Posted By srd I think Frank E. Davidson has hit the nail on the head by saying 'It's OTT in all the wrong places'. Yes - it is over the top to produce multi-page risk assessments for very trivial risks. No - it's not over the top to manage serious risks when people are still being killed or having their health ruined while at work. As a profession we need to focus on the real risks, and if we ever get to the point where no one is being killed or harmed then we can start to also address the more minor risks. I would ask those amongst us who are considering leaving this profession because they are dissilusioned to reconsider, as we cannot afford to loose the type of person who understands the difference between effective risk management and more OTT measures. The fact that you can identify the difference makes you a valuable contributor to the profession, and we need more people like you, not less. Steve.

Posted By Parker W Regulation has gone too far by the duplications and irrelevancies imposed on us by the EU and, more often than not, side stepped by most EU states apart from Sweden, Denmark and Britain. In 2007/2008, more than eighty new sets of rules and regulations concerning safety and safety equipment were imposed. Previously, the EU Noise regulations imposed impracticable, unnecessary strictures on the work place. The Noise Regulations reduce previously acceptable noise levels (LEQ, or, ‘time weighted average’) from 85 dBA to 80 dBA. Noise is measured in ‘Bells’, and for convenient size, tenths of a Bell, or decibel. Because the human ear is ‘weighted’ in the key of A, measurement usually takes place, biased to the key of A – written: ‘dBA. It is an expression of sound intensity, or pressure and not of Energy, neither Power. The proportional relationship between Sound pressure and energy needed to develop it is Logarithmic.’ The new goal-post represents only about half the energy than before. It affects practice, not only in machine shops but makes it illegal to drive most vehicles at more than fifty MPH, whilst gainfully employed. It makes it illegal to sell motorised lawn-mowers unless they are clearly marked dangerous to the ears. Without conducting LEQ tests throughout the workplace, recording individual dosimeter readings, it is impossible to ensure what activity will remain legal and for what ear-plugs and muffs must be worn. By 1970, Britain had the most extensive pathological evidence and practice in the field. Occupational noise effects were well known and studied. The studies gave rise to a Code of Practice, which set a time weighted average limit of 90 dBA – more than three times the energy level than now permitted. There is none or little evidence that the old, 90 dBA LEQ was inadequate and certainly not for the previous EC Diktat, of 85 dBA. The new limits, at 80 dBA, will do nothing further to protect hearing. They will complicate the workplace and expose the hazards manifest from not properly hearing workplace noise, due to ear-plugs and defenders. Anyone who tells you that noise perception is as good with and without ear-muffs on is either already deaf or thinking wishfully! The Regulations 'made in Britain' until the new Century, made general sense, focusing attention on risk, its measurement and its mitigation. We suffer, however, from a new-age working population that has no industrial or practical skill experience or knowledge. This in itself, increases risk. Fatal Occupational accidents, pro-rata of the blue collar, exposed population, are now higher than in 1970; bearing in mind that then, there were more than 13 million blue collars and today, fewer than 2 Million! Which is worse, is the Blame culture that has frightened 'corporates' in to being box-ticking-automatons, wholly focused on shifting the balance of responsibility on to sub-contractors. Let's have better safety and less paper work. We can not blame the media for negative attitudes to Health-and-safety; as the incognoscenti like to call it. The HSE can not be blamed for the current plague of grave-stone-topple-testing. It is wholly down to the pusillanimity of corporate managers who want authority without being prepared to accept responsibility and who go out of their way to avoid any in depth, practical knowledge of physical work, its associated risks and the skills required to reduce the risk! Bill Parker

Posted By srd The HSE appear to be trying to address some of the concerns raised so far in this thread. Judith Hackitt CBE, HSE Chair, gave a talk to students at Leeds Met University on 30 March 2009, the transcript (and slides) of which can be found at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...ripts/leedsmet300309.htm Judith opens by saying: "This talk is about the difference between rules based execution of the task versus real leadership. It is also about ...... the need for balance, common sense and a proportionate approach". Judith goes on to say: "Competence is not simply about knowing your stuff, although clearly that is important in the base case. But there is a world of difference between a qualified person and a competent person, and the real difference is about the ability to apply that hard-earned knowledge in a way that is proportionate, meaningful and useful to the intended audience". Well worth a read for those that have not already done so. Steve.

Posted By Rod D Claire Stick at it, you appear to me to have a very good head on your shoulders. (A Common Sense Appproach) I totally agree with your original post, we have gone too far down the road of "Backside Covering" in my Humble Opinion. For instance I has one Fire Consultant on several of my sites recommend that all my external staircase were "Enclosed" to protect them from the elements!! (This was deemed a High Risk) When I posed the question to the Consultant "Do You Believe This Recommendation Is Reasonably Practicable" I received a long and drawn out Pregnant Pause. Now that in my humble opinion was "Backside Covering". As I said stick with it and not everything in Life has to be covered with a BS or CE standard Aye Rod