Pete, I am happy to contribute to this debate as like you I feel strongly about certain aspects of our industry. I believe that practitioners are wittingly or unwittingly moving towards a risk averse philosophy, granted, it is sometimes a fine line. For example, I disagreed with the comments from Judith Hackett regarding 'Henman Hill', if the area was wet and there was a real risk of people falling down and injuring themselves, then I see no problem with closing the area - some will disagree.

There is of course much negative publicity about health and safety. This is often promulgated by the media with urban myths, nevertheless there is a perception that health and safety rules have gone too far by many people, a view with which I sympathise with, although not completely agreeing. I therefore try to ensure that I am not seen nannying the workforce. As a rule I treat things with a degree of tolerance and common sense. I am not in this business to teach people how to drink from a hot mug, walk down stairways or any other everyday task.

In recent years I have been asked or told to introduce various h&s initiatives which I am not comfortable with. Many of these do nothing to promote respect for our industry, they contribute very little, if anything, to safety and sometimes it is for reasons other than good health and safety practice. I was asked by a director safety about initiatives for workers outside of work, I responded that it is not an area I think that occupational practitioners should get involved in. Anyway, we had better get our own house in order first before we start advising people how to live healthly lives - end of.

Last year I attended a safety meeting for practitioners of a multi-national construction company. A director of the company asked if anyone believed that as a company we could not reduce accidents to zero. Only yours truly put his hand up. I was asked to explain and I did so by saying that when the director opened the meeting we were informed the company had killed six people (world wide) last year. Now you are asking me to accept we can reduce accidents to zero - not in the foreseeable future. Zero accidents might be aspirational, but not reality in a high risk industry.

I think your list on how an 'initial judgement' being quantified is about right.
1. Not all risks require a formal risk assessment. The term and use of RAs is sometimes over used in terms of their benefit.
2. There are many everyday risks which are just plain common sense, or should be. The greatest risk most workers face is travelling to and from work - I'm not about to explain the Green Cross
Code either!
3. I think we as practitioners need to be aware with what is occurring inside and outside our industry. Human nature is to err, just as some people enjoy the thrill of risk taking. If we alienate people by being over zealous we take the risk that high risk activities will not be treated as such.

I agree with Ray.

We should not be involving ourselves in non work related activities. Making a cup of tea and using stairs and not work related and therefore are not what we should be concerning ourselves with. Yes they cause accidents but they are not work related.

Ladders on the other hand are work related but what some practitioners seem to forget is that there are degrees of RA.

I am in agreement and feel that we should be looking at risks that are caused soley by the company, 'he who creates the risk should manage the risk' everyday tasks should not need to be considered, i.e making tea, walking up and down stairs, even walking in snow and ice etc. However I don't agree that we should shout so loudly about 'common sense' if you look at some of the accidents over the years that you may have dealt with how often do you say 'it's common sense that you wouldn't do that'.
How often is it that people will use work equipment for something it's not meant to be used for i.e. lifting someone on the forks of an FLT to gain height etc. leaving a machine running despite training to clean it and cutting off you fingers. There are loads of cases were if you look at them it was people not using common sense that as kled to an injury.

I dealt with a case when a member of staff put in a report that they had recieved an electric shock from a food trolley, the comment from the manager on the form 'the person could not have recieved a shock as after they claimed they had I plugged it in and held it and I did not get one 'common sense'. We all have stories like this so common sense doesn't work. I still feel that we are led by the legal system and until they start turning down claims and asking for stupid training records that include the training for walking up and down stairs I think we are sometimes fighting a losing cause.

The HSE and IOSH were at one time shouting about sensible risk assessment, but I have never seen them standing next to me defending claims.

I agree with A Kurdziel's comments. I wouldn't expect us to eliminate all accidents (human error will put paid to that), but I check all of the accident reports which are submitted to ensure that we did everything we can reasonably do (the scalding examples are good ones, we've had several where staff have burned themselves - I also would not expect to write a RA on avoiding burns whilst making tea, but I would expect the site to eliminate any potential damage to the tea urn).

To go back to the point that was made earlier regarding not teaching people the Green Cross Code - some of our generics (not written by me, I hasten to add) tell staff to use designated crossing points. Do I use such points at all times, even as a safety practitioner, when I know it means walking another 50 yards down the road? Of course not. But how many adult pedestrians are killed in road accidents each year (I can't say I've read up on the subject, but some must be down to people not using designed crossing points, right?)

Excellent post Jay.

For those that are dismissive of giving consideration to 'everyday' activities are, in my opinion, missing the point. If we truly want to improve behaviour we need to get inside peoples heads a little. By encouraging staff to get the simple everyday things right our lives become a lot easier when it comes to more complex behaviours.

