"Health and safety gone mad" - truth or tabloid guff?
Discussion
Butter Face said:
When we move cars at work now we have to do it in pairs with a 'Marshall' watching and the other driving, hazard lights on and a 5mph speed limit.
Our garage has been open for 20 years and nobody has ever been hit by a car!
To be fair, I've seen two cars damaged whilst being moved at car dealerships whilst visiting. One was an Audi being brought around to the front by a mechanic. He must have forgotten something because he suddenly stopped, put it into reverse and backed up - straight into the car following behind him!Our garage has been open for 20 years and nobody has ever been hit by a car!
Also they fitted new low level bollards and I saw a salesman forget they were there and drive straight into one.
I've also seen a salesman forget that a flagpole (the type they keep up by trapping under a car wheel) was there and drive off, causing it to 'timmmbbber' into another car on the forecourt.
So I'd say your new policy is perhaps less about health and safety and more about reducing incidental (but annoying/costly) minor damage.
Last week saw a Sprinter reversing in a fairly congested indoor area. 2 guys in it.
Site policy is that all vehicles must have banksmen so I asked the driver's mate to walk the vehicle out.
As he was remonstrating about H&S gone mad, bloody ridiculous, got things to do etc, the driver continued on his path for about 5 feet until he ran into a stack of pallets.
Site policy is that all vehicles must have banksmen so I asked the driver's mate to walk the vehicle out.
As he was remonstrating about H&S gone mad, bloody ridiculous, got things to do etc, the driver continued on his path for about 5 feet until he ran into a stack of pallets.
Dog Star said:
In my opinion "Health and Safety" - along with it's bedmate "data protection" is the last refuge of the incompetent, the lazy and the obstructive.
Most of the legislation from the HSE is fairly logical.
You beat me to it.Most of the legislation from the HSE is fairly logical.
I've got a relative who used to work for the HSE in the building trade. HE might ironically injure himself by banging his head against the nearest wall everyone time someone says "health and safety" when they actually mean "I don't know, do as you're told" the regulations we have in place now have saved countless lives and avoided more less fatal injuries - they're largely common sense rules or rules born out of statistical analysis. Yeah sometimes they seem daft - only a few weeks ago I had to visit a "building site" for work, hi-viz, boots and hardhat in hand I walked onto site - a freshly 99.9% completed office - it was being handed over 2 days later and all that was left to do was to lift the plastic off the fresh carpet and paint over some marks on the wall - common sense tells you that you couldn't hurt yourself in there if you tried, but rules is rules because if you start giving people the option to decide when a building site is safe enough to not wear the kit, they're cut corners, and cut some more until no one ever wears them.
I would guess than 90% of the 'daft rules' are dreamt up by the insurers rather than the HSE.
Ari said:
To be fair, I've seen two cars damaged whilst being moved at car dealerships whilst visiting. One was an Audi being brought around to the front by a mechanic. He must have forgotten something because he suddenly stopped, put it into reverse and backed up - straight into the car following behind him!
Also they fitted new low level bollards and I saw a salesman forget they were there and drive straight into one.
I've also seen a salesman forget that a flagpole (the type they keep up by trapping under a car wheel) was there and drive off, causing it to 'timmmbbber' into another car on the forecourt.
So I'd say your new policy is perhaps less about health and safety and more about reducing incidental (but annoying/costly) minor damage.
Whilst that is all true and probably happens, that is not the reasoning that has been given for any of it. I have the Memo in front of me and it specifically says it has all been introduced after a meeting with our Health and Safety advisors.Also they fitted new low level bollards and I saw a salesman forget they were there and drive straight into one.
I've also seen a salesman forget that a flagpole (the type they keep up by trapping under a car wheel) was there and drive off, causing it to 'timmmbbber' into another car on the forecourt.
So I'd say your new policy is perhaps less about health and safety and more about reducing incidental (but annoying/costly) minor damage.
Foliage said:
V8 FOU said:
Best response is usually to ask under what section of the Health and Safety legislation they are acting.
Usually confuses them...
MHOR 4(1)(a)Usually confuses them...
Edited by Foliage on Monday 30th November 12:15
</Kryten>
Since our mob were taken over by an American firm, we now have to wear safety glasses when walking from our parked cars to the front door of our office before booking on duty. One of the lads at another depot was disciplined for not wearing his while driving into the official car park with his window wound down.
Whoever came up with these rules wouldn't last five minutes in our loco cab environment!
Whoever came up with these rules wouldn't last five minutes in our loco cab environment!
Morningside said:
Give it another 5 years and all cars will have a beeper and an audible "Warning, vehicle is reversing"
Electric cars have to have a noise generator thing up to about 20 mph to let people know they are coming but are forbidden from having one for reversing even though they are pretty much silent in both directions. ooo000ooo said:
Electric cars have to have a noise generator thing up to about 20 mph to let people know they are coming but are forbidden from having one for reversing even though they are pretty much silent in both directions.
