Safe Speed Forums

Daily Telegraph





At one time I would have agreed with this but, like everything else in this country it's gone over the top.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

And here's a classic example of health and safety stupidity in Stowmarket in Suffolk.

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month

Suffolk County Council say that the regulations demand higher bridge parapets for cycle paths. There is of course nothing to stop pedestrians using the footpath or cyclists using the road over the same bridge...

It is NOT health and safety stupidity, it is people stupidity, and their interpretation of health and safety at work.
It is what happens when you pay nonentities large salaries and call them "health and safety officers"
Then, with all the justification of their poor (if any) training in health and safety, they proceed to make risk assessments that fail to allow for the fact that some risks have to be taken to get the job done. Health and safety is not about failing to do the job is there is any risk, but about assessing that risk and managing it to allow the job to be done with a MINIMUM of risk, not saying "there is a risk so we won't do that"

I refer to some of these H.S.E. types as the Health & Safety Nazis or the Health & Safety Gestapo, and make no apologies for doing so.

The rules and regulations down to the tiniest little thing over anything within the H.S.E.'s remit have become so overbearing and petty now that it would be a joke, if it were not destroying industry and costing millions.

Health and Safety is a corporate arse covering exercise, as in these days of "if there's blame, there's a claim" culture, it's cheaper to pay company H&S officers than lawyers and claimants.

In my time in the construction industry, standard kit has gone from B.S. boots and B.S. hardhat when required, to the site I 'm on now of Boots, hardhat, hi-viz jacket, gloves and eye protection at all times when on site. No step ladders, some companies no longer allow rigger boots to be worn on site.

These changes coincided with the Legal H&S responsibility moving from the on Site Manager to the Company Boardroom, there was also a shift of pressure from line management from Programme targets to Safety targets.......now why would that be!

In my industry, they are many ways to die, or get seriously hurt, and good H&S systems do give good control over exposure to risk.
but,
It's a massive amount of paperwork to deal with, inductions, reviewing and writing method statements, risk assessmensts, permits to; dig, load, lift, hot works, then there's inspections of; excavations, scaffolds, lifting equipment, and ensuring there's hot water, soap and bog roll in the facilities.

and then we manage the work at hand,
I don't wear out boots anymore I wear out the arse of my pants.


The industry does feel safer.

fatboytim

........er, You forgot the "No Smoking" even outdoors signs..old boy!

Let us pause for a while, to remember those who have fallen while in the labour of their employer. Let us also not forget those suffering long-drawn-out deaths from a variety of industrial diseases and those living in pain and distress (financial as well as physical) from injuries caused at work.
After this brief pause, let us also consider that many employees are working in unsafe and unhealthy conditions, largely because their employers recognise that the chance of there being an inspection by an HSE officer is highly unlikely.

Fortunately, there exist unions with large amounts of cash to fund legal action, and law companies who pursue claims on a no-win, no-fee basis.

This, of course, causes the poor employer to lobby his/her MP to make such illegal. Their Mp reminds them that their actions are illegal. And in any case, short of leaving the EU (which no major party is going to do...ever) their hopes are inevitably NIL.

The best the government can do is to sack large amounts of HSE staff....but then there are still lawyers, and in any case the gov is itself shortly to become embroiled in legal action for failing to ensure sufficient safety inspections take place.

I wonder if the people of this country are ever going to come to their senses and vote into power one of the other parties which is dedicated to getting us out of the EU. Unless that happens, votes for the "Big Three" are going to be increasingly meaningless, since more and more is being dictated by Brussels.

Mmmh!....Well I guess I'll have to aim this at the "anti" EU lobby.....

The other year I walked into a German Pub and I COULDN'T see the other side of the Bar for smoke!.....It had a central Oval shaped Bar and even now I don't know what the other side looked like.........I've NEVER seen anything like it here since the early 60's

Frankly, for ME, it was too much and I left soon after....

BUT! I had a choice to go elsewhere where no-one seemed to smoke.....which I did.

So, be very careful whom you blame for the "interpretation" of EU powers. I find that these restrictions are generated far closer to home....Are you subject to these same restrictions at your favorite European holiday destination? I think not.........

