'Elf and Safety.

[Palfrem]

Perhaps the potential with the OP is for another vehicle to hit his pick-up and for OP to be catapulted off (possibly into the path of another vehicle). A stepladder presents a smaller target and much less likely to be hit. The ladder would also be protected to some extent by the OP vehicle.

Heaven forbid there was an incident and HSE became involved, then the suggested use of the stepladder would indicate the site owner had taken all reasonably practicable steps to make the task safe.

The HSE operate with infallible 20/20 hindsight don't forget, as do NWNF lawyers.

 

[renault12ts]

Why on earth, if I fell off of my vehicle, would I claim anything? Certainly not that it was their fault... Even discussing this is ridiculous. If I'm strapping wood to my roof and fall off, I get up, look around to see who saw and look sheepish before carry on with what was doing...

If that was the comeback, that if I fell, then, etc, I'd happily humour them with "ok, disclaimer successfully received..."

Sometimes when you are injured the choice is not yours.

For instance, if you did fall off your vehicle in the builders yard, it may be that you would not claim...but that the NHS would...ergo, the business would have a claim on their insurance.

 

[geraldrobins]

But surely the OP falling from the offered stepladder would be equally reportable?

Correct if a reportable injury has been sustained.
But correct use of the stepladder would lessen the risk of falling.

 

[Benzowner]

But surely the OP falling from the offered stepladder would be equally reportable?

Ah! Only if he has carried out Risk Assessment and provided a method statement for carrying work on said step ladder.

 

[Peter T]

So when does falling off something become a reportable incident?

Is it a matter of the height from which one falls?

 

[renault12ts]

So when does falling off something become a reportable incident?

Is it a matter of the height from which one falls?

When it happens on a business premises...which could even be your home if clients can visit you there.

 

[geraldrobins]

So when does falling off something become a reportable incident?

Is it a matter of the height from which one falls?

Look up RIDDOR but generally accidents causing, the injured person to be off work for 7 consecutive days, death, most amputations, serious burns and others.

 

[AMGeed]

H&S is very often well intentioned but its day-to-day implementation is left to folk with very little training and comprehension of hazard vs risk.[/QUOTE


People will always take risks of course, but the level of training in the construction industry has risen steeply over the past few years. Cant comment on small builders but any subcontractor working for a medium sized contractor will need evidence of training.

Having recently retired after over 40 years of working in the building and civil engineering industry, it is my opinion that the lunatics that make up and implement the H&s laws have lost the plot. An industry is being ruined by insurance companies and H&S buffoons that have absolutely no comprehension of day to day life on site.
I won't say any more, but its a big sticking point with me that these fools can shut down a job and prevent you from working for reasons known only to those who have had a lobotomy.

Make no mistake, its not your health they are interested in, its whether you are going to make a claim for your own negligence. I know, I've asked them.

 

[Bellow]

Have any of you actually had to secure a load on a flatbed with sides? With the load on the floor (not the OP's case I acknowledge) there can often be very little space between the load and the sides for feet and it is very easy to trap a foot or otherwise trip and there is no space to use your feet to prevent a fall. A fall over the side with a wedged foot will result in some severe and very painful leg injuries.
What a world we live in when those mortgaged, pensioned and insured to the hilt (read safe cosseted lives) have such disregard for the safety of manual workers.

 

[Palfrem]

AMGeed, I agree with what you say about insurance companies and NWNF lawyers, but speaking as a H&S buffoon (with 30 years experience, proper qualifications and chartered membership of a learned institute) I have to say that it has given me absolutely no pleasure whatsoever to be involved in the investigation of far too many serious, life-changing injuries and 5 fatalities.

Without exception all of those could have been avoided. I suspect you have never had to call someone's wife and inform them of the situation that has befallen their loved one.

Sadly I am still on a NHS waiting list for my lobotomy.