In 2011 the European Commission drafted a guideline for Acoustic Vehicle Alerting Systems (AVAS). The goal is to present recommendations to manufacturers for a system to be installed in vehicles to provide an audible signal to pedestrians and vulnerable road users. This interim guideline is intended to provide guidance until the completion of on-going research activities and the development of globally harmonized device performance specifications. The guidelines are intended for hybrid electric and pure electric highway-capable vehicles. The guideline recommends that the AVAS shall automatically generate a continuous sound in the minimum range of vehicle speed from start up to approximately 20 km/h (12 mph) and during reversing, if applicable for that vehicle category, and list the types of sounds that are not acceptable. It also states that the AVAS may have a pause switch to stop its operation temporarilyA terrific example of why health and safety is deemed to have 'gone mad', because people invent ludicrous examples of it having 'gone mad' for no obvious reason.
P-Jay said:
Dog Star said:
In my opinion "Health and Safety" - along with it's bedmate "data protection" is the last refuge of the incompetent, the lazy and the obstructive.
Most of the legislation from the HSE is fairly logical.
You beat me to it.Most of the legislation from the HSE is fairly logical.
...
I would guess than 90% of the 'daft rules' are dreamt up by the insurers rather than the HSE.
Having moved to the US fifteen years ago, am amazed that:
1. all British politicians now seem to wear glowing vests and hard hats. Is that a new rule to warn people not to believe a word they say?
2. have had a house built and another renovated - no scaffolding or hard hats used at all. All off ladders, even roofing and chimneys. Their choice.
1. all British politicians now seem to wear glowing vests and hard hats. Is that a new rule to warn people not to believe a word they say?
2. have had a house built and another renovated - no scaffolding or hard hats used at all. All off ladders, even roofing and chimneys. Their choice.
Being a QHSE person, in an engineering discipline based workplace, i see most HSE as basic common sense and most staff understand and agree with all requirements.
However now and then you see some stuff that just makes you shake your head.
My favourite ones are usually client requests for specific HSE requirements if we operate with them.
Every client has their own QHSE process, safety requirements, training requirements, PPE requriements, supplier vetting processes etc.
The paperwork is astronomical, but the actual physical HSE precautions are pretty much universal. Everyone wants to out do each other with how safe they are.
The most over the top ones are power stations, 5 mph speed limits on roads leading up to car parks, safety specs on at all times etc, big disciplinarys if folk do 6mph and the like.
What i have started to see is companies trying to off their responsibility onto us, crane operators are getting bad for this, not the first time i have had a mobile crane arrive on site, and been handed some paperwork and told to 'complete a lift plan'. I give the guy a quizzical look, enquiring how i am supposed to do a lift plan.
Yes i am the QHSE manager, and Yes i have done quite a few courses and qualifications and am deemed competent to do my job, but what i am not competent to do is plan a lift of equipment using a mobile crane and a 10 ton load.
They then get shirty and how its 'not their responsibility'. They get told in no uncertain terms that i am NOT signing off on a lift plan, as its their equipment and their expertise. Usualy at that point i get the "elf n safety...." comments.
The other thing is hard hats, we dont use them in the workshop as we do have an OHC, but its lifting 1.5-2 Ton pieces of equipment, if anything fell off a crane, all the hat would do is provide a suitable receptacle for the soup that the wearer would become. If we have guys working underneath work platforms etc then they have hard hats. Same with safety specs, they are used in cleaning areas or in areas where machining occurs, but in the assembly areas they arent needed as we dont carry out work that would result in debris, paint, chips etc. Almost to a man,m every client asks why we dont just have a blanket policy, its because i have found blanket policies get ignored, if you require ppe in logical places, staff obey the rules instead of ignore them.
However now and then you see some stuff that just makes you shake your head.
My favourite ones are usually client requests for specific HSE requirements if we operate with them.
Every client has their own QHSE process, safety requirements, training requirements, PPE requriements, supplier vetting processes etc.
The paperwork is astronomical, but the actual physical HSE precautions are pretty much universal. Everyone wants to out do each other with how safe they are.
The most over the top ones are power stations, 5 mph speed limits on roads leading up to car parks, safety specs on at all times etc, big disciplinarys if folk do 6mph and the like.
What i have started to see is companies trying to off their responsibility onto us, crane operators are getting bad for this, not the first time i have had a mobile crane arrive on site, and been handed some paperwork and told to 'complete a lift plan'. I give the guy a quizzical look, enquiring how i am supposed to do a lift plan.
Yes i am the QHSE manager, and Yes i have done quite a few courses and qualifications and am deemed competent to do my job, but what i am not competent to do is plan a lift of equipment using a mobile crane and a 10 ton load.
They then get shirty and how its 'not their responsibility'. They get told in no uncertain terms that i am NOT signing off on a lift plan, as its their equipment and their expertise. Usualy at that point i get the "elf n safety...." comments.
