Posted By Raymond Rapp Ian Yes, I am mildly interested...and your point is? Ray

Posted By Bill Fisher Ian Many thanks. I was looking for this very point only this morning. When something new comes out it is always useful if someome, on finding it, posts a simple alert - as you have done. It does save wasted time. Regards Bill

Posted By James M Thanks for the update. Ray, reference your initial comment, there were some clues. It was posted in the discussion forum and under OSH chat. My name isn't Sherlock Holmes but I would say these clearly identified signs lead most people up the common sense path.

Posted By Lynchy Ian I attended a safety group meeting the week before last and the HSE Inspector present told us that the Work at Height regulations have now been delayed until October at the earliest - due to the imminent general election!!!! Has anyone else heard this?? Lynchy

Posted By Matthew O'Farrell I expect if, as reported, the Regulations were only laid before Parliament around 16th March, they won't have been on the table for the necessary 40 days prior to becoming law, asuming the General Elections are as predicted on 5th May and Parliament is disolved by 14th April. M

Posted By Ron Hunter I am not by any means 'anti-Europe', and OK, the UK had to take steps to implement the Directive, but in all honesty I cannot see anything 'new' in these Regulations - seems a duplication of PUWER and risk elimination/reduction principles as discussed in Management Regs, and therefore an unnecessary "layering" of UK Legislation? I do fear the usual resultant rash of 'courses' and 'seminars' which may be generated, making money from the unwary or ill-informed. The rot seems to have started already, with some LAs banning contractors from using ladders in tender documents?!!! OK, the world of working at height isn't by any means perfect, but wasn't there already an adequate framework of legislation already in place? Thoughts anyone?

Posted By steve e ashton Does anyone know if the tabled regs differ substantially from the 'latest version' on the HSE website? From that version, the two most significant factors appear (to me) to be 1 There is NO new duty to assess risks from work at height (reference is made to assessments made under existing provision in the management regs) and 2 The obligation to avoid work at height when the weather conditions jeopardise the health or safety of persons involved in the work IS AN ABSOLUTE DUTY. ( Every employer shall ensure that work at height is carried out only when the weather conditions do not jeopardise the health or safety of persons involved in the work.... reg 4.3). Take this to its illogical conclusion (as our courts are wont to do now again)... Amongst other absurdities it will be unlawful to ask a van or truck driver to climb in or out of his cab when it has been raining because his footwear will be wet and may cause slipping on the metal steps....... ie the weather conditions will jeopardise the health and safety of the persons doing the work.... And no-one will be allowed to climb a ladder without first using an anemometer to ensure the wind will not jeopardise their H&S and.... Don't expect any downed power or telecom lines to be repaired whilst the wind is still blowing or the snow still falling.... Think about it. I've got a migraine coming on.... Steve

Posted By Joe Hardiment Thankyou Ian for the info. I am slowly gathering some info on the new regs for a presentation. If anybody finds more can you post or notify me on IOSH Regards Joe

Posted By GeoffB When this came up in SHP that IOSH were all for the removal of the 2m rule I asked who that person was in IOSH who was in favour. I don't look on this forum all the time and there may have been an answer but I haven't seen it. On a more mundane level does anybody have a web reference for the current consultation document as I need to look at the schedules with reference to ladders. Thanks Geoff

Posted By Lawrence Hughes I have been using this draft: http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...ings/2005/110105/c11.pdf This is the agenda for the HSC meeting 11/1/05 to discuss WAHR. The back pages, after the discussion arguments, includes a clean copy of the latest draft WAHR that is not covered in strikethroughs and other ammendment artifacts. Makes going through it with management less confusing. Unfortunately both hse website links that I have found to the minutes of the decision meeting are all broken.

Posted By Ken Taylor Many of us objected to the removal of the '2m Rule' in addition to the Construction Industry in general - but this was ignored - presumably to fall in line with Europe and the planned 'superstate'. I shall endeavour to keep 2m as a useful guide to determining appropriate risk control measures. For instance, people who use kick-stools and library steps tend not to need the same working at height training as those who climb ladders or work on roofs - so, if there is no 'cut-off point', at what point do you require which training and will different decisions be made by different managers for employees doing the same work, etc?

Posted By GeoffB Steve/Lawrence - thanks for the references.

Posted By Ken Taylor I wonder what guidance we will get as to the meaning of jeopardising health and safety in relation to weather conditions and what is a 'distance liable to cause personal injury' that we have a duty to prevent persons falling so far as is reasonably practicable? The definition given for 'work at height' seems to be work at any place where a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. Note that liability needs to be shown - but also remember that persons can be injured in any fall at any height (even minimal) and that the extent of injury is not a factor. This could all prove interesting!

Posted By Graham Peters Adam, if the person driving the car has an accident the driver got it wrong. They should be nicked. If the car does not have an accident the driver assessed his speed correctly, no police involvement.

Posted By Sean Fraser I am astonished at some of the comments regarding the 2m rule. We had a fall from less than 0.5m and resulted in a broken arm for which the injured party was off work over several months. There is no question that had a suitable risk assessment been conducted and the results properly understood, the individual concerned would have ensured they were using the right access equipment (e.g. steps!). As it was, practice and habit meant he used a totally inappapriate item - a foam block - because it was handy and he couldn't see the harm. He does now - when it is too late. How many others have been harmed in this respect, just because they didn't see it as "working at height"? Using a definitive measure misses the point and means that people become blind to some real dangers. And the analogy to speeding used in an earlier post seems to imply that people would now consider 2m as being safe and the proposed legislation would support their assessment! Actually, the opposite is true - it reduces the height down to one where hamr can be foreseen to be a result of a fall - how can you agrue against that? It is an example of the "if you can't measure it you can't manage it" thinking. A good safety professional would be able to explain what constitutes a dangerous condition to the satisfaction and agreement of all except for the really hard of thinking, and not have to rely on absolutes. Safety is a collaborative process and too often we hide behind rules, making it all the more difficult to get the point across - and you wonder why incident rates aren't falling. Having said that, I agree with other comments regarding the layering effect of adding legislation in order to meet EU directives - many of which have improved H&S in Europe and saved countless lives as a consequence - when we could have simply updated exisiting legislation. Those who haven't got a jaundiced view of the EU would know that this approach would be perfectly acceptable, as it is the implementation that is important. It is just the the government (and especially this one) is often too lazy to review and revise existing legislation and simply adds another bill on top so they can point directly to it and say "look, we've done it!". That is a UK problem, not an EU one. What effect is this legislation going to have overall? To the responsible employer who already has an effective safety management system in place, nothing. They are doing it anyway. To the irresponsible employers, nothing much if they can get away with it. Only sustained pressure from their clients, insurers and unions will make them improve. And on the jobsworths? Problem or opportunity? Mix of both - decrying the burden of legislation, they will stoically get going on creating mountains of paperwork to justify their existance and make their own lives and that of everyone else around them that little bit more onerous and miserable, when it simply isn't necessary.

Posted By Frank Hallett So far everyone has apparently assumed that the WAH Regs only affect work above the ground. Read Schedules 1 & 3 and then work out how to work at a manhole or similar ground level access point without actually introducing either a fence AT THE EDGE OF THE HOLE [that is a barrier between the operative s and the edge; not to demarcate or enclose the whole working area] or avoiding the use of fall restraint devices which will need efficient anchors somewhere. Once you've done that, just think yourself lucky if you don't work at these edges. Frank Hallett