Rank: Super forum user
|
Farrell - my reference to your newspaper habits was intended as a light-hearted way of providing a link to a recent news story relevant to this post. In hind sight, I'd be slightly offended if someone suggested I read that newspaper, so apologise for my wording.
To be honest, I don't keep track of who says what on these forum. I fully agree that everyone should have an opinion, and I can be a right pain playing devils advocate just to create a discussion. In this case there are clearly some people who are 'for' or 'against' and a number of 'floating.' All I can say is that some companies have done this for decades and feel it is worthwhile. Anyone can say that they would not introduce such a rule in their company but I don't think this is really such an extreme measure that falls into the conkers-bonkers category.
With regard to holding handrails when walking up and down stairs. I know that companies have looked at their accident statistics and found a significant number involve falling on stairs. They have then observed behaviours and noticed that a significant number of people do not hold the handrail. They have tried indirect methods of changing behaviour but found these have limited or short term affect. So they have decided imposing a rule is best. Again, some companies have had this rule for decades.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Interesting post. I always feel that it is easier to drive into a "tight" space; your drive or a parking slot and then reverse out into the wide space. If you live on a main road you are told to reverse in so that you drive out forwards. I don't think many do this. If your work has a procedure that you reverse park for some potential safety or control reason then they are saying that the easy way is not the safe way and I think they would have trouble convincing many people.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
My company looked at a "reverse parking policy" for our head office car park as this would bring us into line with our european subsiduaries. It was rejected being too much like "big brother and nannying". We have never had an incident or accident in our car parks and speed limits are strictly enforced at all times. The normal rules of the road apply within our car parks.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi, Have to agree wholeheartedly with Farrel and Redken - I have never worked at a site where there was a reversing policy although I tend to reverse in myself unless the space is too tight. I think for parking you have to allow staff to make their own judgement which will depend upon their skill, car park design, how full the car park is and the vehicle etc etc. In my old Discovery I could reverse with ease into any space but my new Discovery same model but probably slightly different window design/power steering etc needs a lot more care. As for stairs the thought of imposing a rule that you must hold the handrail with sanctions imposed if you are spotted not doing so seems utterly bizarre and OTT, even recommending you hold the handrail would be viewed by the majority as completely OTT. Regards Steve
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have also experienced the reverse parking policy, however, the parking bays in this case were not skewed and the pedestrian walkway (unprotected) was at the rear of the reversing vehicles.
I personally struggle to see the safety benefits 'in this particular situation' as the drivers are effectively reversing towards an unprotected pedestrian walkway.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If safety professionals consider that recommending to employees and visitors in the workplace to hold handrails is OTT, please refer to "Review of Health and Safety Risk Drivers-BD 2518 previously published as BRE report BR417. Page 60 of the report covers "Slips, trips and falls on stairs, ramps and escalators" It includes Risk matrices and a summary of health and safety risks: slips, trips and falls (STF) on stairs, ramps and Escalators. In the summary, it states that:- "stairs are among the most hazardous features in buildings" "the importance of handrails in stair safety has been recognised" On page 63 under the title, "Handrails", it states that:- "Handrails, though not always used, are an essential safety item or stairs. They have three basic functions: they provide support, they provide guidance helping users determine the direction and pitch of the stair, where the flight starts and where it ends, and they aid in correcting a loss of balance. Page 66 covers "User behaviour" It acknowledges that "User behaviour is also an important factor and even the safest stair may therefore present a significant hazard". "There are also pervasive attitudinal problems related to the belief that 'it won’t happen to me' and to the stigma associated with, for example, extra handrails, which are perceived as only necessary for ‘older’ and ‘less capable’ people. The risk on stairs is real, and this should be used to drive changes to behaviour on stairs." Refer to:- http://www.communities.g...f/reviewhealthsafety.pdf
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I see now that the H&S community is clearly divided into two camps:
Those with the "don't leave the house, the World's a terribly dangerous place, and we're all doomed" brigade.
