Rank: Forum user 
|
Our designer for a major refurb in our reception area has insisted on putting 2 stair wide, parallel 3mm high ridges on the stair nosings - he said they were required under DDA. (Forget the fact that he has not installed the DDA required indicators on the floor surface for the immediate access areas to the top and bottom of the stairs). Has anyone else come across these serious trip hazards on new stair installations?
I remember my young daughter tripping over similar in a dept store many years ago but haven't seen them since.
As far as I am concerned DDA requirements should be for the good of all - not create a hazard for all.
Anyone got any experience (good or bad) of these things?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
hew
Simplest way ahead is to ask,even press for a copy of the risk assessment on which the design is based.
If he did say his design is required 'under the DDA', no harm to remind him that The Equality Act superseded the DDA a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
There is some case law where, on occasion H&S requirements overrode DDA (Equality Act as it is now) The one I recall is Lane Group plc v Farmiloe 2004, where an individual was suffering from psoriasis on his feet and therefore could not wear safety boots in the warehouse. The Company decided, under the DDA that this would be allowed, but this was overridden by the LA and an improvement notice was issued.
The Company could not find suitable alternative employment for him, so dismissed. Unsurprisingly he took them to tribunal for unfair dismissal citing Discrimination under DDA and won. As I understand it, the Company contacted the LA whose reply was basically tough, he cannot enter the warehouse without Safety footwear.
This went to the EAT, then to court of appeal and I think it ended up at the Lords. I believe the final judgement was the aspects of personal safety override the DDA on this occasion (I think)
The point I am trying to make here is if you believe the ridges constitute a safety hazard, then they should be removed, highlighted or redesigned
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hew
The Equality Act is governed by civil law - breach the legislation you get fined and are called names
Health & Safety at Work etc Act is governed by criminal law - breach this legislation you get fined, have a criminal record and could end up in clink.
I know which one I am going to stick with!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
MEden
I know which is more costly and it isnt H&S. I would find it very difficult to see a Workplace regs argument against such ridges. The Building Control person has the power, unfortunately, to approve measures below standard without threat of any enforcement as he is the Approval Body.
The fact that Poster states no other indicator is applied is not an argument to remove. Tripping over a matchstick now seems to be a risk to be assessed. I have had similar situations of people falling upstairs because the rise and going was designed under the BS for ambulant and partially ambulant persons. A bright EHO tried to claim breach of workplace regs when people fell over when ascending 2 or 3 steps at a time!!!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Michael is right about the principle of superordinate status of H & S law which is actually acknowledge in The Equality Act.
He's also right about the particular disputed case.
Where he errs is in stating " if you believe the ridges constitute a safety hazard, then they should be removed, highlighted or redesigned"
For the issue concerns evidential facts, not 'belief'. On that ground, it's reasonable to press for evidence and to evaluate in the light of relevant research such as that published in Ergonomics and Applied Ergonomics.
You may also find it useful to trace an American called Jake Paul on the internet. I met him at a risk management workshop 18 months ago, a fascinating architect and ergonomist who's spent the last 50 years specialising in steps and stairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
KieranD wrote:Michael is right about the principle of superordinate status of H & S law which is actually acknowledge in The Equality Act.
He's also right about the particular disputed case.
Where he errs is in stating " if you believe the ridges constitute a safety hazard, then they should be removed, highlighted or redesigned"
For the issue concerns evidential facts, not 'belief'. On that ground, it's reasonable to press for evidence and to evaluate in the light of relevant research such as that published in Ergonomics and Applied Ergonomics.
You may also find it useful to trace an American called Jake Paul on the internet. I met him at a risk management workshop 18 months ago, a fascinating architect and ergonomist who's spent the last 50 years specialising in steps and stairs.
Correct. Wrong choice of words
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.