Posted By Stewart Riddel Interesting debate! Isn't it great to live in such interesting times in a "no blame culture". Generally I have found, as others have posted that management are often quick to put incidents down to human error but I can't think of any incident in my place of work that can be attributed solely to one factor least of all human error. There should be safety systems in place to support employees and it is these systems that need to be considered as part of any investigation. Perhaps the standard of training left something to be desired, was he traine at all? However, after everything is said and done there needs to be, in conjunction with the root cause analysis some degree of individual accountability. Hopefully the driver reported the incident and that in itself is worth a few brownie points. Disciplinary action can surely only be considered if the action is proven to be wilfull?

Posted By Barry Cooper With regard to having controls that send the door all the way up or down. The "up" one is easy, the down control will need sensors to ensure the doorway is clear. Guy presses button to send door down, vehicle approaches door and door descends on vehicle. The FLT driver should still ensure his route is clear, just in case the door is not fully up. Yes you can have signage, and procedures, but this still does not negate the FLT driver's responsibility to check. In the past we used to send drivers on a 1-day refresher following an incident, as it sent the message that the driver's abilities were below standard and needed improvement. Barry

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH Many unsafe acts are carried out deliberately. Unsafe acts are often carried out by individuals who believe that what they are doing is either not a risk at all or is a risk that their employers would want them to take. Routine safety breaches are simply doing what everybody else is doing, e.g. standing on a chair, trying to get an item from the top shelf. In general, people are strongly influenced by their peer groups. The development of a safety culture means the development of safe practices as the "normal" way of doing things. The development of a safety culture will be discussed later. Exceptional safety breaches is doing something, but knowing it would not normally be acceptable, i.e. where motivation to act exceeds motivation to comply with known rules or procedures. Often this is done for the wrong reasons, for example, to speed up a job, entering a confined space for cleaning purposes and not waiting for another member of staff or failing to comply with a permit-to-work system, or getting on with a job and not waiting for the proper safe equipment to arrive in order to "get on with things". In the case of Regina v Associated Octell Company Ltd, one of the key factors that contributed to the death of the worker was that the lamp did not have a suitable cover protecting the light bulb, subsequently the operative working inside the confined space died as a result of the light bulb being broken and the operative being burn to death in the flash fire. Developing and communicating clear standards of performance, behaviour, and reinforcing those standards consistently should correct the situation, though it should also be made clear that ultimately, disciplinary action will be taken. How can employees and employers be motivated towards safe behaviour? It is important to understand what is meant by "safe behaviour". Performance standards must be made crystal clear, vaguely exhorting people to "be careful” or to "think safety” has been found to be ineffective. Rules in themselves are not motivating, but the desire (or need) to comply with rules can be motivating if those rules are seen to be valid and enforced. Therefore, the reasoning behind health and safety rules should always be made clear to the people who have to comply with those rules. Safe practices become a habit if they are consistently reinforced.