Posted By Mitch I wish I could get under a 9" guard, too much Pedigree I'm afraid. If he crawled under the guard he was deliberately avoiding it so where did the fault lie?

Posted By holmezy Bob, I'm still with Mitch on this, however, I do understand your point. This is a bit obscure but instead of pillar drill and entanglement, think car and windscreen; Cars are now provided with safety belts, its an absolute legal requirement. Drivers have to wear the seat belt, again, an absolute legal reqt (bar a few exceptions). The driver is fully aware of the requirement, he knows how to wear it properly and has recently been instructed by a policeman to wear it when he was spotted not wearing it. One day he decides that he isnt going to wear it, or at least wear it incorrectly with the shoulder strap around his torso rather than over the shoulder, has an accident, goes through the windscreen and hurts himself badly, or worse. The fault and responsibility surely lie with the driver. Not with the manufacturer,nor the car salesman, nor the policeman, nor his nagging wife etc. I know there is duty of care as per H+S, but..... Adrian, As for the chap crawling under the light beam, then if the courts are going to decide that the machine was insufficiently guarded ( as you inferred and I believe?) then by that same token, 99.9% of machines can be accessed "if someone has a mind to" and are therefore in breach. What ever happened to the "reasonable joe public as sat on the Clapham omnibus" theory? Perhaps thats just one of the joys of the job, trying to stop the idiot hurting himself, or should we concentrate on the majority of "sensible" folks in the workplace. Holmezy Today is a new day and I'm rejuvinated...soon be beer time again though!

Posted By Robert K Lewis Holmzey But the seat belt was there in the first place and thus the guard was in place. The removal of a guard by an opperative or its non-use is something we have to address separately. Single malt where are you? Bob

Posted By holmezy Bob, continuing to be obscure.... yes the seatbelt was there in the first place, as are adjustable guards on machines ie chuck guard on pillar drill as supplied. Instructions are that it must be used correctly (both belt and guard) the driver and operator deliberately chose not to use the guard or "circumnavigate" its intended use. Not a lot we can do about an driver / operator who is determined to neglect to use or try to defeat safety devices? Holmezy I'll be the one at the other end of the bar, standing under the clock, with the Daily Mail under one arm, a red rose in my lapel nervously sipping a frothless pint of Pedigree, waiting in wild expectation......

Posted By Mitch Pete, The 'instruction or nod and a wink' come back to my point on managing the processes, people etc. If it is an environment where production takes precedent then take the advice on (I think Holmezy , a thousand years ago!) anf fit a quick release guard with interlocks to isolate the machine. Mitch 8 minutes to go and the rain is now here!!

Posted By holmezy Bob, Bearing in mind the absolute requirement, what or how would you suggest we guard a standard pillar drill which alraedy comes with chuck guard, telescopic trip swtich and dc injected braking? If I am determined I could defeat or circumnavigate all of these and still manage to cause myself great harm? Holmezy sitting at end of "virtual" bar, twiddling thumbs.....waiting patiently!

Posted By John A Wright Interesting discussion here, but some of you are scaring me. I've written over 70 PUWER assessments in the last year. Since it's Friday let me have a Friday moment :o) and suggest that PUWER Regulation 11 does not require absolute complete guarding of moving machinery. 11 (2)(c) says we can use push-sticks So, for example, we CAN push a work piece towards an INCOMPLETELY GUARDED moving blade Yes? John W

Posted By John A Wright Holmezy, >>Re Johns comment, IF you have worked through the hierarchy and the only thing you can do to make the operation of the machine safe is to use push sticks, then YES, you can do it. You'll need a damn good story to justify it in court though!! Thanks for that, a lot of my PUWER assessments are for saws operations that allow operators to push large pieces, and to push-stick small pieces, towards incompletely guarded blades. If they were completely guarded then the piece would not get cut (OK, some small Bosch circular saws have a saw-guard that lifts up just as the piece gets there). It's not practicable for my customer to purchase say £200k of robotic cutting equipment to do the job when the LAW allows him to instruct employees to use 10p pushsticks. I take your point, though, if an employee was badly hurt and a contributory factor was that he did not use a push-stick, you think a half-decent lawyer might still get the employee a £200k compensation, and my PI insurance would come in handy too :o( I'm currently 300 yards from a pub. John W

Posted By John A Wright Bob, Yes. I was saying it's not practicable for my customer to purchase, say, £200k of robotic cutting equipment to do the job when the LAW allows him to instruct employees to use 10p pushsticks. 'Practicable' takes into account reasonable costs does it not? John W

Posted By John A Wright Bob, I agree with your distinguishing 'reasonably prcaticable' and, what PUWER says, practicable. How about: To use push-sticks is practicable in that their use is a possible way to avoid injury. So therefore, in the case imagined in my message above, the injured employee did not use the practicable work method provided? John W

Posted By John A Wright Bob, Clearly, since I allow/approve bandsaws and chop-saws to be used (and I'd allow the bagging machine that is the original machine discussed on this thread) I don't agree with the 'absolute' statement you make :o) That's what's scaring me :o| If I may, can I just quote the ACoP L22 (yes I know it's not 'the law') paragraph 216 talks about 'reducing risks to an acceptable level' to meet reg 11. 'Acceptable level' suggest to me not necessarily eliminating completely. John W

Posted By John A Wright Thanks Rob, and everyone else contributing to this thread. Dealing with machines and PUWER is my day to day activity, and that includes dealing with blank faces when I try and explain things on the shop floor. I've found the discussions useful; although the subject comes up again and again I find that every time, at the end of it, I have gained a little more knowledge/understanding and formed a bit more of my own opinions on the subject. Have a good weekend everyone. John W