 

[AMGeed]

AMGeed, I agree with what you say about insurance companies and NWNF lawyers, but speaking as a H&S buffoon (with 30 years experience, proper qualifications and chartered membership of a learned institute) I have to say that it has given me absolutely no pleasure whatsoever to be involved in the investigation of far too many serious, life-changing injuries and 5 fatalities.

Without exception all of those could have been avoided. I suspect you have never had to call someone's wife and inform them of the situation that has befallen their loved one.

Sadly I am still on a NHS waiting list for my lobotomy.

I meant no personal insult Palfrem and perhaps grouping the idiots that actually sit down and make up some of the harebrained ideas that unfortunately become law was maybe a step too far. I also don't envy anyone having to give bad news after an accident.

I understand training, and educating the workforce to go about their business safely is important, but which numbskull decided it is too dangerous for kids to play conkers in the school playground? No more photographs of your kids at school sportsday? (not necessarily a H&S issue),
When will the H&S exectutive realise they are swamping the workplace with stupid risk assessments and unrealistic laws. (yes I can carry a heavy box thank you!)
I can recall about 15 years ago, when the H&S bods were really starting to get stuck into our freedom at work. No shorts, no short sleeves, got to wear a p1sspot on your head in an open field with only bird crap to injure you etc etc. I took my shirt off on a stinking hot day in Farnham and a passing H&S inspector told me to put it back on. I refused and told him to go to the beach and order everyone to cover up. I mean, just madness!
And you hit the nail firmly when I discussed it with him. Main contractors are sh1tting themselves that 10 years down the line I'll come back and claim I should have been forced to wear a shirt as I now had skin cancer. Whatever happened to looking out for yourself and taking responsibility for your actions?

Anyway, I rambled on too long. Its a mess and getting worse thanks to the Yanks and their policy of claiming for everything that is their own lookout and its spread here.

 

[Peter T]

Assuming, of course, that someone has interpreted the new H & S policy correctly, have they displayed a notice to this effect, out of interest?

Accommodating the general public on business premises is a minefield, and what may be laughable or common sense to some people can be a nightmare if someone else decides there's a chance of compensation in the event of their own negligence or stupidity.

Didn't see a notice, but I wasn't really looking for one so it could well be there.

 

[HughSurrey]

Speaking as another H&S numpty (no offence taken as there are a lot of muppets in our trade, as I am sure there were in yours).

The conker thing is a H&S myth, it is not health and safety, it was a misquoted aside that went viral, it never actually happened. The factors involved in risk assesment are likelihood and severity. Now I have never known anyone to be hurt playing conkers (maybe in the 'discussions afterwards), nor has anyone i have ever met so, almost irrespective of any potential severity of the aforementioned conker injury, when it is multiplied by a non-existent likelihood, it would not be classed as a risk that needs any control.

The truth in what you say is that people (companies) are terrified of litigation as are their insurance providers and so a lot of the 'stupid H&S rules' you hear about are in fact conditions put in place by insurance companies. Case in point being smoking in the office, it was banned by companies long before the 'smoking ban' due to the fact that those who did not allow smoking within the building got lower premiums.

A further issue is that there is a new breed of Safety Professional who have only ever worked in safety, and as such they have no comprehension of practical application ie how to take the words and put them into practice in a working environment.

I understand training, and educating the workforce to go about their business safely is important, but which numbskull decided it is too dangerous for kids to play conkers in the school playground? No more photographs of your kids at school sportsday? (not necessarily a H&S issue),
When will the H&S exectutive realise they are swamping the workplace with stupid risk assessments and unrealistic laws. (yes I can carry a heavy box thank you!)
I can recall about 15 years ago, when the H&S bods were really starting to get stuck into our freedom at work. No shorts, no short sleeves, got to wear a p1sspot on your head in an open field with only bird crap to injure you etc etc. I took my shirt off on a stinking hot day in Farnham and a passing H&S inspector told me to put it back on. I refused and told him to go to the beach and order everyone to cover up. I mean, just madness!
And you hit the nail firmly when I discussed it with him. Main contractors are sh1tting themselves that 10 years down the line I'll come back and claim I should have been forced to wear a shirt as I now had skin cancer. Whatever happened to looking out for yourself and taking responsibility for your actions?

