Fair point Claire, however, pigeons are seen as vermin, as are foxes (to a lot of people), badgers, rats and in particular, drunks peeing up lampposts! The ornamental lampposts along a street near me are all corroded at the base as a result.

For the record - I can't stand cats either! I'm often emptying pepper over the garden to stop those things using it as a toilet.

Following Tobin's concluding comment above, despite my reluctance to join the cat v dog debate, it should be pointed out that cats prefer to dig holes for and bury their faeces. This is why gardeners without cats resent other people's cats visiting and using their gardens as latrines. The situation is made worse when gardeners only find the evidence of such visits while turning over their garden soil. One good reason to wear gloves, use tools and wash hands after gardening work which involves soil alias potentially soiled soil. By contrast, faeces left in gardens by stray dogs, foxes and badgers, etc is at least visible and easier to remove than the cat variety.

As for corrosion around the bases of metal columns for street lights, I understand that those who work with street lighting maintenance tend to refer to its main cause as K9P (i.e. canine pee)!

Also, harking back to my earlier response which mentioned an American trucker having a boa constrictor in his cab, I wonder if he and perhaps his employer regarded the snake as having a somewhat unusual guard role. Perhaps it was even trained, in the event of the lorry being stolen or hijacked, to silently slide out of hiding and start cuddling/constricting the thief/hijacker! :-)

:-)

The Moderators have hidden a number of posts on this topic. Please could users be reminded of these two rules:

"2. You mustn’t antagonise other users or post any information that could be considered defamatory, obscene, abusive, offensive, inflammatory, unlawful or creates a risk to a person’s safety or health.

3. You mustn’t indulge in bullying, aggressive, discriminatory or nuisance behaviour. Please be respectful towards other guests, IOSH members, moderators and IOSH staff. Please remember, our forums are used by guests who might not have a background in occupational safety and health. Inappropriate postings made towards guests aren’t tolerated. If you’re an IOSH member, bear in mind the Code of Conduct, in particular:

"Members shall not behave in a way which may be considered inappropriate to other members or staff of the Institution." (Paragraph 10)"

Please could participants also try to keep fairly close to the original question on the topic, about taking a dog into the cab of an HGV.

Thank you
Moderating team

I'd like, purely out of curiosity, for ptaylor14 to answer Jane, bearing in mind the wording of my question.

ptaylor14 wrote:
I think we are all forgetting the equalities act here, what if its (sic) a guide dog?


Jane's question:
"Belonging to the driver?"

As H&S professionals I feel we have an obligation to say 'yes', and enable things to happen.....

A restrained, well trained dog, a driver that has been briefed on hygiene and safety, a quick once-over of the cab every now and again to check, maybe a short supervised cab ride to check (a good idea anyway).

This is fine as a one-off or occasional practice, when it becomes widespread, takes up an excessive amount of management time and causes arguments at work, that’s the time to say no...

and after all didn’t a US trucker on TV in the 70's (BJ and the bear) have an urang..... a big monkey with him in the cab?

Though references to guide dogs for blind lorry drivers are presumably intended as a bit of humour, a serious case could by contrast be made for hearing dogs for lorry drivers who are deaf. Though I don't know of any deaf lorry drivers, I have a friend who is totally deaf and drives. Therefore, though having eyesight which meets a certain standard is rightly necessary for drivers, deafness apparently does not preclude anyone from driving.

Glancing back over the various responses to this thread, it seems that some responders have been very dogmatic (admittedly a punnish word, but I can't readily think of another suitable expression!) about whether or not dogs should be allowed to ride in lorry cabs, apparently based in some cases on whether or not they like dogs. I've no fixed views myself and tend to side with Corfield including his opinion that OS&H professionals should be enablers where feasible rather than banners.

Also, where dogs riding in lorry cabs does lead to arguments and takes up excessive management time, etc. as suggested by Corfield, surely it's important that "health and safety" is not (mis)used and quoted as the reason or sole reason for banning such riding.