A few years ago I had a long argument with a QA assessor over our documents about preventing future occurrences of problems. I had written about "preventative measures" while he wanted the documents to say "preventive" instead. A completely pointless argument which diverted attention from what our procedures actually were.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

It is not destroying industry, having to pay people a living wage is doing that, most of the jobs that have gone abroad have gone to low-wage countries.
The HASAWA is the most humdrum piece of legislation you can imagine, it really says nothing specific about anything. Most of the complex legislation lies within things like the PUWER (provision and use of work equipment) legislation...not to mention the working time directive (a piece of H&S legislation)
As for the "HSE remit"....I won't even mention how VERY infrequent HSE visits are....like about every 10+ years....hardly intimidatory.
No, the only people with any reason to fear a visit are the employer who pays no attention to employees safety....the vast majority of visits now are from complaints (which can be made anonymously)(ie: the HSE knows who made it but don't say) from employees. Log onto the HSE website (www.hse.gov.uk) and look at the sad history of accidents, deaths and injuries. Then look at the prosecutions part....where the history of cases is displayed....complete with the company name/s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3489873.stm

Maybe you can even find the part relating to this "accident"

I think that's a big part of the problem. Nobody has any clear idea of what they must do so they tend to do too much in the hope that they'll be doing "enough". Unfortunately, the accidents still happen so as soon as those companies doing their best to comply see another high profile prosecution, they pile on more tedious procedures and systems in making even greater efforts to try and ensure it's not going to happen to them!

I wonder when we'll get to the point where the stress of complying causes as many deaths and chronic illnesses as the legislation is supposed to save?! (although at least those won't be "on-site" so they probably won't count)!

I used to work at a university. They love their H&S there! Needless to say I was never popular for my views! The chap who took over from me was well into it. He had a risk assessment for carrying out a risk assessment! (well, almost)! Unfortunately, I actually quite like the guy so I couldn't take any pleaseure in his recent mishap but there was a certain wry irony in the fact that he had to go to hospital for a few stitches the other day, having dropped a rather heavy bit of test rig on his finger!

Unfortunately the above was a clear case of criminal disregard for basic common sense, as well as H&S legislation.

The operators of the trolley had even filled the brake tubing with ball bearings, to give the impression it was pressurised and operative when it was not!

In addition, at least one of them was working with a forged certificate which should have confirmed his competance.
And here is the rub - some H&S legislation and practices involve a good deal of cost, and therefore are regarded by some as an area to save money.
As usual, stupid INTERPRETATION of H&S law has made a mockery of it in some areas, so quality starts to slide as people lose respect - just as in other areas where legislation trys to enforce common sense!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Quite right, but the interpretation is not by the H&S executive OR their inspectors. The wrongful (and excessive) interpretation of the legislation is by those whose knowledge is scant and who are poorly educated in the subject they are supposed to be enforcing. Many employers have no intention of complying with H&S legislation, or tax legislation either. In any case, every company (small or big) has to have insurance to cover them against risks. The insurance companies are now carrying out more frequent inspections of equipment and property to ensure THEIR liabilities are not excessive. To put it quite simply, any equipment that is dangerous will not be covered...

I'm responible for 'Quality' and the ISO9001 accreditation for our business. I can assure you that I simply would not tolerate that type of individual.

Nothing wrong with risk assessments and its simply unacceptable that we injure people when they come to work. The problem is the interpretation of legislation by those who devise and implement company/organisational policy. There is very little reason for an additional paper burden.

One example then: How do you justify the overbearing rules which have required businesses to remove perfectly serviceable warning signs and replace them with the latest versions? The "running man" exit signs mandated by EU directives come to mind immediately.

Not sure I do agree with comment on the Met. A boy died and IPCC had to establish what happened. There was also the very public execution of this boy too.. which could have resulted in carnage had one bullet gon astray or had he indeed been a bomber and pulled the detonator when he felt cornered.


There were a number of concerns/learning curves for us which came to light with the tragedy of the Brazilian boy. I do admit that it would be our worst nightmare to be faced with the dilemma which the Met were actually faced with on that tragic July day. They thought they had one bite at the proverbial.. I cannot call it a cherry .. more the apple of sin as "get it wrong" and you are damned forever here.. Too many things went wrong at the same time and let's face facts here - this was a new one to the UK as the IRA at least did give a warning beforehand .. along with locations and a code word which gave the "intelligence to work on". This type of terrorism? Differerent brand and far more volatile and sudden

Do I condemn the Met though? No. Not at all. That was one tough call into unseen territory at that point. And NO! It does not bring an inncocent man back to life nor justify his death to his loving family either in real human terms. I would hope that they at least get some compo and/or a memorial to their son to remind that we all must learn from one horrendous mistake and ensure as best we can that in the course of our duty to prevent and arrest a suicidal thug - we do not place innocent lives at serious risk here. In that way - we do the right thing by the Brazilian's lifetime here and make some peace with the public at large too.

