Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages<123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#41 Posted : 13 January 2009 11:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Bob I don't understand 'zero target is achievable as shown several years ago.' I have worked in the rail industry for the last 25 years and I am not aware that we have managed a zero target for accidents. Did I miss something? If zero accidents is achievable (desirable?) then ATP would have been introduced across the country following the Purely and Clapham train crashes and subsequent enquiries. This would have prevented Watford, Southall, Paddington and so on, plus many unnecessary deaths. Nice rhetoric does not prevent accidents or save lives.
Admin  
#42 Posted : 13 January 2009 11:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete Longworth The problem with this whole thread is that everybody is looking at zero accidents as a target... a do or die KPI so to speak. If you look at the actual quote it says "I firmly believe in the concept of zero accidents being achievable..." Note the word concept. It's a philosophy of zero accidents that I believe we should adopt. Striving to achieve zero accidents even if we never get there.It has been said on here that all accidents are avoidable, well maybe so, maybe not, but when an accident does happen we should be working to ensure that it never happens again. In your organisations, how many times does the same type of accident keep happening? Maybe if we adopted the approach of zero repetitions it might make more sense to some.
Admin  
#43 Posted : 13 January 2009 11:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Raymond, There was several years of zero fatalities on the railway (passenger Fatalities that is) and no reported fatal;ities among track workers. It is an admorable target that has been met and is still a desirous one to achieve even if it is hard to do. But, and this is the main pint I feel, how do the industry meet such a target with the high turnover of staff used to shovel ballast, not the most highly educated members of society but still very sensible people who can work within strict controls.
Admin  
#44 Posted : 13 January 2009 11:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Merchant ScotsAM: "zero reported accidents" = yes, by simply not reporting things. "zero accidents in a certain period" = yes, by choosing a short enough period. but plain "zero accidents" = NO. Statistically, mathematically and physically impossible, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to go back to school. Nobody in our street died today. That does NOT mean the rate of deaths is zero, as someone died last year, and someone probably will again soon. Given the age of the street and number of coffins, the actual rate is 0.2/yr.
Admin  
#45 Posted : 13 January 2009 11:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Dave, you need to understand how the railway works to realise fatalities happen in one of two ways. On a train involved in an accident, the press usually let everyone know that it has happened. Or, by a person who is struck by a train. Before anyone jumps on this ine yes there are others such as being run over by a bus, but these are not generally involved with the 'Railway'. When someone is hit by train the railway in that area stops until it is cleared away and the train involved removed for insoection, just to clean it and check the train was not defective so as to cause the accident. Having dealt with many fatalities over some 42 years within the rail industry, it is not just put the person in an ambulance and get on with things, there is quite a lot of follow up to do. Therfore I hope you understand that accidents are very hard to hide away within the rail industry.
Admin  
#46 Posted : 13 January 2009 11:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 Bob, The same procedures is applied in all industries. No-one just puts the casuality/fatality in an ambulance and forgets about it.
Admin  
#47 Posted : 13 January 2009 11:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Wasn't suggesting otherwise, but in the rail industry the reporting is rather more high profile as it usually leads to some level of disruption to train services so become of more interest to the media than an accident in a factory.
Admin  
#48 Posted : 13 January 2009 12:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By R Joe HSE used to promote the Du Pont 'all accidents are preventable' approach, at least with larger organisations. They now promote 'sensible health and safety' based on 'risk management' not 'risk aversion' where it's not desirable, or practicable, to prevent all risks. Does this change in emphasis tell us something.......? On a related point, one of the key issues we face as H&S professionals is the need to sell 'our message' to the troops - how many of them genuinely believe that all accidents are preventable........? How much is gained by pushing a message to those at risk that the majority, if not all, consider flies in the face of what common sense and real life tells us?
Admin  
#49 Posted : 13 January 2009 12:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Shillabeer The rail industry used Du Pont stuff many years ago and has thankfully developed what some call better methods, although this has still to become recognised by everyone. The main point of the article is to state that the ORR would like a zero target because that is an asperation although seen as an unachievable target, this has been met before so is it a realistic target?
Admin  
#50 Posted : 13 January 2009 12:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Bob, zero fatalities were achieved in 2001/02 for staff and passengers in the rail industry - not zero accidents. Notwithstanding this, the two previous years provided 17 and 33 fatalities respectively. What does this tell us about rail fatalities and safety management? Not a lot actually, except that accidents may be fatal or not, much depends on the circumstances and of course luck. As a previous poster has mentioned, we need to enhance the reputation of health and safety and that means expectations need to be realistic. There are too many sound-bites, mission statements and other forms of 'paper safety' in this industry as it is. Little wonder that the industry so ridiculed.
