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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 25 March 2009 13:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By H&SEHO Hi folks Some local councils do not uplift grass cuttings or leaves, stating that the natural mulching process is more cost effective. Lifting cuttings can increase the grass cutting costs by 12 times and increase job duration. However, action is being taken against a particular council for failing to maintain the footway on which a person has slipped on wet grass blown/kicked onto the pavement. Perhaps warning signage (off the ground) highlighting recent grass cutting would assist councils trying to operate more efficiently but surely the duty of care extends to this task. I'd appreciate your observations...
Admin  
#2 Posted : 25 March 2009 14:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Phil Rose Hi I also also for an LA with extensive grounds maintenance duties - would be interested on more information on the case you have mentioned Many thanks Phil
Admin  
#3 Posted : 25 March 2009 14:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By clairel I assume by 'action' you mean a civil claim as I cannot see blown, wet, grass cuttings causing a slip being a breach of H&S legislation. In which case, more conkers bonkers. When are the insurance companies going to be bought into line so that they stop paying out on stupid claims. Wet grass!! Give me a break. What happened to personal responsibility for looking at what you are doing with your feet. Next councils will be expected to pick up every fallen leaf. This sort of this makes me very very very cross :-(
Admin  
#4 Posted : 25 March 2009 15:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By paulw71 Agreed This sort of thing makes us look like idiots.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 25 March 2009 15:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Blenkharn Clairel Be very very very careful not to jump on a snappy little bandwagon of condemnation at least until you have thought through the issues involved. Grass cuttings and soil etc on the pavement left over from cutting of verges is a recognised hazard and accidents have occurred. IWM have information on quite a few claims, from slips and dirt etc being trodden into shops, offices and homes, to accidents on the highway as grass cutting vehicles make a slippery mess on the highway. Silly comments about LAs expecting someone to pick up a leaf sit uncomfortably against the quite common fixed penalty notices issued to those who drop even the smallest amount of litter, including on occasions that which will most definitely be eaten quickly by the birds. H&SEHO - I doubt that is your real name, and can't imagine for a moment why you and others, clairel included, hide behind these pen names - Consider the action of your Council in circumstances that are effectively reversed, as described above. Check also what happens on the lovely landscaped lawns around your Council Offices. I doubt they are left as is with a tongue in cheek explanation that the mulch is good. Next, put it all down on paper, pros and cons, and send it to the Councillors. Ask them if they can imagine any circumstance in which the electorate would tolerate those dual standards. Ask them also if they would be happy to risk not being re-elected when the time comes. It isn't a high level H&S issue, though it would be for the individual who slips on the cuttings. Its largely a matter of management policy and service standards etc, though realistically an accident might happen one day. And since it might cost votes - try a letter to the local newspaper to gauge opinion if you are uncertain - your Councillors might make the decision for you. Or leave it to clairel, who might decide also to leave other garden clippings, cigarette ends, crisp packets other sweetie wrappers, burger wrappers, old tyres, mattresses, old sofas and the rest just where they fall. Your Council will no doubt have a written policy on litter management and if it is bullish about it, may consider every dropped morsel as a serious enviro crime. Take a lead from their approach, but do ask the Councillors is they would be happy to manage the flack that they might receive. After all, it's their policy, not yours Ian
Admin  
#6 Posted : 25 March 2009 15:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By paulw71 I wondered how long it would take. Ian Why should people be very very very careful with there opinions (Orwellian kind of thought police comment), and I hardly think people are not using there real names out of fear of reprisal . Ive hardly seen any real names on here. Wet grass cuttings in a factory or a hospital corridor or on a slippy tiled floor and I would agree with you but this is a park. wet grass in a park is not a hazard, its a fact of life. Where is the line going to be drawn on things like this.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 25 March 2009 16:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By IOSH Moderator Please could we stick to the subject in question. That's observations about grass cuttings by the way. Thanks Jonathan
Admin  
#8 Posted : 25 March 2009 16:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By paulw71 ok then. by following the risk control hierarchy of elimination first. Lets ban grass
Admin  
#9 Posted : 25 March 2009 16:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By H&SEHO I concur unequivocally that society has went too far in relation to some public safety risks. I also agree that until such time as insurance companies defend actions, the more silly the claims will be - making us safety professionals bear the brunt of media criticism (HSE "Myth of the Month" anyone?) This happens to be a real civil claim, live at the moment. Initially, it causes a tut and shake of the head. Subsequently, after a bit of thought, it brings the mind around to thinking what could be done to prevent future accidents - surely this is a core reason we are employed in this field. Signage is placed to alert drivers to grass cutting when machinery are cutting hedgerows adjacent to roads - so why not signage alerting pedestrians to grass cuttings? Afterall there are warning signs for "Cleaning in Progress" despite knowing the floor surface is wet. Yes, it appears as if someone is "at it" but the ambulance chasing solicitors are calling... surely, in light of such claims, it is practicable, in today's society, to alert pedestrians to work (and the by-product of that work), that they are at risk, whilst walking in a particular area? This lateral thinking may help focus the discussion. Thanks for all contributions.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 25 March 2009 16:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By paulw71 Im sorry but sanity will not allow me to agree with you.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 25 March 2009 17:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Alan Haynes As a reminder of the result of a person slipping on a flower petal http://www.thisislondon....31.5m+after+slipping+on+'killer'+petal+outside+florist/article.do
