Rank: Forum user
|
Hi - Could anyone steer me in the right direction as to what guidlines to follow, when deciding where to place a designated smoking area?
Thanks - Paul.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Paul, it is alarmingly common for designated smoking areas to be placed on the opposite side of the yard from the buildings, thus creating a significant risk of colisions between vehicles and smokers.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
david bannister wrote:Paul, it is alarmingly common for designated smoking areas to be placed on the opposite side of the yard from the buildings, thus creating a significant risk of colisions between vehicles and smokers.
I have just completed a fire risk assessment where staff were supposed to walk from a workshop, approx 250 metres to the smoking shelter. Guess what? Hardly anyone used it and evidence of smoking was found near a gas bottle store and other similar unsuitable locations.
So in addition to the design of the shelter, it's location needs to be workable. A 500m round trip ain't ever gunna work!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As posters have alluded to, there are a few considerations:
- Ensuring it meets the Smoke Free Regs (link already provided)
- Ensuring that it doesn't introduce additional OHS hazards (pedestrian safety etc.)
- Ensuring that it actually gets used.
Within warehouse sites a suitable number of "shelters" (roof with 1 wall and 3 open sides) are provided in an area that is more than 6m from the building (for insurance purposes), located outside the canteen where there is no other combustibles / flammables nearby. As the shelter is easy to access (50m walk from the canteen) they get used.
Rigid monitoring of external areas (as part of other operational / OHS monitoring) audits compliance.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
SBH wrote:Ban it on site
SBH
I have to disagree. Banning smoking on sites - where the risk in the environment does not really necessitate this as a control measure - simply drives it underground and makes the low risk higher.
I would rather contain the risk to predetermined areas - smoking shelters - and ensure there is a sufficient number and they are services regularly
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
SBH wrote:Ban it on site
SBH
Is helpful NOT.
We banned it on all our sites and all smokers were told to go off the premises to do so. Quickly found to be unworkable and dangerous, as we found some refused to go outside and smoked in say a car park, and since at least one of our sites is next to a very busy minor road in East London we had to amend the smoking areas.
If someone wants to die smoking i'd prefer it not down to us getting them run over by a London bus...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
To gain access to our non-smokers restroom you have to wak through the smokers area! Adimtedly it is an open area with tables and a bus shelter style hut for when it's raining but as a non-smoker it is anoying to have to walk through clouds of smoke to get to a canteen that again smells of smoke!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The suggestion at #5 to ban it from site, is almost certainly doomed to failure. I have lost count of the number of employers/premises that claim to be entirely no smoking, including my local NHS hospital site which I have yet to visit and not see either patients (often still connected to a 'drip') or staff, almost invariably both, having a fag.
It would appear that many, perhaps with good intentions (I don't want to get into a discussion about that one) see this as a solution without thinking through how and whom they will get to enforce it. The reality is of course is that the policy exists on paper alone and not in reality (I believe the judge in the Barrow/legionella case alluded to similar).
My own authority committed itself to a totally smoke free site some time ago, although this subsequently never happened. I was against it. As a LA we deal with numerous 'vulnerable' people in often very stressful or challenging situations e.g. homelessness. So. Someone has got to go and tell this person, whose 'life' is sitting there in 2 carrier bags (literally) that they can't have a smoke! Is it me?
I don't smoke, never have, I don't like it but IMVHO, most total smoking bans are poorly conceived and rarely enforced.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Excellent post @ #10 Canopener - agree with every point.
Of course every site has the option to 'ban' smoking but if for one minute anyone thinks they have actually banned it, they are not looking in the right places.
The right place should be the shelter that has been provided and located after consultation in the right place for the business in question taking in all factors of previous posters and hopefully not around the back of x and y which is usually the last place you would want to find fag ends.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
SBH, I like your style... but in reality, you may as well say 'smoke wherever you want' because that's what you'll get!
Unless you have the resources to thoroughly police a policy, it'll always be flimsy IMO.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think it depends on the workplace; we have one site which has banned smoking; it's a Hospice, and it has worked,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
John, congrats.. but I feel exception rather than the rule!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No one has yet died from not smoking (have they?)
Most LA's have a ban on their premises as have a lot of hospitals (and rightly so) When the wife was on chemo there was on e chap sitting on a bench outside puffing away. Not pretty sight to see when one has a drip in ones arm!
Anyway, smokers cost lost time at work, a fire risk and they smell. If the 'fag' break is docked from the wage then fine but the rest of us don't get to go home early.
Rant over... ban it!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I was accused once of deliberately using the risk assessment process to eliminate every possible location bar one, right outside HR's office.
I was deeply disappointed because I had not actually thought of it myself and then it dawned on me that my boss had been extremely interested in the process and had actually come out with me to do the audit which was unheard of. Sly old fox.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Further to my post at #10; for those who advocate the total no smoking ban, you might be interested to know that the Eastern Daily Press reports today that the hospital to which I referred (Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital) and others in Norfolk have 'ditched' their 5 year smoking ban, because it isn't working and was impossible to enforce. The article goes on to say "We have to accept that smoking is a vital safety valve for some people if they are dealing with a stressful situation"
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Vital safety valve my A*** !!
That is one hell of a 'cop-out' Best laugh I've had in a long time.
This is the first time I've heard that smoking is a medical aid.
Wife battering relieves stares at home?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
That should be STRESS but was kicking the misses at the time ...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We have a smoking shelter close to the building which is well used - except by those who want to have a coffee at the same time because it is a food manufacturing site and food and drink are not allowed in the car park to keep the rat population hungry. Those smokers with a beverage trot out to the pavement and stand in front of the neighbouring hedge. Of course the stubs are put in the hedge as are any disposable cups (and the CEO joins in too!!!) - but that's the subject of another rant!
|
|
|
|
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.