Admin  
#51 Posted : 13 January 2009 13:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete48 I agree with Pete L. Zero accidents is a cultural statement not a KPI. The first time I saw this approach it was depicted as an arrow piercing the gold center of an archery target. The aim was to achieve a gold performance. A statement made in the certain knowledge that even the best archers would find it impossible to hit gold every time. Equally certain is the fact that if you never aim for the gold centre, you will only ever hit it as a mistake. The target for accidents is as Merv and others have said. Better than last time until you reach a point where your business acumen tells you that anymore is impractical (right at this moment, that is). Zero accidents is another example like safety first that has over the years been morphed beyond recognition.
Admin  
#52 Posted : 13 January 2009 13:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Shillabeer The main area of fatalities the public recognise is passenger related fatalities, or at least that's what the press do. The number of fatalities to rail workers is very much down the table of importance in the eyes of the media. It is this that has put safety on the railway in such a prro light. There are numerous people working very hard to try and improve this image, and it will take a long time. I remember the Hadfield accident and shoukld you ask anyone about it they wil no doubt say the broken rail one, but there was a road related accident not far away during which more people than were killed at Hadfield but try asking anyone about that and I bet there will next to no one who even remebers it happening. he lot of the rail industry I suppose. But the fact remains there is a lot of work needed to put the number of fatalities on the railway into its proper light. Settingan asperational target of zero is quite laudable even if rather harder to achieve. That's all I am getting at.
Admin  
#53 Posted : 13 January 2009 13:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 Bob, In response to your comments; “in the rail industry the reporting is rather more high profile as it usually leads to some level of disruption to train services so become of more interest to the media than an accident in a factory.” Please note that in average each year 258 people were killed in 1950s, 100 people in 1970s and approx 33 people every year in 1990s. These figures are devastating annual figures, hence place the rails industry to the top ‘high risk’ industries.
Admin  
#54 Posted : 13 January 2009 14:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Yes the rail industry is near the top of the tree when it comes to fatalities, but this is often unfair as more peole get killed on the road and in contsruction than rail. I understand fully that fatalities on the railway are rarer than on the road, perhaps that's why many road fatalities go by almost unnoticed, certainly not so midespread reporting is true. There must be a very valid reason behind this. But, the number of fatalities within the whole railway sector are coming down year on year with perhaps the odd dramatic incident which is a big kick in the teath to those who work very hard to reduce the number of fatalities year on year. But the fact remains the zero fatalities thing is the long term target and I see no problem setting this as a long term objective but it is an asperation rather than a hard and fast target.
Admin  
#55 Posted : 13 January 2009 14:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 Bob In response to your following comments ; “I understand fully that fatalities on the railway are rarer than on the road, perhaps that's why many road fatalities go by almost unnoticed”. Please note that road fatalities include ‘private’ individuals. Those causalities are due to factors such as being under the influence of drink/drugs, joy riding, lack of driving experience, lack of supervision, faulty vehicles maybe due to limited budget etc etc, But in railways, everything is managed in a systematic manner hence no reason for such a high accident/fatality rates. (We can not compare road accidents with railways)
Admin  
#56 Posted : 13 January 2009 15:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi The fatality figures include level crossing accidents and others on the railway. If you compare fatalities to the "workforce", it is not so bad! Also, one has to make the comparision in context of passenger miles travelled etc --on some standard basis.
Admin  
#57 Posted : 13 January 2009 15:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John J The problem with applying stats in this way is that they are misleading. For example the chance of having a fatal crash in an air accident is 1 in xxxx but some airlines have never had an accident. Aeroplanes don't stay up in the air through luck so they must be doing something right. There will be both ends of the spectrum, as far as accident performance goes, on this forum and some may be in better positions to aim for zero. Others may be still chipping away to get any improvement but we all aspire to it - hopefully.
Admin  
#58 Posted : 13 January 2009 15:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Kirsty A death is a death no matter were or how it is caused. To simply say many deaths are to members of the public because they are members of the public misses the point. Raod deaths far outway the number of deaths from the railway and most probably always will because the controls are in the hands of the many rather than as the raiway in the hands of the few. My point is there is much said about the fatalities on the railway but little said about road related fatalities, almost as if they are accepted by the mass population as inevitable because the individul is to blame for many of them, but railway fatalities are also down to the shortcomings of individuals.
Admin  
#59 Posted : 13 January 2009 17:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GeoffB4 Congratulations Ray, 57 responses! But unless I've missed it the major causes of accidents appears to have been hardly touched. Better design, more money thrown at it etc all put forward, and no doubt that would help. But the way to reduce accidents is not to involve humans - because they are the main cause/culprits. With humans involved it is impossible to eliminate accidents. If I need to explain that then I would just quote Ray and say: Wake up and smell reality.... I stress it is impossible. So where do we go from here?
