Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jason911
A Good Friday Morning to All!
I think I have the right name for these children's trainers that have hidden wheels within the sole that can be ejected to allow the child to skate around on what effectively is a pair of roller skates!
So far we have had a child manage to knock themselves out in one of our stores and a few near misses of them colliding with other customers.
All staff have been advised to stop them in their tracks on sight but they are impossible to detect when the wheels are retracted. We don't want to put prohibition signs up everywhere, as where do you draw the line for such things, I mean we don't have a sign that says no skateboarding or rollerblading because its obvious isn't it?
I am just concerned about liability in the event that a child (all of whom are accompanied by an adult) injuring either themselves or someone else, especially after the recent incident of the boy who skated into the path of a car whilst using these.
Any thoughts?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dean Stevens
"I mean we don't have a sign that says no skateboarding or rollerblading because its obvious isn't it?"
I'm afraid with some people it just isn't obvious Jason. Why at work do we have to put "Keep clear, Fire exit" signs up or at swimming pools you will see "walk don't run signs" "Don't dive in the shallow end" etc etc. To me it is obvious that fire exits should be kept clear and that you should walk whilst at a pool and not dive in at the shallow end.
Unfortunately some people in this world have no safety concsience at all so therefore signs are required, even more so with children.
I would suggest putting a sign on the entrance stating "Keep the wheels inside the heels" or something similar, in the event of a claim being made against you i can't see that the "well it's obvious" statement would get you far.(although there must be some blame towards you for the claim to be succesfull, spillage not cleared up in aisle for example)
These "heelys" are getting quite a reputation for themselves from what i've heard.
At the end of the day i think the responsability is down to the paretns, they are aware of the hazards and they will be the ones purchasing the "heelys".
If i had kids i would allow them to have a pair but only to be used under right circumstances (Even tarmac ground away from roads, knee/elbow pads and safety helmet worn)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MT
"I mean we don't have a sign that says no skateboarding or rollerblading because its obvious isn't it?"
No, it's not obvious! Never underestimate the daft things that members of the public will do. If skateboarding is prohibited in your store, then you must put up clear signage saying such.
Remember that whilst members of the public are in the store the dutyholder is responsible for their safety to a large degree, therefore you must make it crystal clear what is and isn't acceptable, where they can and can't go and whether they can wheely round the shop or not.
I would suggest signage at the entrance, saying that people wearing wheelys must not wheel, wheely, skate, or whatever the appropriate terminology is! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zaphod Did you hear this news report about a 12 year old boy who was knocked down wearing them: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...gland/sussex/6316079.stmMy daughter is desperate for a pair. I've told her to wait till her birthday in May. (I wouldn't mind a pair myself but I'm not sure they would go very well with the H&S Manager image!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
I am sorry what I meant to say is that we won't be putting signs up for exactly the same reason that we don't put a sign up for:
No Running
No Jumping
No Climbing
No Trolley Surfing
No Leapfrogging
No Juggling
No Triple jumping
No Hopscotch
No Skipping
No Cycling
No Skateboarding
No Rollerskating
No Rollerblading
All of which children will do. What I really should have said is who is liable if we don't put a sign up? Surely it must be the parents, especailly as we do have a policy in place for all staff to stop on sight?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MT
If you've already concluded from your risk assessment that staff stopping anyone observed wheeling on their Heelys and can demonstrate that this is sufficient in relation to the actual risk, then fine.
However, if another member of the public is injured by someone using Heelys, anyone investigating the accident would question whether your control measures were suitable and sufficient.
I wouldn't imagine the risk to be significant, unless you are experiencing large numbers of kids wheeling around in which case you probably want to rethink the control measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
Oh Dear, I haven't done a risk assessment for Heely's, but then I haven't done a risk assessment for:
No Running
No Jumping
No Climbing
No Trolley Surfing
No Leapfrogging
No Juggling
No Triple jumping
No Hopscotch
No Skipping
No Cycling
No Skateboarding
No Rollerskating
No Rollerblading
Can I borrow someones risk assessment for Heely's?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pad Jason you might be interested in this from the heelys website http://www.heelys.com/faqs.htmlCommon Courtesy Crowded public areas are not good places for heeling. Do not cause inconvenience to others by running into them or cutting them off. Do not endanger others’ safety or your own. Follow the rules in public places – if there is no heeling allowed, make sure to take out your wheels. Respect others’ rights to enjoy public places just as you do. Never heel faster than you can walk. When you feel like you are losing balance, step out of heeling by putting your toes down and lean forward. There's also a nice page on safety gear and a training video. Seems to me the responsibility rests with the kid - and your staff should react, on behalf of other customers, the same way they do if they see people running round the obstacle course - sorry - shop. Pad FOr what it's worth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
Thanks Pad will check out the website and keep details on file in the event of a future claim.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dean Stevens
Jason
I don't think your sarcasm will get you far, you come on here asking for advice, you get it and then you continue to carry on with this attitude.
You do not need to conduct a seperate risk assessment for "heelys" they should be included in your shops general risk assessment as a collision / slip/trip hazard, you should then state what control measures you have in place (Staff telling kids to stop when witnessed "heelying") you should also add any additional control measures that you are going to implement in the further action neccesary column. I would suggest one sign for all types of wheels "No rollerbalding, skating or heelying allowed in this shop" something along those lines.
At the end of the day if you were going to go to court and defend a claim with this attitude you are currently displaying *it's obvious" "why should i risk assess heeleys" etc then you will just get laughed at and a bigger fine imposed.
I'm not looking to get into any kind of argument with you, i'm just offering my advice.
good luck in whatever you decide to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
The correct term for what you are talking about is "Wheelies".
Heelies are the type of wheels that can be added to trainers and taken off when not required. They light up as well!
My lad wants a set and I am trying to put him off but will probably give in. Helmet, knee and arm pads and, of course parental supervision at all times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
You are talking about kids here! Who can tell if a kid wearing wheeies/heelies can read?
Safety signs are OK if they can read but you need to consider the type of person and make sure they are instructed upon entry to the shop, not just signage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dean Stevens
Crim
You are mistaken , They are called "heely's"
Type in internet browser and you will find homepage.
I agree with you that all children cannot read, the feeling that i got from this earlier on was that all children are supervised by parents, ie no children allowed in shop on my own.
I may well be mistaken and if this is the case you have a very good point and i apologise, i would then suggest a prohibiton notice (red circle) with a silhouette of heely's. skateboard, roller skates etc in it. This would solve the problem for kids who can't read. And before you say anything a blind child should not be on "Heely's" anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Meiklejohn
i'm assuming that res ipsa loquitur applies here .
How did these thing get a CE mark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
I stand corrected, there are wheelies and heelies, heelies are wheels integral to the shoe, wheelies are the add ons.
Try ebay and you will see both items on different pages.
Whatever - they are essentially the same toy with the same safety hazards if used incorrectly.
(Blind person wearing wheelies/heelies led by trained guide dog Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm). Is it Friday or what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
Dean
I apologise if my response appeared sarcastic, but I for one get a little frustrated with posts suggesting that 'the answer is to complete a risk assessment yourself'. If I wanted that sort of advice, I would phone the HSE helpline!!!!
I am a firm believer that risk assessments are not the be all and end all and that getting them out at the slightest little change in procedures or external circumstances such as this takes up far far too much of our time as safety professionals, and all that for a document that is hardly ever read anyway, by the people that should read it at least.
I believe what we need to do is drop the clipboards take off our anoraks and get stuck into changing peoples attitudes and beliefs to the eventual end of adopting a positive safety culture, rather than just endless risk assessments in a vain attempt to keep us out of court.
I apologise if my remarks caused offense to MT, he is a big boy and I would hope he accepted them as some Friday tongue in cheek humor.
We have a very serious job as H&S professionals but I am sure we don't all have to be serious all the time on this forum do we?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MT
Jason, given that you have identified the use of Heelys in the premises as posing a risk of injury, and you have trained staff to stop anyone observed "Heelying", then it would appear that you have already conducted a risk assessment and implemented control measures.
Anyway, back to your original point. If I understand you correctly, what you're asking is: If a member of the public is injured on the premises by someone on Heelys, then is it the case that the dutyholder had failed to adequately control the risk, as they had allowed the person to Heely and therefore be guilty of not ensuring that the premises are safe for persons who are not employees?
In which case I would say yes, as what happens on the premises is controlled by the person in control of the premises (funnily enough). Given that you've identified Heelying as a hazard, then you should have controls in place. If an injury still occurred despite staff being asked to stop anyone observed Heelying, then it could be concluded that the controls weren't suitable and sufficient.
I still would recommend signage, because it would tell people that Heelying is prohibited, thus preventing Heelying, rather than the current system of waiting to observe Heelying, *then* stopping it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MT
Jason, I'm not in the slightest bit offended.
PS, I'm not a boy. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holyterror72
If what happens on your premises is your fault then consider this.
If an individual carries a gun into a store and shoots someone are you responsible for having a no guns sign on display?
I don't want to get in an argument but so far as reasonably practicable must apply to certain circumstances mustn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MT
My point is that Jason has already identified that there have been several people observed Heelying, and he is obviously concerned that an accident may occur. Surely the easiest way to do this is to be explicit about the fact that Heelying is not allowed within the premises. Seems a cheap, simple and easily practicable solution to me.
Besides, I don't really think the gun incident would be reasonably foreseeable, would it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Younger
Jason
I am a safety manager in retail myself, and we have placed signs up in all our stores stating "children must be accompanied by an adult at all times whilst in this store" It doesn't necessarily stop everything, but it does empower our staff to walk up to a parent and say, "excuse me, but can you stop you little s##t swinging off the changing room curtains" or whatever they happen to be trying to destroy on that particular day. Good luck! kids on wheels! thats all we need!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Meiklejohn
not entirely heely related...
if you have identified the use of heely's on your premises as a hazard because of the slip/ trip hazard
Shouldn't high heels come under the same risk assessment - as inappropiate footwear?
Not that I would ever risk the wrath... but there is mounting clinical evidence that high heels pose a serious health hazard
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holyterror72
MT
It depends where you live!
Did any of you have signs up denoting no po go-ing when they rereleased the po go stick thing which was lethal or those terrible or those little folding scooters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
'Besides, I don't really think the gun incident would be reasonably foreseeable, would it?'
Really MT I am astounded by that remark. One thing that definitely is included as a significant risk in my assessments is armed robbery!!!!
Jay
P.s Glad you not offended big man/girl/whatever ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
Having some time to consider this I now remember a large supermarket in France, last year, where staff used roller skates to get quickly from end to end. I was surprised by this but it is practical after all.
Also I remember the Vauxhall plant in Ellesmere Port allowed staff to use cycles inside the factory as it was a heck of a distance to walk.
At the time I was trying to stop staff at my workplace from cycling through the factory on thier way to the locker rom!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dean Stevens
MT
I'm totally with you on this one, good advice.
Heelying has already been observed on several occasions in the shop so cannot be ignored, i think signage is the correct control measure too (with prohibition circle and silhouttes of course for those who can't read).
Jason
I accept your apology, sorry if i came across a bit harsh, but i'm sure that you have re- read the thread and could see where i'm coming from.
As for the gun comment
It is against the law to carry a gun anyway, and if one of your assistants were to be shot then i'm 99% sure that you would not be prosecuted or fined, i mean how can you forsee this.
Good topic of debate this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
How can you not forsee something just because its against the law?