And
Those who prefer to deal with real issues and not exagerate the risk involved in everyday situations like walking up/down stairs without having to be told how to.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I like to see a good debate it is just such a shame they generally concern trivial issues, perhaps it's an indictment of where we are today? Following on from Max's post, I suspect that for some of those working in a low risk environment issues such as hand rails on stairs, reverse parking and so on, may grab their attention. Not a problem. One needs to manage the risks of their own environment. That said, for many working in high risk industries there are more pressing matters that need attention.
There is, of course, the wee matter of health and safety perception. Working in an industry that is constantly riducled for nannying people I am acutely conscious not to treat people like children, particularly in the macho world of railways/construction. I prefer to keep my 'powder dry' for the more serious issues, whilst I accept that all accidents should be avoided if possible. It is a matter of judgement -which can be a moveable feast.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Mmmm,
Risk perceptions, as always, do play a part here. There are a few posts which seem to be from people who work in 'high risk' industries indicating that they think parking is not a hazard worth expending effort on. I don't know whether it is or not, I'd be interested in seeing some comparative figures of injury incidents in works car parks vs say to people working at height. I get the feeling that won't be easy because you can bet that nobody's collating the former, except insurance companies of course.
In general the most hazardous work activity in terms of absolute numbers is driving, with estimates of deaths ranging from 500 - 1,000 per annum. This is accompanied by many thousands of serious injuries, and even more thousands of minor injury and lost property incidents. Car parks are low risk environments where loss of life is concerned (probably, I don't actually know that for sure), but if I was to take the claims history for our smallish fleet, I can tell you now that parking accounts for a very large proportion of our claims; minor paint work and a few dents for sure, but incidents and cost nonetheless.
Keep this in proportion; how many lives have been saved by the WAH regs? And how do we know? What has the cost of WAH been? How much does a reverse parking policy cost? Is it reasonably practicable to implement such a policy? Would it improve safety?
I can't reverse park, so I would hate it, but if my organisation decided to do it I'm sure it would reduce our claims history by an extent, and possibly avoid a fatality,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
jwk wrote:
I can't reverse park, so I would hate it, but if my organisation decided to do it I'm sure it would reduce our claims history by an extent, and possibly avoid a fatality,
John
Could be seen as contradictory that statement. If there are others within your organisation that aren't comfortable with reverse parking then the potential for an increase in scrapes, dents and therefore claims may also be a possibility don't you think?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think we could train people (even me) to reverse park reasonably quickly, and we could reasonably easily do it using a blank car park, only allowing people to use live ammo when they could do it.
And I guess when I say I can't, what I mean is I can (almost anybody can), just that it's uncomfortable for me so I'd rather not, if I had to, I could, after all, I had to do it to pass my test,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I doubt that I have in any of my contributions to this thread implied that "don't leave the house, the World's a terribly dangerous place, and we're all doomed". My orginisation has COMAH equivalent sites globally and we have higher risk team events/activities. We also do not have sanctions or mandate, but through communication and consulation get the buy-in from employees.
The rationale behind dealing with some of the simple safety measures that some consider as "nannying" or "treating like children" is that health and safety is constantly (and proportionately) thought about at all times until one reaches a "uncounciously competent" level. However, as stated previously, any organisation embarking on this has to have the buy-in and actaullu have dealt with control measures, otherwise cynicism will prevail.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Contributors here specialising in Construction and Waste Management, denigrating a policy of minimising vehicle reversing manouevres. I despair.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My understanding of the reverse-car parking discussion is in context of "Premises Car Parks" rather than HGV/Plant/Lorries on construction and waste manangement sites!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yes indeed. Well done Seamus, over 50 responses and almost 1300 views. If only we could drum up the same level of interest for other subjects falling into 'workplace health & safety.'