Admin  
#60 Posted : 13 January 2009 18:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete48 Geoff, how about "infinity and beyond"? Sorry I couldn't resist it:) Where we go is to have targets to reduce numbers of accidents based on where we are and how much we think we can improve. After all, if one company reduces the total number of its accidents from 200 to 100, isn't that a resounding success? One day maybe it will much closer to zero but only if the company accepts the cultural statement. I say again zero accidents is a cultural statement and nothing more and of course nothing less. P48
Admin  
#61 Posted : 13 January 2009 18:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman Ray, Bob, sorry, but I quite rapidly started skipping your rail-related ding-dongs. Someone had the temerity to mention Dupont. Well, I was one of those who "taught" Dupont methods to British Rail somewhere back around 1990. Can't remember the region exactly but I know it did involve a wet weekend layover in Crew. (diesel sheds ? Or electric ?) Did it do any good ? "all accidents are preventable" I'll go with the person who said something like "all repeat accidents are preventable" you've gotta learn a lesson or two, there. Youv'e gotta learn a lesson or two. (Fagin ex Oliver) "trending to zero" and better than ever before" : I won't quote from my own DP sites (rates were too low to be significant in this argument) but the Maydown site near Londonderry, 1500 (?) employees had, when I first knew them, (for my initial safety management training in 1989) 1 LTI per week on average. Later it came to 1 per month. then 1 per quarter, 1 per year and, the last I heard, (1991 ?) a whole year at zero LTI. (I left DP in '92) Enough already. Time do the barbecued chicken and roast winter veg. Bonne ap. Merv
Admin  
#62 Posted : 13 January 2009 19:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Geoff, thanks for the endorsement. However, I think it time to draw a line under this subject. Clearly, there were many 'fors' and 'against' the notion of zero accidents or tolerance. As I have said before, there are no right and wrongs in health and safety, on the proviso you can justify your actions. Finally, it was good to see a reasoned debate with strong views either way and without resorting to any ill-tempered comments. Many thanks for your contributions. Ray
Admin  
#63 Posted : 14 January 2009 01:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GaryC40 The day we stop having accidents, is the day we stop making mistakes, when we stop making mistakes we have nothing left to learn. GC
Admin  
#64 Posted : 14 January 2009 06:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Hossam "Zero accident" as a compelling concept..yes "Zero accident" as a planned target..unrealistic Hossam
Admin  
#65 Posted : 14 January 2009 09:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 Jay - The figures I quoted include only employees and passengers. It does not include deaths at level crossings etc. John – in regards to your statement; “The problem with applying stats in this way is that they are misleading.” In health and safety, the best way to review the safety protocol is by evaluating the number of accidents and casualties. An incident with potential to have higher number of casualties will be classified more intrinsic than a couple of incidents with potential to have no or less casualties.
Admin  
#66 Posted : 14 January 2009 10:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John J Kirsty, I agree 'but' Its easy to paint the wrong picture without normalising your data. For example we enjoy a high level of near miss reporting and many indicate minor issues with housekeeping. It would be easy to paint a picture that the whole site has issues with this but in reality it is one or two areas that have high levels of reporting. The same applies to accidents, one company can dramatically sway the performance of an entire industry through a significant series of events. The statistical likelihood goes up but most companys in that sector remain unlikely to be affected or make any change the way they work. Given the number of discussions regarding under reporting of Riddor accidents on this forum we should not rely too much on data we can't verify. I'm not trying to change the whole world, just my bit of it (I'd put a smiley there if I was allowed)
Admin  
#67 Posted : 14 January 2009 11:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Allen To return to the original theme of the thread, I agree with the quoted statement from the ORR Director but you have to read the whole statement to understand what he is getting at. “Zero Risk” – unachievable. Our job is to manage risk and reduce it to acceptable levels. One of the big problems in this area is that the general public don’t understand the difference between consequence and probability (otherwise they wouldn’t do the Lottery every week). This misunderstanding leads to some of the seemingly perverse safety decisions so loved of the media. “Zero Accidents” – You probably wouldn’t want to reach this level. Provided the accidents don’t involve harm to people then a certain number of “near hits” could be tolerated to provide feedback and learning opportunities. A friend of mine used to describe accidents as “free lessons to an organisation” and he was correct (provided of course they don’t involve injury). “Zero Injuries” –The only morally acceptable target for any organisation. Can you imagine a CEO standing up in public and saying “Our target is to only kill five people and seriously injure 50 in the coming year”? You may not reach a zero injuries target but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t strive for it. However, bear in mind that most people at work on most days achieve zero injuries and zero accidents. And on a purely personal note when I get on a plane or a train, I’m looking for a zero accidents every time.
Admin  
#68 Posted : 14 January 2009 13:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Simon Shaw When people here are talking about zero accidents, are they talking about the same thing? Do you mean zero lost-time accidents, or zero RIDDOR reportable, or zero all accidents, or zero all injuries. I think people need to be clear about what their measure of an accident is and what level of injury is acceptable. Surely people aren't talking about all accidents/ injuries - the bruised finger, papercut, shut hand in desk drawer?
