Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By David Neilson
We all know Bird's triangle. 1:10:30:600. This was based on almost 2 million accidents in a wide range of industries.
I had an interesting discussion with my MD, explaining that, based on our numbers of accidents, statistically we have a significant under reporting of near misses and property damage incidents. He was sceptical of the relevance of Bird's triangle to our business which is largely office based.
Does anyone know of anything similar to Birds Triangle but more selective of industry type?
So far I have only found references to Bird.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
For a start HSG65 has HSE version; the earlier version referred to several, I seem to recall (eg Tye). & Birds was an extension of Heinrich.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
I'm sure I've seem a HSE case study on accident reporting somewhere & how this applied to several different businesses.
Can anyone else confirm this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
The document I was thinking about was HS(G)96
"The Cost of Accidents at Work" which you may or may not find relevant.
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
There are a number of these triangles. All they show is that there are more serious than minor accidents and more minor accidents than near misses. The actual ratios vary from study to study and are an artifact of the data collected.
It should be noted that you can have an inverted triangle for specific high risk activities, if the energies are large.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
Yes indeed Adrian & you've reminded we this was discussed on the forum in December.
You might find it helpful David. Search for:
'Heinrich, Bird, Tye et al'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
OK Adrian I give up! Tell me why the triangle you describe is upside down compared to the ones I know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Waldram
In 1970's ICI at Billingham analysed their data and showed that the ratios varied significantly - on thinking about it one factor was obvious, the amount of energy involved in the 'hazard'. As a result, the 'type of accident' (today we would say 'hazard') was categorised into one of three groups - for the most serious al incidents were thoroughly investigated, for the least serious only those involving serious injury. A modern version of this is to consider 'risk potential' (= hazard + likely numbers exposed).
Two examples are:
- slips/trips on the level, or using manual tools: For these a fatality is extremely rare, but lost time is quite common;
- electricity: there are probably more fatalities than lost-time injuries, and almost no 'minor' injuries, though lots of 'near-misses' (i.e. received a shock, but no significant effect). Thus the shape isn't event a triangle. The same would probably be true for handling smallpox, if anyone still did it at work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
I started the thread in december, and apart from the first or second response there was a fairly good discussion.
Incidentally, just before logging on, hoping for a bit of light relief after trying to analyse a company's accident statistiques, I noted that the whole company (three sites plus odds and ends) usually has about as many "reportable" injuries as "first aid cases" - about 10 +- 2 per month. In the reportables there are usually more LTI than not. Odd ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.