Off topic.. I do not think Sir Ian Blair should resign as this would lend victory all the more to the terrorists at this stage.


But as for the rest? We do have the straitjacket of "procedure" and again - some officers will remain rigid to the letter of this - whilst others will throw procedure to the wind and just get on with the job responsibly professionally, and effiiciently using their own common sense and intelligence too

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

With work migrants coming here from the other eu member countries (and others that have rights to come here to work), you have to have some sort of similarity of signage...that said, many signs needed replacing anyway because of either poor location or wear-and-tear (including many that had been painted-over in year-on-year decoration) in any case, you are just picking on irelevancies to justify your personal dislike of being told you just cannot risk others to get a job done faster/cheaper.
With the large influx of Polish workers came the problem that many have little knowledge of H&S, so came the need to have signs in their language ....and also a need for H&S training to adjust to multi-language and multi-culture....
Your personal disinterest is of no relevance, whether or not you think it is justified, the NEED exists to ensure that both your workers AND members of the public are protected from being killed/injured while working or from the effects of others working. My local tesco was being altered to be a tesco Xtra...with work being 24 hrs (that was stopped....24 hr construction work 20 metres from housing....) The work involved the use (for hour after hour) of petrol driven disc cutters.....these things have noise levels of over 100 DBA....that level is extremely distressing and harmful .... there were children in tears passing the work zone. Even the staff in the store foyer were stuffing their ears with tissue. One phone call to the LA environmental health quickly shut that down... The point being, the STORE should have ensured that the work was safe and not the customers.
Most H&S is a matter of COMMON SENSE, laws are needed because many workers DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMON SENSE and because most employers DO NOT CARE ANYWAY.
So, if you cannot do the job with a modicum of safety, or you deliberately ignore safety for haste, you will find yourself before the magistrate. With fines getting higher and higher every year ....and with civil courts awarding higher and higher penalties it may well happen that the rogue employer or small contractor will realise it is a no-win situation.

When it comes to something as simple as exit signs, I find that argument ridiculous. Realistically, if a foreigner coming to work here keeps seeing "EXIT" over doors, how long is it going to take him to figure out that it means sortie, Ausgang, salida, or whatever it happens to be in Polish? Anybody who can't work out something as simple as that is going to have a hard time working in this country anyway. And the same goes for Brits working elsewhere in Europe.

Ok, where do I start?

I used to hang out of helicopters and risk my skin whilst in the RAF, I spent a fair amount of time hanging about in rigging as stage crew, I shoot plastic BB's from replica weapons and 'blow my friends up' with pyrotechnics whilst playing airsoft.

I'm also a safety professional (mostly construction / CDM but with a little rail - LUL, and H&S training thrown in)

My pet hates about 'elf 'n' safety:

Too many things being banned under the safety banner that have sweet F.A. to do with safety but are actually being banned because of politically correct views.

Ditto the above but because the fear (99% of the time unfounded) of being sued.

Ditto the above but because the insurance company doesn't want to insure the risk please bear in mind that a health & safety 'Risk' and an insurance 'Risk' can be two very seperate things...

Two many safety 'professional' who have no qualifications or those who have so many they are now chartered safety professionals but have no bloody clue and can only spout regs instead of ensuring that safety is realistic, practical and effective.

The head of the HSE stated that 'Life is not without risk' and that the aim of work place safety legislation is to reduce risk 'So far as reasonably practicable' to a reasonable level.

I would also add that in my working day I aim to make sure that the people I am responsible for leave in the same state as they arrived with all the right bits, still in the right places without having been exposed to something that will kill them in 20 years time. I am also very aware that they also need employment and as such work with ther employers to find solutions that work.

As for the PCSO's, whilst I'm not happy with the concept of PCSO's I've recovered bodies of would be rescuers who could not rescue themselves let alone another. There is more to that story than the popular press have let on, which, hopefully will come out later.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk