Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By NJS
we have a deigner who has specified grasscrete on a school car-park area. i can see a few H&S issues with this: high heels getting stuck, mud on clothes, people tripping etc.
have any other users used such a system and if so what did they do to overcome the risks associated?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By graeme12345
the designer should be addressing issues on what they specify
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Smiff
This has environmental benefits and may be part of a Sustainable Drainage Scheme.
Heels are a problem only for the wearer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By NJS
Smiff, i realise heela are only an issue for the wearer. it is part of the planning requirements that the area be grasscreted, should they then not have looked at the risks associated with the requirement?
surely for the grass crete to beneficial the holes need to be of a certain size, thus making them dangerous for people wearing heels?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin CMIOSH
In my view grasscrete offers environmental benefits over a paved surface and a pure grass surface. Sensible risk assessment (IMHO) discounts risks from people wearing high heels, but what you should do is make sure that the area is well maintained. There can be problems if the grass does not germinate leading to bare patches, and possibly settlement or erosion of soil that leaves trip hazards. If properly constructed it should have very good drainage.
We have grasscrete parking area and have never had any problems. I've not tried it with high heels on myself but have observed others. With good drainage the soil stays surprisingly firm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Smiff
I personally believe that the flood-reduction and aesthetic benefits of this type of paving outweigh the trivial risk to those who choose to wear a particular type of shoe. Where I live and work the footpaths are grass, mud or rock. Just as God intended. I would not have it any other way and dress accordingly. I choose therefore to only wear heels in the privacy and safety of my own home. The carpark of my local town has this type of paving and it seems to work very well, especially as it is on the flood plain. Sorry if my thoughts have touched a nerve, but I happen to believe that we are over-paving our green and pleasant land (hence the flooding that does nobody's H&S any good), and the proposed solution makes the best of a bad job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Strange logic smiff, and a strange statement - if God intended it.
Luckily my house is built of brick/slate and not mud. What's yours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Smiff
What is so strange, that I agree with Martin above, that I live in the country, that I understand the benefits of minimising hardcover in development, or the cross-dressing joke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister Not being familiar with the product I did a little investigating. According to the supplier this stuff gives you bow legs and a very hairy body. See this link: http://www.grasscrete.com/img/circle/7.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Graham Bullough
My employer has numerous schools which have limited provision for parking and would benefit from being able to adapt and use parts of their lawned areas for extra parking. Rather than use tarmac which would add to environmental problems by causing rainwater to run directly to drains, from time to time I have suggested using grass-crete type surfaces which allow rainwater to soak into the ground beneath. I think plastic mesh versions are available as well as concrete ones.
Please can anyone advise whether such surfaces are significantly cheaper to lay than tarmac, including the appropriate supporting foundation layer in eah case? If you can give a rough idea of the approximate cost per square metre compared with that for tarmac, that would be even more helpful.
Also, does anyone know if the laying of grass-crete or similar surfaces is within the capability of willing volunteers with appropriate information and supervision? If not, I guess the cost of using a contractor to provide additional parking surfaces will be the dominant factor no matter what sort of surface is being laid.
To end on a frivolous note, an earlier responder referred to sensible risk assessment (IMHO). Seeing repeated mentions of IMHO in/on this forum prompts me to ask: Is IMHO related to IMO, IMSO, IISO or even NAMHO?! Is it a secret select society for H&S people with membership by invitation only? Alternatively, could it be one of the Latin words which a few local councils have recently told their employees to desist from using in official correspondence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By NJS
so the general opinion is if a person chooses to wear heels and then gets stuck in the mud, falls over a breaks her/his ankle its tough??? the benifit to the environment far outweighs the detrimental effects to ones ankles??
and that is the result of a risk assessment?
if only the rest of the world were so black and white!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
I know it isn't the U.K. but the Dusseldorf exhibition centre had this type of surface for visitor parking for years and I do not think that it was ever a problem. Of course, there is one question that hasn't yet been touched on - maintenance! You have to cut the grass!
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin CMIOSH
NJS,
Yes it is sensible risk assessment! My earlier posting said that in my experience there was little evidence that the surface would cause a high level of risk whatever footware was worn. Consequently whilst the potential severity is (at max) a broken ankle the likelihood is slim. In my mind this is an acceptable risk.
A perfectly smooth tarmac surface may be safer, but is far more expensive, has environmental implications - and at this time of year needs gritting.
There is a volenti element to choosing high heels that cannot be ignored and has been discussed on this forum before. I believe that people who wear high heels are aware of the risks and limitations and will tread carefully. I do the same when I am wearing patent leather soles compared to when I'm wearing work boots.
I do not believe that grasscrete significantly alters the risk compared to alternative surfaces.
The key element to reduce your liability (if that is the main concern) is to ensure that that the area is maintained. Simply: You can't be sued for having grasscrete (or any particular surface, or steps, etc), but you can if you fail to maintain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By NJS
martin,
thanks for your answer, apologies for my previous harsh comment, just having a bad day.
thanks again
njs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Show me where it says you can't be sued?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By db
Really. A risk assessment for grass?
Ed Friend would be rolling off his futon in shock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Quote: The key element to reduce your liability (if that is the main concern) is to ensure that that the area is maintained. Simply: You can't be sued for having grasscrete (or any particular surface, or steps, etc), but you can if you fail to maintain it
In the absence of a response I thought I would clarify my comment of 'show me where it says you can't be sued'.
If a surface or steps etc has, for example, a design defect then a person attributing an injury to the defect would be quite within their rights to sue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.