Admin  
#12 Posted : 25 March 2009 17:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By MikeW This is great! Another example of H&S gone mad and H&S people knocking each other down. When are we going to stop proving the critics right! All safety issues are worthy of discussion however some deserve less than others. I wish people on this blog forum would stop trying to be smart and put others down. Such an approach makes those who do it appear to fit into the exact H&S professional stereo type my company avoids at all costs. Try helping instead. My only comment on the grass cutting is: if it's easy to solve then solve it. If not, i don't think it's going to cause serious harm. That said we do live in claim culture and companies do carry a duty of care for those effected by their actions. If lots of people are falling and you are being sued for a significant amount of money then carry out a cost benefit analysis. Fingers crossed common sense prevails. Mike - real name, but if not what has it got to do with anybody else but me?!?!?!!?!?
Admin  
#13 Posted : 25 March 2009 19:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Must confess to not having read all the posts, however a few years ago I was approaching a bend in the road with a grass verge when I noticed a plume of dust. A motor bike rider had come off his bike on the same bend which was a direct result of fresh grass cuttings lying on the road. I assisted the rider and he was thankfully not seriously hurt, but on another day who knows...
Admin  
#14 Posted : 25 March 2009 20:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete48 Can you slip on wet grass cuttings? Yes. Would most people know that? Yes If you leave grass to mulch, can it be blown or moved onto the highway or pathway? Yes. Can you usually see the grass cuttings? Yes Will placing signs make any difference? Doubtful. Do people generally take heed of warning signs in public places? NO Would regular checks on sites where mulching is allowed help? Doubtful impact on any outcome. Will someone sue if they do slip? Yes much more likely than some years ago. How likely is it to happen at any specific location within your Borough or Parish? Less than you might imagine. Why do want to control it? To prevent a successful claim, to prevent injury or avoid the political fall out because this is a local authority or high profile blue chip company? Should you adopt a policy of removing it? Potential (and note only potential cost) from the failure scenario v the immediate cost saving and environmental benefits of mulching. I do not subscribe to the view that says this is puerile rubbish. It is a good example of how such matters can become the food of tabloids. In my view this is just another "safety related" issue that can be managed away in an objective manner without the emotion. Such question are posed to safety people every day of their working lives. (see my response on the day in the life thread). Getting it right is how we move away from the ridicule, not denying the issue; in my humble old fashioned opinion of course:)
Admin  
#15 Posted : 25 March 2009 20:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By MikeW Well said pete.
Admin  
#16 Posted : 25 March 2009 20:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By clairel Ian. Why are you so sure Claire isn't my name? Do not call my comments silly I'm not a little girl. I did think about the scenario mentioned thankyou. What's fixed penalty notices for dropping litter got to do with slipping on wet grass? I don't believe in the many of the insurance claims that go ahead (I belive in compensation where it's deserved not just beciase someone got hurt) and I don't agree with many of the restrictionns imposed by insurance companies based on risk aversion. A celebrity figure just died whilst on a nursery ski slope. What should we do? Ban snow? Ban skiing? Enforce helmet use? I think not. I belive in the same thing as the HSE. SENSIBLE RISK MANAGEMENT!!!!! Why don't you think about that.
Admin  
#17 Posted : 25 March 2009 21:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By SNS It looks like an issue around forseeability of risk and injury. Did the incident really happen? How often have such incidents occurred? When grass is cut does it become waste? If collected would it need to be transferred by a licenced operator to a licenced disposal site? As has been said previously on this thread signs are (in the main) ignored. Is the LA self insuring? if not what does the insurance company say? Apply the RA process and consider the outcome(s). Regards, S
Admin  
#18 Posted : 26 March 2009 00:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Let's cut ;-) to the chase here. The issue is about cutting costs and LA Services being asked to make year-on-year savings. In reality this means that we have (e.g.) grassed areas around sheltered Housing Complexes which are cut less often (= greater volume of cuttings arising) and the cuttings are not picked up. Particularly when damp, this can create a particular hazard to the elderly and infirm. Cuttings are blown and also "tracked" by the wheels of ride-on mowers. This scenario is not "conkers bonkers" it is a real hazard which has in effect been deliberately and knowingly introduced. Grass cut more frequently wouldn't give rise to the problem. Is this scenario accepted at civic centres and Council HQ ?- of course not.