This does not mean (necessarily) risk assessing everything and training people to walk up stairs but encouraging a collective mentality that recognises what is right and wrong.

achrn,

There is a huge amount of psychology that goes into behavioural safety--also we do not "make sure" people only drink from cups with lids, but it is OK (an accepted practice on our sites) for another employee to tactfully inform the employee that a lidded cup could have been used--also it has to be in context--if transporting it in the restaurant, maybe not, but if taking it over to another building ob the site, perhaps yes.

The last thing we do is to curb independent thinking, after all we are a chemical technology company that depends primarily on its research & development for innovative products!

Even in safety, there is a concept of "Take Two" that is the foundation of the "thinking process".

TAKE is an acronym which stands for:

T= Talk: Have I talked with everyone involved with this job?
A= Action: Do I know the proper actions I need to follow to do this job safely?
K= Knowledge: Do I have the proper knowledge to do this job safely?
E= Equipment: Do I have the proper equipment, including the proper personal protective equipment, to do this job safely?

Out of interest, do your employees tactfully inform each other that if they wore shoes fastened by velcro they would avoid the risks of tripping over their shoelaces?

To add to the final part of A Kurdziel's offering at #13, it's relatively well known in OS&H circles that the company is DuPont. Some years ago at a seminar I recall one of its people describing the company's high standards of H&S and that it included trying, in everybody's interests, to encourage employees to also have a positive regard for safety when not at work.

Can anyone with better knowledge or experience of the company expand on this aspect? For example, is it limited to providing suitable information and inspiration for employees regarding home and perhaps also common leisure activities? Also, if an employee turned up for work with an obvious home-related injury, to what extent would his/her line manager ask about or even investigate the circumstances. Also, are company employees obliged to give information and generally co-operate regarding such matters. Also, how does the company use the information it gains?

At training sessions during my spell with HSE, the company, ICI and M&S were quoted from time to time as examples of successful and profitable organisations whose high OS&H standards contributed significantly to their success.

It's not a bad point about what people do when they notice something unsafe i.e. shoelaces undone, I would imagine that at some time in our lives we have all raised concerns or pulled people up about the small unsafe acts, spilt liquids from cups as well as the big unsafe acts. When in work I will never pass someone doing something unsafe or could effect someone elases safety without raising it or stopping them doing it and this is for two reasons 1. to keep people safe and 2. i do not want people quoting H&S seen it and never said anything.

We strive to have anyone on site to raise concerns either directly or through the near miss reporting scheme. I still however think that having to risk assess people carrying out what would be considered everyday tasks, i.e. making tea, walking up and down stairs is going to far, but i am also not a great believer in the total 'common sense' approach.

There will never be a consensus on whether or how much control should be applied to a particular risk. It is a matter of judgement. Equally as practitioners we will never get it right all the time - such is the nature of the beast. Much has been made of the term 'common sense' but we should not get too hung up with this phrase, it could easily be substituted with 'life skills' or any number of other euphemisms. We are all aware that it is sometimes not so common because as humans we are prone to irrational thoughts and deeds. That does not mean the offender does not know better, which is often the case, or it could just be a lack of knowledge.

What, or how a practitioner deals with, will be partly determined on how much time he/she can afford to spend on a particular activity, risk or hazard. There are many demands made upon us, often we need to prioritise these demands. Therefore trivial risks for most tend to stay at the back of the cue. Only when they come to the forefront due to an incident or spate of incidents will they get managed. Nothing wrong with that either - risk management.

I dare say we will have a debate now about what is a 'trivial' risk - LOL!

Well said achrn!

...by the way I hate acronyms, I find them to be belittling somehow.

...and someone mentioned something (was it the other thread?) about the benefits of extending safety advice to employees out of work activities. Well I wholeheartedly would stick my fingers up at any company that tried to do that to me. I hit a rock and fell out of my canoe last night and I'll not have anyone tell me that I'm not allowed to do that or even let someone have the cheek to 'talk' with me about it.

Sometimes I feel like a very loan voice on this forum. I was trained by the HSE and I believe the same as they do that everyday risks do not need to be assessed and that risk manegment should be proportional.

I am stunned that so many people feel they have the right to treat people like children and manage every aspect of their lives a work.

It seems that there is a lack of understanding about the properly implemented behavioural safety programmes that may include the so called trivial risks ( untied shoe laces/holding handrails etc) in addition to all types behavioural risks. I do not want to expand on behavioural safety as it is not new subject anymore and well established, despite its opponents. Ultimately, it is a matter for the employer/business to decide (in consultation with employees).