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi, I am of the opinion that parking by reversing-in is usually, marginally, the safer option, it is what I generally do; but on occasions it isn’t e.g. busy time, tight space etc, and so staff should be allowed to make a judgement themselves rather than have a petty rule imposed from above. If it is such a good idea then wouldn’t you expect it to be imposed on drivers in all public car parks? As far as walking up and down stairs goes we do it several times a day, have done since pre-school, I can not imagine anything more likely to antagonise the workforce and make H&S a laughing stock than imposing sanctions on staff who don’t hold the hand rail and to ‘train’ staff how to climb stairs is madness and would be viewed as such – aren’t we all being advised to run up and down stairs at home to stay fit. Regards Steve
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
WOW, there have been a lot of replies to this post. Thanks everyone
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Andybz.
Didn't take it personally, just jumped on the opportunity to let off steam.
For me a safety culture is about employees buying in, and it all depends on where you work and if somethings manageable. I don't believe that we (safety people) should always be running around telling people whats best. If something is working leave it unless the improvements would improve safety of course.
Without getting off on one about walking up and down stairs, I am at present dealing with an EL claim and have been asked by the solicitor for photo's of the handrails on the stairs and also any training, I sent the photo's and in the letter told him he needed to speak to the employee's parents or guardians regarding trainiging. Still waiting for the reply.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
farrell wrote:........I sent the photo's and in the letter told him he needed to speak to the employee's parents or guardians regarding training. Still waiting for the reply. I wonder if the solicitor will now ask what checks you made to ensure that the training given by the parents was 'suitable and sufficient' before you allowed him/her to use your stairs
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
nice one farrell......which leads very nicely into reverse parking incidents.... ;-)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
MaxPayne wrote:farrell wrote:Are you all having a laugh, if I reverse into the space I could just as well hit someone if I do not drive with due care and attention. Reversing in or out makes no differrence, to safety at all, if you take one arguement that it's easier to drive out as you might be tired coming out of work, you might be tired driving in as you have just got up, so the risks are the same.
it's more economical what rot! youv'e just got up drove to work with lights, heater rear demister etc on, so reversing out is the same.
Sometimes dispair, are you all working in health and safety? I have said this befiore and I will say it again it is no wonder our proffession is seen as a laughing stock and seen as meddling. I for one will not be suggesting that we have a reverse parking policy, we have a policy that says what you are taught when doing your driving lessons drive with due care and attention. I totally agree with Farrell on this subject, a degree of common sence is needed by some here I feel; reversing in/out is the same operation and I personally don't need to be given instruction or convincing otherwise. I could`nt agree more, no wonder we get bad press
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
.....its only when people begin/learn to realise and understand that they are largely responsible for their own safety that attitudes and behaviours will change... not when restrictions, policies, procedures and rules are imposed
If 'you' think about the worst accident/incident that has ever happened to 'you' could 'you' have done something about it to minimise the likelihood and/or consequences? Quite often the answer is yes and moreoften than not, at little cost
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Let common sense prevail, listen to Farrell, Ray, Victor, and others
"Are you all having a laugh" Farrell said
Victor said "If the press get hold of this thread 'we'll' be the laughing stock"
Ray said "I think some people must have too much time on thier hands
When everything else is in good order with H&S then I may consider focusing some effort towards introducing such a policy into a business, but that cannot be No1 on on so many HS Professionals HS agenda
Yes Victor we are a laughing stock. Read page 6 of the SHP mag this month to see what our politicians think of the HS profession Steve
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Thanks for that Steve - see your point.... if we're waiting for the politicians for help then I think we've got a better chance of nailing blancmange to a ceiling, especially in the current finacial crisis which will undoubtedly reign for some years yet.
Safety is about 'us' all taking care of ourselves and looking out for each other - besides if car parking was such an issue why don't IOSH at The Grange insist on a parking policy. Anybody driven in there will know that most days car parking is not the easiest, but can be managed very safely by personal repsonsibility.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
god if i wasnt sobored in work i would not have stumbled across this thread
Is it a wind up? surely this glorious profession of ours is not taking things so seriously? oh lordy lordy i fear it is GET IN THE REAL WORLD stop all this hand wringing and looking for problems when there arent any
visit any tesco or b and q or hospital for that matter oh and whilst there check in for a reverse labotomy
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
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.