Plus Nikki Lauder was pretty angry the race was stopped for an hour in the first place as he saw the risk of a repeat accident in that place as a very low risk.

It does seem perverse that the reasonably high risk of the tele-handler was to prevent injury from a low risk event!

Picky? Telehandler forcing post into ground because it is a fixed boom meaning that the force can't be applied directly in a downward motion! It the post had struck something solid the force applied would mean it would go away from the Telehandler probably causing serious injury to the individual trying to steady it. Firesafety101 I hope you don't work in construction with heavy plant.

No, you do it an alternate way maybe just hammer the post in then push it in the rest of the way with no one in the risk area! Why bother teaching time v risk. No I don't carry a clip board I walk sites and discuss ways to do things, normally sorting it on site with no delay to the work.

Anyway it was an observation and if flack is reward for expressing concern then I'll keep my opinions off this forum.

Firestar, apologies for the flack.

There was more risk of spectators/riders being injured at the Tour De France in Yorkshire as the narrow lanes were very crowded and people spilled into the roads very close to the riders.

Just seen on TV a spectator hit by a professional rider in London he was in the road taking pictures and it looks like he dropped his camera/phone as a result of the impact. No injuries however so no worries, just excellent publicity for us Brits.

Health and safety did take part but on the rear seat ;-)

I would be interested to hear what steps you would consider suitable for this considering the stages average about 80 miles. I dont think you would ever be able to prevent some idiot standing in the middle of the road. Also when you consider the risks involved not only to participants but also spectators in races like the TT and WRC then that event needs to be put in some kind of perspective.

No need to pull your head in Graham. I have attended Rallys as well as other races (but no F1 on a H&S persons wage) and I was at the road side on Saturday for the Tour. They did have some of the measures you mention in place. Look at pictures in the past of T de F I am afraid people crowding in , running along side etc is what happens every where not just here in Yorkshire. Depending on which report you believe there were between 1.5 million and 2.5 million out on the streets Saturday a car rally would never achieve that number - and yet sadly we still see people killed at those events.

STOP THE PRESS! Health and Safety cancels all Sports events in UK - come on guys three minor injuries caused by peoples own stupidity as far as I can see!

And the key word is REASONABLE. Which having stood at the side of the road watching the Tour de France I believe the organisers did. 3 injuries over 3 days, hundreds of miles of public road traveled Millions of spectators on the ground what do we truly think could have been done that was not done?

Brian,

I suggest that it would be REASONABLE to arrange the conditions for spectators such that, at least in congested town streets, they could not deliberately or accidently take one or two steps onto the road into the path of a cyclist whose average speed is 40.547km/hr

Wow, I'm quoting an official timing there of 40.547km/hr! Seems like a lot of effort was put into getting an accurate figure, but not much effort into protecting spectators!

John

Totally agree.
Reasonably practicable is what its all about. Not being risk averse.

Crikey! Is it Friday already? (that week went fast?)

Persons engaged in sporting activities who are injured as a result 'play' are not 'At Work' in regards to health and safety legilsation.

You'll have refs dishing out PNs next!

Xavier123 and Paulw71 -
thank goodness some people can still understand reasonably practicable!
Johnw the point is what you are asking for was already done - barriers were in place where considered needed, stewards were in place as well. I have just quickly looked at the cost of barrier hire its was 23.40 a week from one well known company for 1.2m. Day 1 was 190.5 Km so to barrier the hole route (both sides of road don't forget) I calculate at 7.5Million to hire the barriers alone! That's without putting them out and bringing them back. I am sorry for the rider who was injured by the fall after the idiot person stepped out to take a picture but I do not think anything more could be done. As I said to begin with I was stood at the road side watching the stewards work and not just responding to a newspaper report or tv picture.

In response to the original post:

I saw the F1 crash on TV. Given the race was stopped, it was repeated many times! My initial reaction was to marvel at how the collective skills of motoring engineers had allowed a driver to walk away from a direct impact crash at around 150mph. Also the ability of the crash barrier to absorb the high impact energy must reflect the skills and knowledge of the engineers who designed it. Of course, recognition should also be given to the workforce who constructed it, so that when hit, it did its job.