Regarding safety outside the workplace, my company does not mandate or prescribe anything--it is the employees personal business as we live in a free society. However, because we have a highly mature and positive health and safety culture ( which in turn is linked to a highly mature and positive organisational culture), a significant proportion of employees do appreciate the home/leisure safety advice/discussions that they may have included as a part of their safety talks ( especially those who are office based as they are not exposed to other operational risks such as in chemical labs and facilities!). Let me be clear, that our behavioural safety programme is based on trust, 100% anonymity of the observed person, and the most learning comes from having feedback--the "why".

By the way we have team building events off site that does include risk taking--so we are not risk averse either.

I included the Take 2 because it is one very good method of thinking before acting concept and does not require a written risk assessment at all--in fact it embodies what we refer to as "common sense"--it is clear that many of us may not be practicing it regularly!

My company's detailed version of take 2 (which does not require anything written down is)I also clarify that by doing this, we do not as such shift the employers duties in law to the employee ( as some of the opponents of behavioural safety feel). I need to make it clear that take 2 does not substitute training, experience etc, but supplements it.

The basic concept is that the person(s) planning the task should take no more than two minutes to think and talk about what is planned. Those thoughts and discussion should follow the sequence of Talk, Actions, Knowledge and Equipment. The attached items suggests some questions and thoughts in each of these areas. Remember that any time your answers to the questions raise some doubt, that is the time to STOP and THINK some more.


Talk:
Talk the task through with colleagues to improve or remind you of the hazards associated with the task.
Has anyone done this type of task before? If so, what risk minimising precautions did they take.
What are the most significant risks involved in the task? Does it require a formal written risk assessment?



Actions:
Will the actions I am planning have potential to affect the health or safety of others?
Should I take action to ask or tell others before I start the task?
Am I in a fit state (e.g. tiredness, blood sugar levels, medication etc.) to safely undertake the task?


Knowledge:
Do I have sufficient knowledge and training to be able to undertake the task safely?
Am I aware of all the hazards and risk minimising precautions associated with the task? (Risk assessments, procedures, Instruction Manuals and/or Safety Data Sheets should help answer this question).
Do I have a thought through plan for the task?


Equipment:
Am I trained and authorised to use the equipment?
Check any equipment to be used.
Is it fit for the purpose intended?
Is it in good working order and free from potentially hazardous defects ?


Mt professional view is that if a significant proportion of the workforce actually underwent this thought process, we would have significantly better health and safety performance as it is the so called "common sense" but formalised, if that is the term to use. The big IF is that it requires a huge safety cultural shift, not simple to do. We are fortunate in that our site is predominantly R & D with a significant proportion of employees with a Chemical Engineering/Chemistry background including post graduate and doctoral qualifications. It has also been a very long journey to reach to the current stage.

Where has the perception come from that any of this is "telling" people how to conduct their lives?
The whole area of human factors/behaviours is well documented in industry, academia and the HSE library.
My, probably far too simplistic, view is that looking at low level routine risk activity and safety at home is normally only found where the organisation has developed to a point where it is acceptable to all, or at least the majority. And, of course, has done all the required safety systems stuff. That amongst other things means it has employees engaged ands has been using it as part of that system in the more obvious areas of the company.
My first encounter with the outcomes of a successful programme was an executive secretary who met me at reception of a high risk facility and who noticed I wasn’t using the handrail as I started on the stairs. She asked me follow the “required” safe way to use the stairs. I will admit that my first reaction at that point many years ago was “eeerrr”. What I had witnessed, I found out later, was all part of a safety programme devised by the office safety group. Working in an environment where risk minimisation was all around them (int some areas way beyond what local regulation required), they realised that the office was not exactly a chemical plant but it had risks nonethe less and looked for ways to minimise their risks. Would anyone want to stop or not allow such behaviour to develop? That is how it works well in my view and gives a good example of “common sense” being devised and applied by those who do the work. Patronage not patronising.
The question of offsite or home safety is another step beyond. It would not be about the employer telling you how to (or not) risk life and limb. It might, however, be about supporting you or your group IF you wanted access to let's say some specialist sport safety information or to develop it for others. Some awareness might be done around topical home safety stuff. I never experienced the accident at home being investigated in the UK unless the employee volunteered. (and yes some actually did).
My reading of recent incidents where focus on the little things are supposedly a cause is that it was about the “what gets measured, gets done” problem. Not that the inclusion of such activity was a cause that, if removed prior to the incidents, would have prevented the incident. The other stuff was still required but no explicit data was available to warn senior staff that they were in fact not being done properly or consistency. Poor management.

p48

achrn,

The take two illustration was simply an example, not to be taken literally in its entirity for every activity such as making a cup of tea, but to illustrate its simplicity.

It is important to note that when significant number of incidents have a human factor, at least in part, to at-risk behaviour, we are NOT saying people are reckless or careless. In most cases, people perform at-risk behaviours based on their individual experience of the benefit.