Anyway, I rambled on too long. Its a mess and getting worse thanks to the Yanks and their policy of claiming for everything that is their own lookout and its spread here.

 

[MD5]

Didn't see a notice, but I wasn't really looking for one so it could well be there.

Signage is something we've discussed in detail many times at work in a retail environment, and it seems they are woefully inadequate at the job they are intended for. I wonder at what point H & S would support this notion?

Signs are something to refer back to if something goes wrong, but are people attentive enough to take heed in the first place? There are only so many signs that can be placed anywhere, but very few are effective, particularly ones that read "Please do not touch", for example.

 

[jotter22]

Without being picky why would you need to climb into the load bed to tie down 3 length's of timber?

Tony.

 

[tanuie]

I totally agree with AM Geed about the H & S rules, if you stuck to all the rules and regulations you would get nothing done or get the sack for not doing what you are supposed to be there for. I worked in the construction industry nearly all my working life.

 

[Peter T]

Without being picky why would you need to climb into the load bed to tie down 3 length's of timber?

Tony.

The lengths of timber were 3.6 metres long. The bed is 2.4 metres.

I don't like the idea of over a metre of timber hanging out the back so, I rest the front ends of the timber on the roll bar so they stick forward over the cab, strap them to the roll bar, and then strap the other ends to the tailgate.

I can, and on this occasion did do it by standing on the side step, but it's just so much easier to step over the side and stand in the bed.

 

[scumbag]

Being a nuisance, I would have asked them to show me their risk assessment detailing the risk and the decision which shows that being requested to not do that task is an appropriate control measure.

And then I would ask how they identified the hazard, and when did they do that work. And I guess I would want to know when they reviewed it.

And at some point during that discussion I might just offer some advice over how to ensure a workable and appropriate Safety Management System ought to be put in place.

I have just completed a 54 risk, risk register to show our Aviation Regulator.

If anyone of the people who asked the OP to step down wants some advice on assessing risk, feel free to tell them to pop round. Weather is nice here.

Of course, your dynamic risk assessment conducted at the time would have assured you that the bed of the pick up is perfectly acceptable to stand on as a platform and the desired goal of ensuring the wood is better placed over the cab rather than sticking out the back is considering other persons safety.

Working at height might suggest some form of restraint to prevent the falling....however, this has to based on the work needs of why you are required to be at height. It cannot be taken in isolation.

The post which mentions current safety advisors who have only been in safety make my life so difficult most of the time....luckily they report upwards to me.....so I can offer them help, or help out of the office.....

The issue which is occurring in these establishments is not reasonable. And that's the part they seem to miss most of the time.

As low as reasonably practical. It would not be unreasonable to get up onto the back of a pick up to tie wood down.

It would be unreasonable to use the back of the pick up to gain height to off load something from a first floor door or window etc etc.

As has been said before, it is not the rules themselves, it is the inappropriate use of them.

I think the insurance view is a red herring.

Others may disagree.......fine.

 

[geraldrobins]

I totally agree with AM Geed about the H & S rules, if you stuck to all the rules and regulations you would get nothing done or get the sack for not doing what you are supposed to be there for. I worked in the construction industry nearly all my working life.

I've also worked I the construction industry all my working life and have to disagree.
Our sites are much safer now in my opinion.
I have had a few meets with HSE officials and on the whole I have found them helpful and reasonably practical.
I agree that at the time some things seem over the top, but after a few years they seem like normal.

 

[Giantvanman]

Has H&S gained such a bad reputation because of either ineptitude (poor interpretation of the rules) or wilful neglect (the small minded on a personal power trip), I wonder? The benefits are great; do the rules evolve?
What I mean is this; do new rules come in because lessons have been learned when something goes wrong somewhere resulting in changes being applied industry wide? Or are the rules anticipatory?