Posted By JonH
Here's one for a Friday - the work at height regulations. Falls from height are the joint largest cause of fatalities in the workplace. OK so we have controls in place to eliminate work at height, reduce the work at height or at the very least, reduce the consequences of falling from height. OK, lets look outside the workplace.

If I stand on the platform of a train station, the only thing stopping me from falling a metre on to an electrified rail and a Virgin express doing 120mph is a strip of yellow paint!

On the Jubilee line in London round by Canary Wharf, they have a barrier/door system so you cannot gain access to the rails from the platform. When the train arrives, the screen doors open and the train door opens. The doors close before the train pulls away again.

If they can implement this system in London, why have they not rolled it out across the network? I know why - the vast cost of doing it. I am waiting for a case where someone drops off a platform at a station, and the family seek compensation. What would be the result, with the fact that there is a system known and in operation in London? The family could argue that it should have been in place?

What are the stats for injury/death at station platforms?

What do you think - should more be done to protect platform edges? Or should it remain as it is, with the onus being on the individual to look after themselves. What about the young parent with lot of bags and a little child who runs off and falls over the platform?

Jon

Posted By Liesel
Jon, I don't know if you're being tongue in cheek here, but here goes........

Like with other activities, rail safety is based on the ALARP principle and Tolerable Death limits (there is also a "broadly Acceptable Death Limit" value for rail passengers). The rail industry has a sophisticated model for hazard identification and risk assessment to deliver such. So I think you'll find that these issues have been and are assessed- a trip to the ORR website and a look at "Railway Safety Principles and Guidance" and a trip to the Railway Group Standards site and you'll find the methodologies used.

"RSPG Principle 11: Platforms safe for people. Platforms should allow for the safe waiting of people, their boarding and alighting from trains."

Also, I have been told that the Jubilee line platform doors are more about air flow control in tunnels than about people falling/jumping off platforms.

But, no doubt there is someone far more experienced in rail safety than I am on here who can explain better.

Posted By Ben Keen
Maybe some people don't have enough to do on a Friday.

Have a read of this report http://www.rssb.co.uk/pd...Station_Safety_Final.pdf
and you will see that falls from platforms are far from the biggest issue at stations. Of course some people do manage to fall from platforms; Charles Darwin has theories on that one. I'm not dismissing the occasional unfortunate or innnocent falling from the platform but the point about ALARP is well made.

The Jubiliee line is underground, the platforms tend to be more crowded and different issues arise. It is cheaper to fit doors when building a new line for standard configuration trains than to retrofit to existing lines, hence some of the Jubilee has doors, some doesn't. When building the Jubilee Line extension it was seen as desirable and affordable to install the doors, and very nice they are too.

Posted By Al..
I think we should look at Jon's original question from another perspective. He asks "should more be done to protect platform edges?" We quickly concluded, no, it's not really feasible. Instead we concentrate on trying to control the behaviour which results in people falling off platforms. No argument with that.

However, if we are prepared to accept railway station platforms with no edge protection, why do we get so uptight about needing edge protection in other places? Many of the staff in my company would be quite happy to work on flat roofs with no edge protection and no other safeguards. They would behave in exactly the same way as they would on a station platform and avoid going too close to the edge. However the company (and the HSE) does not allow them to do this. We demand edge protection or other safeguards. We do not allow them to use their common sense.

What is the difference between doing a job on a flat roof and doing it on a station platform?

Posted By Al..
No, not a wind up. It is genuine request.
What is the difference between doing a job on a flat roof and doing it on a station platform? Falling from both can result in death, one from impact with the ground, the other from impact with a Virgin express or electrocution from the third rail.

The answer might be obvious to some, but I cannot, for the life of me, see it. Help me please.

Posted By Al..
I am not convinced by this. What about two employees, one tasked with sweeping a flat roof and one tasked with sweeping a station platform. Both at work, both at risk. There would be protection for the roof worker but nothing for the railway employee. (The station by the way is on a very busy line with trains passing through every few minutes, many at high speed.)

30 to 40 years ago the chances are that both workers would have worked with unprotected edges. Now it is only the worker on the station platform. Is it simply that the risk on the roof is higher or that it is not reasonably practicable to protect the edge of the platform?

Posted By Pete48
Of course we have been instructed by the rail company on how to behave; there are both visual and verbal information/warning aids to remind us. Now if we also accept that a % of the populace will never follow instructions out of sheer individualism and another % will not understand or have the ability to act in the required manner and a further % will be talking on their mobile phones whilst kicking the nearest empty coffee carton over the edge of the platform and will hear neither the announcement or the approaching train; we have a pretty large variable to include. So, are there any numbers?
I seem to recall reading somewhere that on LUL there were about 9,000,000 interface events PER DAY. ( people in the zone, getting on, getting off etc) There were about 4500 incidents PER YEAR and those include wilful actions to self harm. So, if you want to put some numbers into your assessment, you might try those until you find something better.

They sort of suggest to me that most of the time, most of us have enough common sense to follow the simple precautions and stay safe.

Put against the cost of protection, because protection is possible?

" I don't believe it" to coin a well known catchphrase. Maybe this is a case where we have done enough to control the risks and it is tolerable today.(ooh did he say accept a risk?)

Posted By Pete48
I should perhaps explain that I was talking about passengers or members of the public in my post which I was writing whilst others had posted.

Ben, I think I know what you mean but not sure I agree with the experience beats assessment line as written. Are they mutually exclusive or does one inform the other?