We use 4 levels to illustrate where we may be with respect to performing a behaviour either safely or in an at-risk manner:

Unconsciously Incompetent: We may be unaware of that we are performing an at-risk behaviour, either because we haven’t had the appropriate training, we don’t recognize how to apply the training, or our focus is simply elsewhere. We don’t intentionally perform the behaviour in an at-risk manner; we simply make a mistake.

Consciously Incompetent:- We sometimes choose to perform an at-risk behaviour, reasoning that nothing bad will happen. There is the ABC model that explains when and why we tend to do this.

Consciously Competent:- We take the time and effort to some the behaviour safely, but have to remind ourselves (or even talk ourselves into it) on each occasion.

Unconsciously Competent- We no longer need to convince ourselves to do the behaviour safely, it’s simply become a good practice.

Our goal is to move our and others’ at-risk behaviours along the spectrum from unconscious incompetence to unconscious competence.

When someone is “unconsciously incompetent” and receives feedback, the feedback provides information they wren’t aware of previously
.
When someone knows that what they’re doing is not the acceptable, safe behaviour and receives feedback about the behaviour, the feedback isn’t providing new information but rather it’s providing peer support - reiterating what the team or organisation considers to be the acceptable or appropriate way to do the behavior.

Finally, when someone is taking the time and making the effort to do something safely, and receives positive feedback on their behaviour, the feedback reinforces the behaviour and encourages them to continue to perform the behaviour so that it can eventually become “second nature”.


The term competence is used in a particular context and is not meant to treat all as incompetent.

achrn, I wrote "asked".

She invited me to join in; she did not instruct or order me to do so.

In a higher risk area I would have expected to be "told" if I was not working safely. Either way I didn't feel controlled or patronised.

Inclusive, mature exchange?

p48

Claire,
You clearly don't like the thought of anyone even considering minor risks or getting involved with offsite stuff. Your opinion that one can meet the legal requirements (in the UK?) without ever going into this area is very clear.

However, if people want to explore this area why should they not do so?

Please don’t let this topic fall off into a tit for tat. There have been some good exchanges of diverse opinions. I just do not understand why you made such a personal comment at the end of your last post? Can colleagues not disagree from a point of mutual respect?

As to whether we will ever reach "common sense" about common sense safety, who knows ;-)

thank you.
P48

Why should people not 'explore' it?

Because having leaflets telling people the required way that they should walk up stairs (even if it is not mandated, telling employees how they should be walking up stairs is telling people how to conduct their lives - especially as you want to make them do it everywhere always 'unconsciously') and that they should put coffee in lidded cups is the sort of stuff that the Daily Mail loves to rant about, and reinforces the poor perception of health and safety in the workplace.

Because, and this might come as a shock to some people, safety is not the be-all and end-all of everything.

Besides which, walking up stairs holding the handrail is NOT the safest way. Why don't you mandate three-point contact on the stairs? Why not mandate helmets for using stairs? Both of those things would make it safer, and apparently, if there is a safer way of doing something, why would you do it any other way?

Obviously, what is meant is that you should do everything in a manner that is adequately safe. Why not simply admit that? Of course, then it's necessary to justify how it is that the threshold falls between holding the handrail and not holding the handrail. Why is holding the handrail and putting one foot on every tread adequate, and not holding the handrail inadequate?

I routinely run up stairs. I estimate that 95% of my stair-ascending is done at a run. I run up stairs because I like to feel alive, short bursts of intense activity are good for my health, and I like it. It's fun. It's invigorating, having spent much of the day at a computer, to run up three flights of stairs.

I also climb trees, and mountain-bike, and swing on rope-swings, and sometimes I even jump in rivers. Sorry. I guess that offends some people ("why would you want to do that?")

I would not work for that company in a million years.

You obviously did not read my post because as I said I know more about outdoor sport safety than they do and if I had an acicdent that's because accidents can and do happen. If it wasn't a little bit risky I wouldn't get so much pleasue from it. If I have an accident tough. But what would give my company the right to quiz me about what I was doing at the time? If I was in a car crash outside of work time would they also want to chat with me? If I was a smoker or overweight or a drinker would they also want to chat with me?

I don't hold a handrail going up stairs becuase I have lots of muscles in my body that give me the strength to walk up a flight of stairs in an upright position without holding on to something. Amazing what the human body can do isn't it!!

Claire, thanks for clearing that up. From reading the later posts, I have concluded that this is now akin to a set of Arsenal and Spurs fans discussing football. They are watching the same game of football and each wants a winning result yet they are seeing totally different things. They will rarely agree on anything except that the ref could always do better for them.

Enjoy your risk laden life to the full, don't let the monsters get to you:-)

P48