Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Mark Mace
I have carried out a risk assessment for one of our operations.
Part of the assessment has highlighted frequent collisions between the equipment and vehicles/buildings.
Whilst there is no possibility of this causing an injury to persons will i need to put in my risk assessment a severity of nil but a frequency of 4, which inturn would result in a risk rating value of 0.
Obviously i am aware that staff will require retraining to avoid these incidents.
regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Cr8r
Mark
Obviously I don't know your site, but can you be certain that people are never likely to be struck? Are these areas to which it is impossible for anyone to ever get access? I don't know what your risk rating system is, but if there is any chance at all of a person being struck, then I would up your rating to a 1 or whatever your next figure is even if it is extremely remote. To my mind, if you can get a vehicle in somewhere, then you can definitely also get a person in there. Even if everyone is told never go to a particular place, what about visitors, contractors doing out of the usual maintnance work, people hiding in an out of sight place (eg the old crafty fag!).
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By George Wedgwood
Even using a simple risk matrix of 1-5, your risk will never be zero so there is always room for a control measure no matter how small you perceive the risk! As far a vehicles are concerned - especially workplace transport - the risks will never be less than 'medium' in my book as long as we have drivers and employees, and that demands that strict control measures are maintained. If your vehicles are causing regular property damage, then the last respondent is right and you may have a person exposed when you think there should be no one there - it could even be one of the drivers, who become pedestrians as soon as they step out of the cab!
Best to review your risk assessment, never have zero risk, and remember that pedestrian safety and vehicle movements in the workplace are one of the high risk issues that needs special attention.
Regards, George
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
perhaps you should expand your scoring definitions to include property and corporate or business risks (i.e. apply multiple/parallel definitions). Risk Assessment is a very useful tool which can be applied equally effectively outwith the limited context of the Management Regs.
Of course, there may well be circumstances where intial property damage will consequently result in a personal injury risk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
Why do you have a "0" in your rating and why does it matter that the RR is zero, you have identified that you need to provide training anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Mace
have already rated the possibility of injury against personnel seperately, i am just trying to show in the assessment that there is a very large risk to company property.
I.E. i am trying to prove that the thousands of pounds we spend on repairing vehicles and property could be saved if i was allowed to train the operatives properly in this area, instead of the ten minute training period that my Directors will allow me, unfortunately they have a very narrow understanding of buisness costs and all they tend to see is whichever bill is in front of them at that particular moment, it suprises me that we continue to be so very profitable and that i still have a job,
I have attempted various methods to convince the senior management that H&S treated properly can improve company productivity from various angles and whilst they agree with me at the time whenever i try to put systems into place, with departmental managers they fail to back me up.
i do particularlylike the idea of increaseing my risk matrix table to include corporate property damage and i will see if i can include this somehow, any ideas on this track would be gratefully accepted.
Thanks all for your help.
Regards
MAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Haynes
its not that unusual for me to see a separate commercial risk matrix in risk assessments [you need to decide the various severity levels of commercial risk]
Sometimes I see assessements that include another matrix for environmental risks.
As long as you approach it logically - it shouldn't be too difficult
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Derek Holt
I would suggest you use a risk assessment matrix that covers more than people alone. The following scaled matrix works reasonably well.
Severity from 0-5
Consequences: People, Assets, Environment and Reputation (or any other you feel is applicable)
Likelyhood: A-E
The sectors are then colour coded to easily indicate the tolerability of the risk and the level of demonstratable control needed. The hazard is then given a risk rating as follows A3E (E being for environment)or any combination thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.