Rank: Super forum user 
|
I take it that all you folks working in LAs regarding roadworks are aware of this? Looks as if LAs and councils who carry out works on their own roads will have the same duties as Utility companies now have.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2010-15/
Not remotely my area so apologies if it is common knowledge!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
HI martinw I work in Utilities and was not aware of changes but will now read it as we often get our guys wanting to know why they do and others don't. Thanks for the heads up. Sheryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Will certainly upset many LAs who have managed to avoid the requirements since the inception of the NRSWA in 1992
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
in my experience the utility contrators are the main culprits. LA's have had legislation for road works signing and guarding spelt out in the Highway Act 1981, and other preceeding Acts. Add to this its down to LA's to police works on the highway, prosecute and issue FPN's.
LA's have complied with the ACOP and Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manaul (first issued in 1961). So its nothing new to them. Also, in the main most LA's also put their own employees through the qualification under the Streetworks Act.
Lets not presume LA's are the offenders without the concrete proof...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Pardon my ignorance, I'm no expert in this area. Does this proposal mean that all LA sub-contractors (not forgetting the "grounds maintenance" aspect associated with verge works and hedge cutting etc. often carried out by other divisions within the LA) would have to obtain the more formal training and exercise appropriate supervision in strict accordance with NRSWA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
No, not the NRASWA, they would only be required to comply with the Highways Act and the Traffic Management Act, complying with the ACOP would infer compliance with these Acts.
Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual (Guidance Document) has always required any person engaged in any works on the highway to be appropratley trained. This serves to also meet the requirements of the HASAWA and associated Regulations.
The ACOP was born out of Chaper 8 and has only applied to Utilities works, although LA's also use it to cover single carraigeway roads. The ACOP does not contain sufficient information to cover all types of work in respect of signing and guarding the works, for this it refers to Chapter 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What would be considered "adequate" training? What is the accepted standard for a person in charge of a site, and would that apply to "minor" work too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I work in utilities and I have to respectfully disagree with RP's comments that utility contractors are the main culprits- all our employees have their full operatives streetworks qualification and chapter 8 compliance is strictly monitored. It has been a lesson hard learned but I think we have definately turned a corner. What is disheartening is when LA's cant find fault with the site set up, they start clutching at straws trying to find anything else they can defect us on- its just a way of making money back off the contractors who they pay to do the job in the first place. You wouldnt get LA's fining their own employees for similar offences. One standard that everyone has to comply to, would be alot fairer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.