Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Wakeham
He's back again. Good old Mr C has used his column in the Sun newspaper to talk about safety again. Although he bangs on about we are in a "nanny state" etc. safety seems to be one of his favourite subjects and one he's compelled to write about frequently. However, his article did start me thinking- do we put people in hi-vis clothing too quickly? Does it actually make any difference? And finally where do we draw the line between "sensible" and "just for the sake of it".
Although I frequently disagree with Mr C's point of view, I did actually think there is some validity in what he is saying. As such I am posting this to get a feel for what other (more learned) collagues think. What I don't want to start is yet another posting in which all we get hot under the collar about Mr C giving safety people a bad name, I'm simply curious to hear other points of view.
I look forward to your responses.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
I reckon that too often hi-vis clothing is used as the easy option in the same way that PPE is often used, without looking at the real problems underneath. It's easy to make someone visible with dayglo colours, but a bit more difficult to sort out traffic flows, blind spots, areas of poor visibility, reversing vehicles, driver training, operating standards etc, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Charley Farley-Trelawney
There was a reasonable point made in his article, but then anything can be manipulated to appear on the daft side; is it the litigation V legislation arguement again perhaps?
On a point of note regarding HV clothing, why on earth do people insist on wearing it dirty, warn, old, useless? It is so cheap at least make certain that it is HV.
CFT
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Simon
It ia all too easy to use PPE as the Philosopher's stone - a cure for all ills. However, the use of PPE should be identified as a result of a risk assessment, where the risk cannot be removed or adequately controlled. There are many legitimate uses of PPE but as others have alluded to, it is often used as a matter of course or sometimes as a 'knee jerk' reaction following an incident.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Mackessack
All the above respondants have hit the nail on the head. I also believe that there is an over-reliance on such garments.
There is often a "looked but did not see" flavour to incidents. Hi-viz garments are only PPE after all, sitting well down the hierarchy. To make their use truly worthwhile, addressing the causes of skill-based errors and complacency must happen too.
To illustrate, I know a serving police motorcyclist (and advanced riding examiner) who says that even with a high-visibility coat, shiny white helmet, reflective stripes, big white motorbike with headlight on, blue flashing lights and a deafening siren, car/van drivers still pull out in front of him on a regular basis.
He doesn't bother with such garments when he is riding for himself away from work.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Cartridge
How many times have we seen it? personnel walking out, or behind plant, & when you challange them, the respose is "i've got me PPE on, whats the problem? he can see me"
I tell all of our guys " remember it's made of nylon not kevlar, it dosen't make you bulletproof"
It's only a locallised provision.
My thoughts
Andy
|
|
|
|
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.