Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages<123
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
NLivesey  
#81 Posted : 15 January 2013 17:34:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NLivesey

pgahegan wrote:
N Livesey;#58 most of the answers to your questions are on the link on posting #41, as for the rest, as you seem to be employed in the industry, why do you not post some projected costings to prove your point that it is too expensive, instead of just posting questions that imply that it is too expensive and difficult.

Apologies if you think I'm implying anything, all I was asking for was a basic understanding of your approach to your CBA so that I could determine how accurate it is and whether other elements had been accounted for.
In terms of the reason why I do not post some projected costings, well, it's an area that I would need to understand better before I made that kind of call. As it stands I'm not in possession of anywhere near enough facts to publish that kind of assessment or analysis, which is why I'm curious to understand what information you're working with and why you're confident that you're correct rather than curious what everyone's opinion is...
damelcfc  
#82 Posted : 15 January 2013 19:29:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
damelcfc

I on the other hand take a more 'pragmatic' stance (or live in the real world - whichever) and of course my examples of roads/cliffs are not usually workplaces - just trying not to be too offensive in suggesting that guarding platforms as described is just as ludicrous, wrong and stokes the 'bonkers conkers' fire.

no wonder we all get ridiculed

L v S. Severity will always be high. Liklihood is low given the number of passengers. Whilst UK holds onto (thank goodness) Reasonably Practicable it will never be done.

pgahegan  
#83 Posted : 20 January 2013 11:21:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
pgahegan

Just been reading February’s HSW, page 9; Tussaud’s failed bid to overturn a £495,000 penalty after a member of the public fell from a castle bridge.
Merlin (Tussaud’s) said the risk “was not very foreseeable” given that millions of people, including children, had crossed the bridge over many years without incident, and the evidence of a defence expert stated that the possibility of an injury was one in four million.
Perhaps they should have painted a line by the parapet wall, just like our rail stations?? or had a SSoW that had a guard doing his best to keep the public away from the edge whilst doing three things at once??
RayRapp  
#84 Posted : 20 January 2013 20:39:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

The other parts of the story my learned colleague has failed to mention is that the EHO had twice made aware to the operator (Merlin) there was a risk of falling from the bridge before the accident. Moreover, "the accident was foreseeable and would not have occurred if Merlin had undertaken a proper risk assessment...would have identified the need to provide barriers at the sides of the bridge". So, perhaps not as improbable as the appellant would have us believe.

Interestingly this case has been highlighted before on these forums with a very robust discussion. I Googled a picture of the offending 'Bear and Clarence' bridge. Whilst angles can be deceptive it appears to have a very low parapet wall spanning across a moat. If workers were sent onto the bridge then edge protection would be a given, unless of course they were working within a 2 metre exclusion zone.
pgahegan  
#85 Posted : 21 January 2013 12:14:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
pgahegan

Ray Rapp #84: The other parts of the story my learned colleague has failed to mention is that the EHO had twice made aware to the operator (Merlin) there was a risk of falling from the bridge before the accident. Moreover, "the accident was foreseeable and would not have occurred if Merlin had undertaken a proper risk assessment...would have identified the need to provide barriers at the sides of the bridge". So, perhaps not as improbable as the appellant would have us believe.

Ray, are you stating that network rail are not aware of the risk of falling from the platform? meanwhile we still have these accidents happening, see below.

19:33 Wednesday 09 January 2013
Man badly injured as he falls under train at Stortford railway station
Written byPaul Winspear
BRITISH Transport Police are investigating after a man was seriously injured when he fell under a train at Bishop's Stortford railway station this evening (Wednesday).
The victim, in his 20s, had just arrived on the 18.24 from London Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport, which was scheduled to leave Stortford at 19.05.
Ken Slack  
#86 Posted : 21 January 2013 13:09:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ken Slack

pgahegan wrote:
Ray, are you stating that network rail are not aware of the risk of falling from the platform? meanwhile we still have these accidents happening, see below.


Platforms don't belong to NR, these belong to the TOC's (Train Operating Companies), thats why NR doesn't get fined when people fall from platforms. I think the only way you would be able to get a unified approach to this problem is by creating legislation to have all platforms fitted with barriers, but then some TOC's wouldn't be able to afford the costs, especially provincial/rural train companies, not saying its not do-able, but highly unlikely and very complex....
RayRapp  
#87 Posted : 21 January 2013 21:11:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

quote=pgahegan]Ray Rapp #84: The other parts of the story my learned colleague has failed to mention is that the EHO had twice made aware to the operator (Merlin) there was a risk of falling from the bridge before the accident. Moreover, "the accident was foreseeable and would not have occurred if Merlin had undertaken a proper risk assessment...would have identified the need to provide barriers at the sides of the bridge". So, perhaps not as improbable as the appellant would have us believe.

Ray, are you stating that network rail are not aware of the risk of falling from the platform? meanwhile we still have these accidents happening, see below.

19:33 Wednesday 09 January 2013
Man badly injured as he falls under train at Stortford railway station
Written byPaul Winspear
BRITISH Transport Police are investigating after a man was seriously injured when he fell under a train at Bishop's Stortford railway station this evening (Wednesday).
The victim, in his 20s, had just arrived on the 18.24 from London Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport, which was scheduled to leave Stortford at 19.05.


I am aware that people falling on the track or under a train is a constant problem on the railways. There are of course controls which are in place to try and prevent it eg yellow lines, mind the gap announcements, tactile edges, inter-car barriers, train guards, cctv cameras and so on. However none of these interventions are fool proof and some are not cheap to provide. Unlike the retro fitting of edge protection to the Bear and Clarence Bridge, which was relatively inexpensive and totally effective, even it is a bit unsightly in its current setting.

I think the point I was making is that with the bridge example you highlighted it is not fair to compare a like for like with train platforms. Each individual hazard must be seen for its own idiosyncrasies and the necessary interventions. Keeping an open mind and not giving a skewed account is central to understanding the problem.

redken  
#88 Posted : 22 January 2013 12:15:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123
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.