Admin  
#69 Posted : 14 January 2009 13:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By SteveD-M I think the point is you get what you ask for...zero reported accidents.
Admin  
#70 Posted : 14 January 2009 14:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy Which would form part of a plan...therefore not accidental
Admin  
#71 Posted : 14 January 2009 14:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman Simon, by "zero accidents" I do have a very clear idea in my mind of what I count in this sort of category, though it may differ from other people's thinking. I was weaned on "American" (DuPont) sites and the numbers that counted for us were based on OSHA rules : * Lost Time Injury (LTI) - more than 24 hours or next scheduled shift missed. * Restricted Workday Case (RWC) - Injured employee unable to carry out all components of their work * Medical Treatment Case (MTC) - care needing the services of a medically qualified practitioner * First Aid Case (FAC) - care within the competency of a nurse or a trained/qualified First Aider. The first three categories, under OSHA, are lumped together as "Recordables" and it is upon these that I base my comments around "zero injuries" (maybe not this year, but soon) Not to say that we ignored the FACs. No numerical objectives were ever set for them and we never did the "jump with two feet" on them. Because we did not want to drive down reporting. Rather the reverse. But I did "look" at everyone of them and decide for myself if I wanted an investigation. An aside. And this I where I risk getting jumped on myself and accused of being sexist/racist/ageist etcetcetc. But please remember that the following does not necessarily represent my own, personal opinions or prejudices. OK ? right. Advice from French RH manager just before I started to interview nurses for a vacancy : "Don't go for the pretty, nor the handsome ones. It'll only put your FAC rate up" Must admit, however, that after a couple of recent bouts in hospital, I'd marry any one of those who could get the needle in without being noticed. Merv
Admin  
#72 Posted : 25 January 2009 16:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ben Keen Sorry to spoil a good thread with the facts but what Ian Prosser said was:- "Zero workforce, and industry-caused passenger, fatalities, with an ever decreasing overall safety risk". Sounds like a plan to me.
Admin  
#73 Posted : 26 January 2009 10:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Ben Don't know where you are getting your 'facts' from but my original thread contained (name withheld) comments in quotation marks and the page number. I did not quote everything in the article - suggest you check it out. Ray
Admin  
#74 Posted : 26 January 2009 11:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ben Keen Sorry Ray, I should have been clearer. The SHP piece is an anecdotal quote from a presentation given to our Rail Industry Conference, which I attended. It is worth bearing in mind that Ian Prosser is quoted as believing in the 'concept' of zero accidents, starting with fatalities and then moving down the accident chain. What I included in my last post was what was on the slide at the time Ian was speaking, and which he went on to explain, which puts the whole comment in context. Most of the posts in this thread have just seized on the 'zero accidents' point which misses the point of his presentation.
Admin  
#75 Posted : 26 January 2009 14:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Ben, fair enough, but the whole point of my posting was to discuss the pros and cons of zero accidents and not the contents IP's presentation, which in context might have been quite laudable. Thanks for you input. Ray
Admin  
#76 Posted : 27 January 2009 00:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GaryC40 Ray I disagree entirely and applaud Ben for clarify the situation. Your thread actually states "Is it me, or do unrealistic comments like this get up your nose as well?" It clearly was not unrealistic when put into context. I suspect its a case of humble pie? GC
Admin  
#77 Posted : 27 January 2009 18:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Gary I don't know where you are coming from? I was simply using a legitimate quote by way of an example for discussion. I did not and could not have known the original source which Ben kindly pointed out. My original opinion on the subject still stands. However, people have different views on a subject and this forum is an excellent medium for eliciting those views. I respect everyone's viewpoint and no one has to eat 'humble pie' here matey - least of all me. G'day.
Admin  
#78 Posted : 27 January 2009 21:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GaryC40 Fair play Raymond, However as with any accident investigation it is imperative to research the source of the outcome. This is a perfect example of a comment taken out of context and used to express an otherwise valid view, or opinion. It is so easy to extrapolate cause from from any given situation when one concentrates on the obvious. As Ben revealed (in this case)the origin statement used to launch the your point was unfortunately flawed. This clearly demonstrates the importance of research before arriving at a conclusion. And that is where i an coming from... That said, i enjoyed the thread, so maybe the pie is on hold...for the moment. All the best Gary
Admin  
#79 Posted : 28 January 2009 12:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By justgossip if you go for zero accidents would that mean you could not implement controls that were reasonable and pratical, you might have to use controls that eliminate the hazard regardless of any other factor. just a thought G.
Admin  
#80 Posted : 28 January 2009 14:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By mainman Is there any such thing as an "accident" in reality anyway?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
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.