The other thing is hard hats, we dont use them in the workshop as we do have an OHC, but its lifting 1.5-2 Ton pieces of equipment, if anything fell off a crane, all the hat would do is provide a suitable receptacle for the soup that the wearer would become. If we have guys working underneath work platforms etc then they have hard hats. Same with safety specs, they are used in cleaning areas or in areas where machining occurs, but in the assembly areas they arent needed as we dont carry out work that would result in debris, paint, chips etc. Almost to a man,m every client asks why we dont just have a blanket policy, its because i have found blanket policies get ignored, if you require ppe in logical places, staff obey the rules instead of ignore them.
P-Jay said:
but rules is rules because if you start giving people the option to decide when a building site is safe enough to not wear the kit, they're cut corners, and cut some more until no one ever wears them.
And if no one wears them, then related accidents are their problem. What exactly is the issue with that?Rules is rules, good lord.
Blackpuddin said:
If we did a national survey to establish what percentage of the actual British public actually wants all this H&S legislation, I would be astonished if it was more than 5%. The German attitude mentioned earlier is the way forward. If people want to hurt themselves that really is their lookout.
But it isn't the legislation which is the issue at all ! HASAWA doesn't go into detail and it was never intended to. The problem lies almost exclusively with idiots whose idea of a safe working environment is one where the most inconsequential risk is exagerrated
Kawasicki said:
And if no one wears them, then related accidents are their problem. What exactly is the issue with that?
Rules is rules, good lord.
That's not how it works though, people have accidents not wearing the provided safety equipment and then try to claim of the employer.Rules is rules, good lord.
Far easier to provide the equipment and make it mandatory all staff wear it , and if they refuse start disciplinary action.
egor110 said:
Kawasicki said:
And if no one wears them, then related accidents are their problem. What exactly is the issue with that?
Rules is rules, good lord.
That's not how it works though, people have accidents not wearing the provided safety equipment and then try to claim of the employer.Rules is rules, good lord.
Far easier to provide the equipment and make it mandatory all staff wear it , and if they refuse start disciplinary action.
And the one that makes the company inefficient.
egor110 said:
cambiker71 said:
egor110 said:
I work for a delivery company where none of the drivers are allowed to change tyres if there's a puncture.
Instead they have to phone the rac and wait.
This is because most people have no idea how to change a wheel correctly. Instead they have to phone the rac and wait.
Vans and trucks will often need the wheel nuts re torquing after a certain amount of time or mileage or both and delivery drivers will want to get to the end of delivery journeys.
Wheel torquing then gets forgotten and wheels then fall off.
It happens quite a lot surprisingly and nearly always because retorques haven't been carried out correctly due to the re torque labels given to the driver by the tyre fitter being ignored by drivers. Mercedes sprinters and the VW crafter version of the same van will often try to shed a newly fitted wheel if it's not retorqued properly!
You'd think the obvious answer would be put a big sticker exactly where the jacking point is not delay the drivers by making them wait for the rac to come.
The other issue is that it's not very safe to change the driver's side wheels on busy roads, especially motorways and dual carriageways. Especially not for people inexperienced in that sort of thing.
Super Slo Mo said:
egor110 said:
cambiker71 said:
egor110 said:
I work for a delivery company where none of the drivers are allowed to change tyres if there's a puncture.
Instead they have to phone the rac and wait.
This is because most people have no idea how to change a wheel correctly. Instead they have to phone the rac and wait.
Vans and trucks will often need the wheel nuts re torquing after a certain amount of time or mileage or both and delivery drivers will want to get to the end of delivery journeys.
Wheel torquing then gets forgotten and wheels then fall off.
It happens quite a lot surprisingly and nearly always because retorques haven't been carried out correctly due to the re torque labels given to the driver by the tyre fitter being ignored by drivers. Mercedes sprinters and the VW crafter version of the same van will often try to shed a newly fitted wheel if it's not retorqued properly!
You'd think the obvious answer would be put a big sticker exactly where the jacking point is not delay the drivers by making them wait for the rac to come.
The other issue is that it's not very safe to change the driver's side wheels on busy roads, especially motorways and dual carriageways. Especially not for people inexperienced in that sort of thing.
I agree about side of the roads not ideal to change a tyre , but the flip side is the driver might not want any overtime so who's going to finish his delivery whilst he's sat waiting for the rac.
FunkyNige said:
Yeah, our office landlords refuse to grit/salt the car park in icy weather due to insurers insisting it would leave them liable if anyone fell over, so now it ends up as an ice rink and people fall over, but as they can't sue that's OK
That is poor. An employer is only required to do what is reasonable, so for light occasional flurries of snow sending someone out to grit and clear the car park once an hour probably isn't reasonable. Neither is never clearing and gritting when it is heavy prolonged snow. If you can show that you have acted reasonably then your Duty of Care is complete and there SHOULDN'T be grounds for a successful claim.
In your case the landlords appear (with the limited information given) to owe the users of the car park a Duty of Care and are breaching that duty by not clearing and gritting during inclement weather conditions. If someone was to fall and suffer any injury or loss as a result (e.g. damaged laptop) then there COULD be a successful claim.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff