Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Andrew Joule Land http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/...d/lancashire/6937794.stmThe above link reports a story of work being stopped because of "Safety Regulations" Again this type of story makes our honoured profession a laughing stock. I must add that many times these reports come from the BBC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
I read this story last week and agree that training should be given to those required to carry out the work.
After all is it not falls from height that cause the most fatalities?
Working at the roadside adds to the hazard/risk and this high risk activity does require appropriate controls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pugwash The report on this matter started in the local press in Lancashire about a week ago - for example http://www.blackpoolciti...ed_over_ladder_rules.phpIt does nothing to help the cause of sensible health and safety. The press reporting is, as far as I can see, pretty accurate. It is the decision making within the Council which appears to be at fault. I would welcome a comment from the HSE. Perhaps this could be used as September's "myth of the month" - that you need to receive formal training to go four feet off the ground up a ladder. This is extreme risk aversion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Hendrie
I agree training is needed.
Look at it the other way - Untrained person falls from short ladder and strikes their head on the pavement (or falls into the path of oncoming traffic) Would the council have met its legal duty to ensure workers are informed, instructed and trained?
However, repetitive tasks such as erecting signs next to a road with live traffic would surely warrant the use of a suitable platform (i.e. portable podium steps) particularly as erecting signs requires the use of more than one hand.
The WaH Regulations are making the construction industry think about "low level" falls
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pugwash
I agree that WAHR is making the construction industry think about low level falls - the problem I have with the Regulations is that I feel that they are making the construction industry think too much about low level falls. Parts of the industry are getting obsessed about it and are wanting to eliminate the risk of falls rather than manage it. Also I agree that a person putting up these SIDs could fall with the possibility of severe injury. However where I disagree is with the evaluation of the risk of injury. I suggest that the likelihood of severe injury is very low indeed and the overall risk is low. Perhaps staff do need a bit of training but surely the risk warrants say five minutes from the supervisor as part of initial induction - not formal training from a qualified trainer. (The supervisor can read the leaflet from the HSE and then tell his workers what it says.)
When the HSC discussed these Regulations and the ACOP and had a debate about low level falls, did they expect that pieces like this in the media would result? I think that most members of the public can intuitively evaluate the risk of using ladders for low level work – many people have them at home and have used them for years without incident and without formal training. There appears to be a disparity between the public’s evaluation of the risk of tasks such as this and that of parts of our profession – and therein lies something to interest the feral beast!
Many of the “conkers-bonkers” stories have come from misreporting of the facts. In this case the reporting appears to be pretty accurate. This reminds me of the Humberside fire service and their smoke detector installation problem a few months ago. That one ran and ran on here. (I seem to remember that even the HSE decided to dip its toe in the water with a posting to the forum on the topic – probably the first and the last posting which we will see from the Executive!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Clearly a political football and nothing to do with health and safety as such. It could just as easily have been about how bad various government agencies/departments are at talking sensibly to each other when planning initiatives like this; but that is boring and does not make people smile wistfully any more.
How about the statement from the article that says "A procedure review by Lancashire County Council found its staff need extra training to climb ladders to do the job." !!!!! Therein lies the H&S problem if indeed there is one.
As to whether a ladder shouod be used.
"For straightforward, short duration work stepladders and ladders can be a good option, but you wouldn’t want to be wobbling about on them doing complex tasks for long periods." seems an apposite quote from the HSE guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.