Is it really true that railway workers do work at unprotected edges in the manner suggested by the example given? Seems unlikely to me but I have no information other than observation of work along the railway.

Posted By Ben Keen
Of course the experience informs the risk assessment, you apply appropriate controls (e.g. competence of the individual) and move on. Train speed, frequency, electrified or not etc. are all taken into account. I've given a reference to a document in an earlier post which gives you a feel for the significant risks related to platform edges.

The beauty of a regulatory system that requires consious thought, risk assessment and approriate management action is that we don't end up with blanket rules that are not appropriate. This is where the true safety professional saves the employer money to spend on the real risks.

Posted By KEVIN O'KANE
I recently went on a real ale train special in Hampshire one saturday night in November.This runs monthly and has done for many years.Old type steam train, with slam doors.The train stops at different stations to allow people to smoke and use loos ..even though toilets on train.Anyway at one station wewe were told not to get off the train ...I did after asking guard if we had time for quick smoke ..he answered yes as long as we stood by his carrige and jump on when he told us.Train leaves platform , suddenly stops and there is a 61 year old man under our carrige ...he tried to board train whilst it was moving and was dragged under and killed!..H&S ..who needs it...A bloke goes out for a night out, with his wife and is killed!What could possibly go wrong?It was a horrible night out

Posted By M Forbes
See the problem arises due to the lack of clear guidance on working at height.

The problem we face is that working on your tiptoes, can be claseed as working at height. Standing on a chair is working at height, being lifted by another employee is working at height. . . .

Working at height is a widely interpretable term, that people take too far. Working at height regs should only be applied where there is a high risk of a serious injury relating to falls.

Risk = Severity x likelihood

However at the moment it is applied to any situation where "height" is involved. Until HSE provide clear legislation that actually tells us what to do, we're always going to be pestered with if's but's and maybe's.

Why is health and safety law treated differently from criminal law. Criminal law defines EXACTLY, what attributes to commiting an offence, and EXACTLY what the consequences are. Criminal law says "you MUST NOT do this" or "you MUST do that". However compare it with health and safety law, "IF you commit an offence - which we will have to decide is an offence, (as there is no definition of what is classed an offence), we may or may not prosecute you and we may or may not be successfull, as you may or may not have the adequate control measures in place (which also have not been clearly defined). In which case we may or may not find you guilty, however if we find you guilty we WILL punish you, to whatever extent we want to make up at the time.

I bet employers probably get slapped harder on days the judge has been arguing with his wife.

Health and Safety law is a joke, as there is no "letter of the law" just interpretations.

This "Breach of duty of care" is the same as criminal laws "committing a crime" (Breach of the law). Would it be acceptable to charge someone for "committing a crime", or do you need to state what the crime was and exactly where it is IN WRITING in the law. I.e. to charge someone for murder you have to show the law that says murder is illegal and apply the guided sentances.

In health and safety people get charged for breaching the duty of care on the account that an employee got killed whilst performing "task a". Unless it says in writing it is illegal to allow "task a" to go ahead without these defined set of control measures in place, how can employers be charged for not doing it.

Too much is left to interpretation and it is really not acceptable.

Regards

M Forbes

Posted By anon1234
Haven't read all the responses, but here is my view for what it is worth:

I think you have identified the reason - cost. i.e. it is not reasonably practicable - when you weigh up the time (disruption) and cost involved in such an activity compared to the history of such events the scales do not balance or tilt in the favour of doing the work.

However, that said, it could be argued, as was probably the case with the Jubilee line extension etc - that on new builds and major refurbishments it MAY (I stres the word may) become reasonably practicable to undertake such works

Posted By Colin Reeves
Luckily, in my industry, the "2 metre" rule is still in place which makes life much easier!!

Colin

Posted By MP Grayson
I have two issues here.

1. I've got to go to London soon. By train. Please help. D'OH.

2. I can actually remember steam trains. Double D'OH. Was there an issue then or was it before safety was invented in 1974.

Seriously: -
Al.. Hopefully the post after your last one answered your question?

For the rest.
The answer is a simple one. Cost, (my opinion only)

Crack on.

Posted By M Forbes
Yes and no.

Yes this is the duty of care part of the management regulations. However this would be setting a clear plan for all occupations to obey. At the moment its up to the company whether to risk assess, whether to document it, the layout of the assessments, the content etc etc. If they get it wrong they are responsible, yet if they need assistance getting it right, no-one can help. . . . they just get told to do a risk assessment. . . .

This would be CLEARLY defining what situations require a documented Risk Assessment, those that are not risky enough to require a documented assessment, employers shouldn;t be held reliable for any accident.

I hate all the storys about H&S bonkers conkers. We need some way to control the Risk Assessing making a cup of tea and Risk Assessing using a pen. . . it's all taken too far, and apologies for thread hijacking.

Regards

M Forbes

Posted By Al..
Point well made Jon. The HSE have to carry out impact assessments before proposing new legislation. Perhaps those impact assessments should also include the likely cost to the economy of people failing to understand the legislation and over-zealously interpreting it along with the likely damage to the overall health and safety cause from the resulting media response.

I suggest that WAHR has been a bit of a disaster and we could have done without it.

Posted By Al..

Interesting stuff. You never stop learning. Perhaps then a yellow line around my flat roof, 1.25m from the edge. Special precautions required beyond the line. Anything goes this side of the line.

Posted By Al..
3000 or so road deaths every year - tolerable risk?

250 or so workplace fatalities every year - tolerable risk?

Rail fatalities, not sure - tolerable risk?