Admin  
#19 Posted : 26 March 2009 12:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Vrick Dear all I respect the views of each and everyone on this thread since I'm from a democratic country and at the same time would like mine to be respected. This is a H&S issue that has got its importance and was rightly pointed out by Pete48 and he defended it well. As a HS professional, you should be in a position to defend your profession otherwise nobody is going to do it for you. You do not cut dowm corners on HS. Long grass is a hazard,somebody passing near the grass is at risk, although it has not happened does not mean that it will not happen, and if it happens the consequence might or might not be serious. Afterall it is the LA responsibility to maintain the locality. Whether the insurance will pay or not any eventual claim is another issue not related to HS. Everywhere around the world, HS Professionals are considered as the greatest pin in the as...... Thks Vrick
Admin  
#20 Posted : 26 March 2009 12:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By garyh People with visual impairment and other disability issues eg mobility might not be able to see grass on the path. Nor would they see a notice?
Admin  
#21 Posted : 26 March 2009 13:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Eddie Seems like we are in "clearing snow in the car park" territory At the risk of preaching to the choir on this, wouldn't a risk assessment identify if there was a significant risk associated with grass that has been left to mulch ending up on a walkway and actually casing a slip that results in harm. I could understand if "significant risk" was the outcome where it is likely that there will be vunerable people (residential care homes or sheltered accomodation for example), but otherwise I feel that the concept of reasonable care would apply. I understand that vunerable people may be exposed to the hazard in parks etc, but we cannot manage risk by always taking the worst possible scenario as the most likely outcome. Regards E
Admin  
#22 Posted : 26 March 2009 14:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By C. Wright Are the knives away now? Is it safe to enter to write a coment? The issue of collecting grass cuttings is not a new one I recall as a child in the late 50s early 60s we used to gather piles of grass from around our verges to play with, there would often be tracks across the road where the mower driver went from 1 side of the road to the other. Now we have accountability to H&S the issue has changed, people have to be responsible for ensuring that through their actions or inaction others are not put at risk. As a 7 year old I knew if we were to put grass cuttings on the path we could probably watch someone slip over (yes I know we were horrible kids)especially if we put the grass on the metal lids of the manhole covers, the point is if as a 7 year old I was aware of the potential of someone going down on their btm why is it a LA official cant see the hazard
Admin  
#23 Posted : 26 March 2009 14:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By rosstoward Here's an idea, bloke goes along with leaf blower, putting the cuttings back onto the grassed area - problem solved, or is the cost of a civil case less than it would cost to employ some1 to do this. I dunno!!!
Admin  
#24 Posted : 26 March 2009 15:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ScotsAM What a fierce debate about grass cuttings! It does however show the different way the laws and responsibilities are interepreted amongst us all. In my opinion (keeping on thread here) The grass cuttings that stay on the grass are acceptable it doesn't really increase the risk of a slip trip or fall. Pathways nearby may also be ok as it can be easily seen (by most, not all) by pedestrians etc who have their own responsibility to look after themselves. However the grass cuttings which end up on the road or further afield and may not be so noticeable, does then cause a problem. Shouldn't the LA take the sensible approach of looking at areas where grass is cut and assessing the dangers on a case by case basis and stick to that?
Admin  
#25 Posted : 26 March 2009 15:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By paulw71 And then in autumn when all those leaves fall from trees in parks. What do we do then ?
Admin  
#26 Posted : 26 March 2009 16:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Sensible comments by Scots AM. This debate shows that different people have different views on the subject of risk. The key is the element of risk and the foreseeability of that risk. Even this is subjective and therefore open to interpretation. For instance, is it reasonably practicable to properly assess each and every location? Perhaps if the operative completed a dynamic risk assessment - but even that is problematic.
Admin  
#27 Posted : 26 March 2009 16:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By paulw71 Im obviously in a minority. I thought that our job was sensible risk management. I remember the outcry on this website when the programme ridiculing H&S professionals was broadcast and now the same people are preaching about the dangers of grass. Extract from Hse website Health and safety is not about. Creating a totally risk free society Generating useless paperwork mountains Scaring people by exaggerating or publicising trivial risks Stopping important recreational and learning activities for individuals where the risks are managed Reducing protection of people from risks that cause real harm and suffering.
