Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Bob Youel
Whats peoples opinions re wearing seat-belts? where role-over protection is in place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Breezy
If you don't, I guess you may render the roll over protection system inneffective by falling out of the roll cage and being crushed between the roll cage and the ground.
Just a gut feel there, do you have any particular situation or machine in mind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Essential otherwise the role-over protection simply will not work.
In reality, operatives do not belt up therefore role over-protection will fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bunny
Mandatory in my opinion and is certainly considered to be best practice. If there is no restraint then when the vehicle overturns the persons natural instinct is to try and jump and they can become trapped between the vehicle and the ground. I know that this is the stance the enforcing authorities take.
FLT's are a prime example, they are not that stable on uneven ground and can topple on small inclines, potholes and corners. seatbelts should be mandatory unless there is a guarantee that overturn can't occur...which is virtually impossible to guarantee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
no particular machine etc just a view re others re the area
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Breezy
In which case, the consensus appears to be buckle up or render the roll protection inneffective at best or deadly at worst!
(It's the same principle as wearing seatbelts in a car; if you don't do so, you can pose a greater risk to yourself and others travelling with you.)
In addition, don't forget if a seatbelt is provided on the equipment, I suspect that it is likely to be an offence under PUWER Regs not to use it. Anyone like to confirm that for me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap
If its fitted it must be worn. Otherwise why fit it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Vitta
Breezy
Interesting comment regarding PUWER, we have as i suspect others have problems
trying to get FLT drivers especially temporary drivers to wear seatbelts, maybe a
new approach to try with the Local area manager
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus
Bob, to ensure they all wear their seat belts,you could give them one warning, then if you catch them again chuck their supervisor off site for the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Salus, I'm with you. Bosses are more dangerous than crocodiles.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David J Jones
Not wearing the seat belt I believe would be seen as culpable negligence by the driver in the event of any form of claim for injuries by him/her following an accident. (This applies equally to cars).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ali
Read "Risk" by John Adams and you will look at seat belts in a different light !
Ali
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Linda Crossland-Clarke
Hi
I have been in a roled landrover, the driver was heavier than me and he was suspended when we came to a stop. When he released the belt I was the soft landing. If this had happened at speed then it would have hurt!
Belts good.
Roled landrover - photo opportunity!
Hey this could be another month on the calander! It's in formation, not forgotten. But mods don't worry I am not trying to resurrect the thread. Just a moment of inspiration. Now to find a sponsor for harnesses... hmm.
Regards.
Linda
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Red Ones
Where I have worked in warehousing we took the view that the seat belt was part of the safety equipment supplied for use when driving any FLT. Therefore, it was to be worn as a piece of PPE. PPE is of course already covered elsewhere and if provided must be worn and not interfered with. Failure to wear the PPE was a disciplinary offence.
You may find difficulties with this approach however with order pickers where the driver has to make regular stop to pick off racking. This helps push the employer away from hand picking and using only pallet sized picks and also puts pressure on maintaining a level floor to eliminate the risk completely
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Cartridge
One point not yet mentioned is the roll bar, which in itself can cause problems.
1. Some equipment like mini diggers & some tandem ride on rollers have folding roll bars to allow them to go into low places, people open up the roll bar after it has been folded down & forget to put in the safety pin, which renders it useless.
2. On some equipment, the roll bar itself can cause a seriously injury to a third party, whist protecting the operator in a rollover situation. Anybody working in the proximity of a machine will see the machine going over, but rarely sees the rollbar, which comes down like a guillotine.
One further point is the seatbelt & its mounting, if the belt mounting is faulty or the belt is not adjusted correctly or a faulty clip is fitted, again........useless
my thoughts
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Hendrie
In my opinion they are mandatory unless
a) You can prove there is no risk of rolling over,or
b) They would increase the overall risk, or
c) Their use would make the operation of the equipment impossible
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.