I mean shops have cash and people want cash, so they have robbed shops since they came into existence with whatever the fashionable weapon was for the time.
I mean surely what your suggesting is that the risk assessments for an employee of say a well known cash courier firm need not include risk of physical violence as a significant risk, as it is against the law and cannot therefore be foreseen.
Surely not, I mean is it just me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dean Stevens
That did come out a bit wrong i must admit.
The point i'm trying to get across is that there is very very very little chance of an employer being prosecuted / fined when one of their employees is shot.
I appreciate that control measures will be in place for this, panic button, staff told not to fight back etc etc but have you ever heard of a case where an employer has been prosecuted / fined for this type of thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holyterror72
In my defense the gun example was a bad one although its sparked an interesting argument.
The point I was trying to make was surely you are only responsible for so much on your premises. I think prohibition signage for heelys is funny (although if someone makes one on Photoshop or similar I would like a copy to send to the tabloids for the next 'bonkers conkers' article).
Children dont read signs do they. If fact how many adults stop and read all warning signs before entering a shop? Waking around a shopping centre would take a weeks holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
Granted, but there have been numerous cases of so called 'have a go heroes' and I think as H&S is progressing, unless an employer could prove that an employee who had been injured had been trained in such an event to simply comply with all instructions, then it is entirely feasible that they could be prosecuted.
I would argue that the threat of violence against retail employees is a much more significant risk and worthy of our valuable time to ensure effective control measures, than irresponsible parents allowing their offspring to skate around shopping centres.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
Sorry, above post should slot in before holyterrors, which I think is spot on!
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holyterror72
I couldn't agree more. If I worked in one of your stores I would be (and generally am now)more concerned with being shot than by a heely wielding child.
Having said that I haven't risk assessed it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JLR
Hi Jay
In response to your original enquiry, I believe that your organisation 'could' be held as liable if a child was injured or another person (either customer or member of staff) was injured as a result of a child coming into the store wearing these heelies or any of the other wheeled devices mentioned.
It of course depends on the circumstances of the individual case. The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 places a firm requirement on occupiers to protect their lawful visitors.
In the case of children entering a premises on heelies, if the parent is with them, the parent would be expected to exercise due control over their child (they are not expected to watch the child every minute). It could be said that allowing children into a shop wearing these things was not exercising due control but this would be up to the courts to decide.
If the children are persistently entering the premises and an accident occurs this was foreseeable (especially as you've already had a couple of incidents) and as an employer you would be expected to put control measures in place to reduce the risk to a safe level.
If staff stopping people from entering the store wearing heelies is working, that's great there is no need for a sign. However if staff do not consistently act on this instruction (this may be for a number of reasons including the fear of abuse from the parent/ children) and people are still entering the store wearing these things then we are opening up the possibility for litigation again.
I totally agree that we should not walk around with our clipboards and should avoid unnecessary bureaucracy at all costs.
However as you have already stated that you have had one accident and a few near misses (I don't know the size of your organisation)and been concerned enough to put a message on the discussion forum, this would suggest that the risk is significant and therefore should be documented within a risk assessment to comply with the management regulations and to demonstrate why you have made the risk management decisions you have.
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran J Duignan
The variety of opinions and emotions expressed in response to an innocent question reveals how gripping OSH can become.
Depending on how much value senior management of Jason's company attribute to communicating with customers, it may be worth commmissioning an intelligent cartoonist to create some 'safe fun and fitness in the right places - safe behaviour contributes to wellbeing of all our customers' notices for the store.
Raising the quality of safety communications with the public (and with workforces) is one of the ways in which our profession can challenge the wearisome, trivial criticisms the media too often indulge in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Christopher Kelly
Surely this is a case of personal / parent responsibility. Kids don't read signs anyway.
Also signs are a last resort and too many of them lead to them being less effective.
I think Jason is doing enough, having done a risk assessment and instructing staff to stop on sight.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.