Admin  
#28 Posted : 26 March 2009 16:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ScotsAM As a well known supermarket has been telling us for years, every little helps. If the operators are trained in assessing the risk in each area, although that may not be fool proof, it does reduce the risk. If a plan were drawn up, for each area over time, that then slowly eliminates the risk for dynamic assessment which helps even more.
Admin  
#29 Posted : 26 March 2009 16:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Derek Oliver Thanks for all the contributions (I'm the contributor formerly known as H&SEHO!) - I have to say that I am astounded by the diverse approach that many take to what was initially viewed upon (again by many) as an immaterial issue that's gone too far. It does show the importance that each case can possess when looked upon in depth and debated. Yes we have our opinions on where society is going but we also have a duty to ensure safety "so far as is reasonably practicable". Does the activities of clearing up grass cuttings on a pavement fall within this ambit? - we can have our views but only a court, in the end (as per Chiltern Railways), can decide. However, as safety professionals, we must ensure our profession is at the forefront of the decision making, otherwise it'll end up a civil lawyer-based technicality judgement that only further impacts on our already fragile, publically ill-conceived persona
Admin  
#30 Posted : 26 March 2009 16:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adam Worth http://www.hse.gov.uk/shatteredlives/index.htm The advanced general / Environment might be a good place to start looking. Anyway it's Friday for me so - it's nice to see some good answers amoung those that amuse me :)
Admin  
#31 Posted : 26 March 2009 16:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adam Worth Sorry poor link - I was refering to the STEP tool. http://www.hse.gov.uk/sl...31/slidetype1_204391.htm
Admin  
#32 Posted : 26 March 2009 22:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Some interesting views. Not for a long time have I seen so much faith placed in "risk assessment" as a justification for such action (or indeed inaction). Here we have a risk created and exacerbated by a local authority as a result of a conscious decision to save money. If I were to substitute road potholes or broken uneven footpaths (which are left in place for longer due to budget restrictions) are the arguments and viewpoints you all express exactly the same I wonder? Is this a greater risk, or is this also "trivial" , when the risk (likelihood and effect)is essentially & potentially the same? Part of the problem here of course is that civil claims are generally paid out by Local Authorities from a "top-sliced" budget, for which individual Service Managers are not held accountable. From the perspective of an annual Committee Budget Report, the Senior Manager of a Department can be seen to have met his targets and achieved his budget savings. Pats on the back all round. The number of accidents arising and the costs incurred thereby do not enter the equation, and thus remain hidden from comparative and objective scrutiny. Do some on this Forum support the abuse of 'risk assessment' to perpetuate such an immoral and anti-social way of conducting business? For shame.
Admin  
#33 Posted : 27 March 2009 08:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter F Don't sue the LA sue the tractor driver under section 7, also whilst I am at it I am also going to sue because every time he cuts the grass my health is affected by hay fever. They should put signs up telling me there may be pollen in the area
Admin  
#34 Posted : 27 March 2009 09:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Ron I think your summary of the thread is spot on. I won't comment on all matters but with regards to risk assessments, they are treated by some as the Philosopher's Stone - a cure for all ills. Rather than a tool which may or not be needed or recorded. During a site induction this week a tiler asked me if he could remove his mandatory gloves because some tasks of tiling require a certain dexterity. I said, no worries take them off, but put them back on again when doing general tasks. No risk assessment - just some common sense. Ray
Admin  
#35 Posted : 30 March 2009 12:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adam Worth "I said, no worries take them off, but put them back on again when doing general tasks. No risk assessment - just some common sense" But is this not a risk assessment? You just didn't write it down!
Admin  
#36 Posted : 30 March 2009 13:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Colin Reeves paulw71 ok then. by following the risk control hierarchy of elimination first. Lets ban grass An alternate solution - move to Shetland. Well over a month before grass starts to grow here!! Colin
Admin  
#37 Posted : 30 March 2009 13:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ScotsAM Isn't the hazard the cut grass? Elimination or hazard would surely be to not cut the grass?
Admin  
#38 Posted : 30 March 2009 14:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil R "During a site induction this week a tiler asked me if he could remove his mandatory gloves because some tasks of tiling require a certain dexterity. I said, no worries take them off, but put them back on again when doing general tasks. No risk assessment - just some common sense." Oh dear! If the said tiler had injured a finger whilst doing the work, guess who the finger of blame would be pointing squarely at! If its a mandatory policy, then i wouldn't dream of allowing anyone to breach it without a written risk assessment, been burnt before never again. My response now is if its mandatory then its mandatory, we'll try some different types of gloves for dexterity.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.