elf and safety gone mad

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

> 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

[OuBallieParticipant @ouballie]

Posted by Cabinet Enforcer on 12/01/2015 20:26:51

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.

Yes, I know about that cop-out site!

Where is the "name and shame" she promised, in any of them.

Name and shame is just that, you name someone or organisation, causing them acute embarrassment at their own stupidity. Wouldn't that be great fun if applied to our politicians though?

Just another sop to us the public, as there is absolutely NO disincentive for the ongoing stupidity.

As I said she has been well and truly nobbled, and that site is next to useless, as those abusing the H&S continue to get away with doing so.

I haven't managed to side step the %#*' chest infection doing the rounds.

Geoff – Coughing my lung to destruction, at least that's what it feels/sounds like!

Edit: Spelling.

Edited By OuBallie on 13/01/2015 09:53:36

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Hi Geoff,

I suggest you pick a myth you think is particularly interesting then make an FoI request then let us know how you get on!

Neil

[Colin WhittakerParticipant @colinwhittaker20544]

I used to work on the Railways back in the 1970s. It was the second most dangerous job in the UK after quarrying. The death rate was around 2.5 per month. Safety was a big rule book that proved you must have broken a rule to get killed/injured.

Anyway, I then moved onto the oilfields of the middle east working with radioactive sources, explosives, high pressures (in bigger volumes than you can probably imagine), heavy loads being swung overhead, poisonous gases, and driving at night when tired. Safety objectives were in force resulting in the inverse pyramid of accidents. Most accidents were major because they couldn't be hidden. Some minor accidents couldn't be hidden either. Occasionally a fool would report a near miss! With good luck and not a little common sense I survived.

Today in the oilfield there are mandatory targets for near miss reporting because the more near misses that get reported the fewer accidents that occur. No one is sure why but it seems to work.

The work is definitely safer today. The drillers with missing fingers are just about all gone. You will be fired for driving without a seat belt and being caught DUI means you have offered your resignation which will normally be accepted. If being asked to obtain a DNV certified plastic bag for carrying 200g thread protecters is the price for this safety then I guess I'll grin and bear it.

Thankfully I'm now retired and no longer obliged to report paper cuts.

Colin

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Colin Whittaker on 15/01/2015 06:34:35:

Today in the oilfield there are mandatory targets for near miss reporting because the more near misses that get reported the fewer accidents that occur. No one is sure why but it seems to work.

.

{stands-back in amazement}

Perhaps someone, somewhere, actually reads those reports [and does a 'lessons learned'], instead of just filing them.

MichaelG.

[Colin WhittakerParticipant @colinwhittaker20544]

I remember a two page safety briefing on how to safely walk from the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Downing Street, Cambridge to the course dinner being held in Magdalene College on Magdalene Street. The secretary who gave it to me and the rest of the course was really embarrassed but apparently the corporate lawyers had decided some CYA was needed against capricious law suites following potential stumbles on cobbled streets or collisions with cyclists.

A third party contractor framed and kept the briefing! I wish I'd kept mine.

Colin

[Jerry WrayParticipant @jerrywray14030]

Just a follow on about the HSE myth busters.

If you are really interested in the sorts of accidents that do occur subscribe to the prosecutions listing, you can get a daily listing and/or a summary; these do name 'and shame' and give a summary of the evidence produces in court. As everyone here will appreciate machine guarding features in most cases.

A further resource provided by the same organisation, and considerably larger but less detailed is the enforcement database. This shows both Prohibition Notices and Improvement Notices. From this you can see how many any particular company or Industry has been issued with.

You might be surprised at the names (no individuals, only businesses) which appear from time to time. Of course this reflects HSE's inspection regime. **LINK**

Jerry

[Brian LeeParticipant @brianlee51040]

I read with interest all the comments about "Elf and Safety" in this forum. As a Chartered Safety Practioner I very often come across situations similar to the ones described by the many contributors to this forum.

Many of the situations are caused by a backlash from the Insurance Industry, they of course being concerned with risk and maximising their profit. Generally I find the one thing missing from most situations is our old friend "Common Sense".

I can understand the attitude towards annual PAT testing of semi fixed equipment like computers, but would say that it isn't unknown for employees to damage things during normal every day work situations.

The following is an extract from the HSE Website.

"The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 require that any electrical equipment that has the potential to cause injury is maintained in a safe condition. However, the Regulations do not specify what needs to be done, by whom or how frequently (ie they don't make inspection or testing of electrical appliances a legal requirement, nor do they make it a legal requirement to undertake this annually). " 

It is up to you to set the frequency and depth, but you must be prepared to substantiate your decisions in a court of law if necessary!!

It is also worthy of note that the HSE do prosecute organisations for breaches of the rules, but unless an injury or death has happened use their system of warnings and enforcement before taking such action. When prosecutions are successful the penalties these days are severe with large fines and Director/Owners of businesses going to prison.

On a lighter note I enjoy this magazine and most engineering activities and hope everyone looks after their Health and Safety we need all people we can get in this wonderful and rewarding hobby.

Best Wishes

BGL

Edited By Brian Lee on 15/01/2015 08:59:22

[Roger Williams 2Participant @rogerwilliams2]

Martin Cottrell, that was a good one about the building site !. Excellent thread this !!.

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine saw a bloke on a golf course laying turf, who was made to wear a hard hat !!.He could have been hit on the head bya meteorite I suppose. .

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 15/01/2015 06:50:50:

Posted by Colin Whittaker on 15/01/2015 06:34:35:

Today in the oilfield there are mandatory targets for near miss reporting because the more near misses that get reported the fewer accidents that occur. No one is sure why but it seems to work.

.

{stands-back in amazement}

Perhaps someone, somewhere, actually reads those reports [and does a 'lessons learned'], instead of just filing them.

MichaelG.

In my last job I found out about British Rail's near-miss policy – if no-one is hurt, no disciplinary consequences. Our H&S committee met regularly and we reviewed all accidents and near misses.

In 17 years, only one reportable accident (no step to reduce the height getting out of a portacabin!) – and we did lots of potentially hazardous activities.

We had one volunteer try to sue us with the help of an ambulance chaser company. We were able to prove that we had instructed the whole group to empty barrows into the skip with a two-person lift, not by improvising a ramp. This helped demonstrate that falling off his own improvised ramp into the skip after his barrow was his own stupid fault.

In the later years it became apparent that the best people for safety issues were in their 20s and 30s. They have no 'rose -tinted memories' of the old days, accept safety precautions as 'sensible' and think older people cutting corners at their own risk are <unprintable>s.

Neil

[TSHParticipant @tsh73987]

I see some posts here about risk (for example, flying cf. driving) and so, although somewhat off topic, I offer the following link to a web-site run by David Spiegelhalter, one of the best communicators in risk and statistics (IMHO).

**LINK**

Trevor

[Author]

Posts