Posted By IC Rogers MIOSH Cert Ed I provide a Working at Height Awareness Course which has been third party approved by IOSH. After completing the presentation, I show various slides asking the question "are these people working at height". One is of a painter and decorator using stilts to reach the ceiling and the other is a female police woman mounted on horse back in a riot scenario. The answer is yes to the first and no to the second, due to the police woman being deployed on an internal security matter, therefore having dispensation from the Secretary of State. A question always asked by the delegates is "what about jockeys, they are paid and are working, so are they working at height". Having exhausted my thoughts and research for the answer, I would appreciate any feedback. Roy Rogers MIOSH Cert Ed

Posted By db Where there is an acceptable risk then the wah regs do not apply. Yes, there are accidents but there is generally a good safety record. There are no means of ensuring that a person does not fall from a horse, other than not riding it - and as the risk is generally low nobody will be silly enough to enforce it. No equipment to prevent fall so go straight to training and instruction.

Posted By Tabs Having seen some of the falls that jockeys suffer, it would be gross negligence to secure them to the rolling horse. Is any safety law permitted, morally, to endanger people - I think not. Try to get across pragmatism to your candidates. It is likely that there will be exceptions to a lot of law, guidance, and best practice. Most of them will be sensible. It is when law is applied without thought that we get ridiculed. Be grateful that for the moment (EU Law Courts permitting) that we have a little flexibility.

Posted By Ken Taylor Quote this one, Roy: [What is ‘work at height’? Regulation 2 5 A place is ‘at height’ if (unless these Regulations are followed) a person could be injured falling from it, even if it is at or below ground level. 6 ‘Work’ includes moving around at a place of work (except by a staircase in a permanent workplace) but not travel to or from a place of work. For instance, a sales assistant on a stepladder would be working at height, but we would not be inclined to apply the Regulations to a mounted police officer on patrol.] (HSE publication INDG401)

Posted By Raymond Rapp It is my understanding the WAH Regs do not apply to sports activities, just as the Noise Regs do not apply to social activities. Common sense I guess. Even if there was a claim from a Jockey, I would presume the volenti defence would be argued. Nice question. Ray

Posted By Andy Brazier I have to say I am some what bemused by all this. My view is that the painter, mounted police officer and jockey are all working at height. The later two may or may not be exempt from the regulations, but they still work at height. I believe it is possible to conduct a perfectly valid risk assessment. In the case of the jockey I would say the risk is higher than would be considered tolerable in most business settings. But it is not a normal setting, and hence a higher risk is tolerated. There is then still the requirement to reduce the risks to as low as reasonably practicable. For the jockey this includes enforcing rules for racing, PPE and provision of emergency treatment following a fall. Even with these I still the risk is above that which would normally be tolerated, but unless we are going to ban horse racing, is tolerable for the situation. There will be a duty to inform jockey's of the risk, to make sure they are willing to accept it. In fact this seems like an excellent case study covering reasonably practicable, tolerability of risk, interpretation of regulations and how health and safety can be applied to reduce risks without banning an activity.

Posted By IC Rogers CMIOSH Cert Ed Ladies and Gents First may I say thank you very much for the feedback. Wemurphy a special thank you for the shortcut, I will certainly be using this example in my course material. Steven Bentham, thank you for the suggestion of using shetland ponies cetrainly would eliminate the risk. As the judge said, case closed. Happy Christmas