (which is most of they time). Their point was that it's meant to make people stand out in potentially dangerous or confusing situations.

Most people you see people in hi-vis being are in it just to indicate they are complying with H&S policy, and therefore it devalues it because you get so used to seeing hi-vis, you don't notice it...

Neil

Neil,

Agree with you.

The Chairwoman of the HS&E, Mrs. Hackett, made a public commitment in 2011 to 'name and shame' all those who used H&S for spurious reasons.

I either heard or read it, but she appears to have backed down, as nothing has been forthcoming from that organisation.

Possibly pressure brought against her not to cause extreme embarrassment no doubt, to lots of Councils and companies.

If the organisation that introduces these H&S 'guidelines' isn't bothered to 'name and shame' those abusing it's name, then what hope do we have.

Geoff - Well Monday is starting well init?!

John Olsen, Some very good points in you posting, but one problem of statistics I see printed ad nauseum is the flying driving one, and it misses the obvious point (mainly because it was put out by the airlines) that you are far more likely to be involved in a car accident and survive than you are to be involved in plane accident and survive!

Phil

Over the last 5 years Hi Vis jackets and hard hats has been the fashion garment in Christchurch (NZ). There was something about banning Hi Vis jackets in Australia because of the danger of cancer of the wearers ear from reflected sun light.

Ian S C

.

Makes for an interesting comparison with 'Daytime Running Lights' ...

MichaelG.

Actually there are a lot of aircraft accidents that people do survive...a case in point being the recent landing in the UK with a faulty undercarriage. We just had one in NZ where the engine failed in a plane, luckily a skydiving one so everyone, including the pilot as it happened, were wearing chutes. They all bailed out successfully. You might think those are exceptions, but there are a lot of accidents where there is significant damage to the aircraft and nobody is killed. You don't tend to hear so much about them in the news. It is of course difficult to make really fair comparisons since the nature of the exposure to risk is quite different. Rates of accidents per passenger mile may not be fair when aircraft are mostly used for long distances and cars for short for instance. If we did all get those mythical flying cars for going to the shops, I bet the aircraft accident rate would skyrocket.

John

Yes, drowning:

Everyone thinks the French are very lax about H&S rules and in general they are but we are not totally immune to idiotic rules.

About ten years ago the French government passed a law to oblige all owners of private swimming pools to fit some sort of child proof security to their pools. It has to be an alarm, a rigid cover, or a child proof fence and has to be approved to a Norme Française and thus the few approved manufacturers can charge whatever they like. We live in a village with two rivers and several lakes none of which are fenced, our garden has an irrigation canal running through it and we are only a few minutes from the sea.

Of course such rules do have a significant benefit - for the manufacturers, friends of the then President??

Russell.

That would be the myth busters panel, now up to case 340-odd, and all catalogued on the HSE website, here: **LINK** there have been various press items on the panel, I think the most recent would be on the release of a University of Exeter study of the cases submitted to the panel.

I found this one particularly telling:

www.hse.gov.uk/myth/myth-busting/2012/case009-pattesting.htm

Neil

Anyone tried working on a building site lately? I work as a drainage Surveyor and regularly visit sites to check existing or newly installed drainage and invariably have to endure the dreaded "site induction" on arrival at a previously unvisited site. You would assume that, being H&S driven, inductions would follow a fairly standard set of procedures. Not so. I've attended anything from "We don't bother with all that Health & Safety b*****ks, just don't kill yourself as the paperwork is horrendous" (yes, that really was the extent of it!), to today's marathon at a site in Bristol which lasted almost an hour and a half complete with video presentation and four page multiple choice questionnaire!!

Before I could then start the fifteen minute job I had come to do I had to wait a further age whilst they printed off no fewer than 3 copies of our 38 page risk assessment & method statement document. Luckily they didn't want to read it all but just filed it all for "their records". Whilst their printer was chomping its way through the mound of paperwork I decided to visit the loo, something I've done virtually every day of my 56 year life without realising it could be such a hazardous exercise.

On reaching the toilet block a sign warned me to " mind the steps" , at the top of the steps the next sign reminded me that I was still in a "hard hat area" (really, in a toilet??!!). I tentatively opened the door and stepped inside having been warned by another sign on the door that the floor may be wet and slippery. Once inside I was greeted by a whole host of informative signage to make my lavatorial experience safe, including:

Washing hands after using the toilet & before eating, smoking, applying barrier cream or sun cream. Several slippery floor reminders. Warning that water from the hot tap would be hot. Request to leave the toilet in a clean condition. Warning to not use cleaning chemicals unless trained to do so. A sign inviting me to report anything that I felt might be unsafe on site rather than passing it by. A request to refrain from washing PPE in the sinks ( with amusing graffiti below referring to the cleaning of helmets!!). The final piece of useful information which really made me chuckle was a colour chart positioned over the urinals. This was a urine colour comparison test chart with colours varying from clear through various yellows to a nasty looking rusty orange. Each colour was accompanied by a suggestion as to how much water you should drink to reduce the colour to the ideal clear end of the scale, apart from the rusty orange box which suggested an immediate trip to the doctor!!

I did eventually manage to do my 15 minute job having been on site for over 2 hours. Elf & Safety gone mad? Reckon so!

Regards Martin.

The HSE have a good guide **LINK** which confirms that lots of items don't need PAT testing.

Generally the HSE are fairly sensible, the 'madness' tends to come from others. The HSE web site is always a good place to check if you suspect unreasonable demands are being imposed in the name of H&S.

> The HSE have a good guide **LINK** which confirms that lots of items don't need PAT testing.

In my previous life I put a ban on a PAT company using stickers that said when the next PAT test was due. You DON'T need to PAT test a computer lead with a factory fitted moulded on plug that only gets removed when it is tested on an annual basis.

They grumbled but I said use date tested stickers or we'll get someone else to do it.

Neil