The heat about a telehandler being used as a hammer possibly needs a step back. Silverstone is in the UK and the requirements of our H&S law mean we should be applying ‘reasonably practicable’ solutions. It seems reasonably foreseeable that – at some point – a crash barrier might find itself on the receiving end of a crash.

Following this logic, it also seems reasonable for the organisers to have a pre-existing plan to replace the crash barrier in a quick and safe manner. This might have been considered of high importance at a planning stage, given that stopping a race could prove very expensive: buying satellite time for TV around the world; contractual clauses with sponsors; licence requirements for the racetrack; etc, none of which I have any detailed knowledge. However given the huge amount of money associated with F1 I’m presuming interruptions to the race could be expensive. It would be interesting to know if the provision of a telehandler as a hammer was in the risk assessment.

Speaking about risks assessments. In a completely separate incident the inquest into the killing of a school pupil by a polar bear has been reported over the last couple of days. From reports so far it would appear the risk assessment had been completed but that – having got out to Norway – the equipment was not sufficient. ie having done the risk assessment, there was an apparent failure to ensure all the identified equipment was taken on the expedition.

The amendments to the control measures with the equipment they had did not warn the people in the camp of the approaching bear. A guard was not posted; there was no warning - so the trip wire failed; and when one of the team leaders finally got hold of the gun, it kept ejecting the bullets before they could be fired. It is being suggested that the gun’s safety device may have still been in place. This either indicates a lack of training in the use of the weapon or possibly not following an effective firing sequence due to the shock and ferocity of the bear attack.

In both cases it seems to underline the importance of ensuring that the control measures from risk assessments are actually applied. This includes emergency procedures. In both instances people were under significant pressure; both circumstances were foreseeable: a crash at a race track or a polar bear in polar bear country. If circumstances change then people need to ensure the amended measures will protect people.

My understanding of one of the basic health and safety approaches is to try and learn from incidents – both good and bad. If telehandlers are good hammers why are they not used more extensively in construction for pile driving? Given I had the concept of the ‘right tool for the right job’ drilled into me years ago (no pun intended!) could a more suitable piece of equipment been made available?

These are rhetorical questions, not to be confused with a prompt for an argument about whether the race should have been held up for 6 months while a ‘proper’ risk assessment was undertaken.

It’s not as if F1 is short of money …. Or engineers for that matter.

Cheers.

Nigel

FireSafety101

My point was not about Norwegian law but how risk assessments need to be followed through, particularly with respect to emergency action on foreseeable risks - albeit the emergency may rarely occur. We need to ensure that lessons are not just learnt but actually applied in practice.

It just happens to be that under Norwegian law, preventative measures need to be applied to deter bear attacks; provide warnings, with trip wire mine defences being an option or another being a dog; and as a last line of defence, shooting the bear. ‘Bear watches’ through the night are also an option. For people outside of settlements, they are legally obliged to carry a gun, presumably with ammunition.

What came out of the investigation done for the British Schools Exploring Society highlighted failings in the risk assessment process before the expedition and a failure to provide sufficient functioning equipment regarding trip wires and pen flares. There also appeared to be some confusion about updating the risk assessment before the expedition started. As with other incident investigations, organisational failings were revealed which – in themselves - may not have prevented the death and injury but highlighted weaknesses in the organisation's preventative control measures.

BSES as an organisation were cited as conforming to BS 8848 which covers expeditions and requires organisations to have an informed risk assessment process; clear identification of responsibilities of personnel; and the employment of competent and experienced staff.

No doubt further information will arise as the inquest moves to its conclusion.

Having come back to this issue I would also reflect on some comments made by the investigator. BSES provided expedition experience for 16-19 years olds. Given the nature of the environment in which such expeditions take place, it is not possible to eliminate all risks. The expeditions provide valuable experience for those on them and significant challenges to the team leaders. Indeed they may even provide some excitement and enjoyment for those taking part, emotions that tend to be frowned upon in some quarters.

I would expect the tragedy in this expedition will leave its mark forever in the minds of those involved, not only for the family of the lad that died but all those involved in the expedition and its organisation. It should also be acknowledged that the people who tackled the bear were very courageous in the face of such a ferocious and deadly attack, particularly the leader who killed it. The description of them trying to ward off the attack is heart breaking but revealed great bravery.

Nevertheless health and safety professionals must use their expertise to help managers – and others – undertake activities safely: and their compassion when emotions are running at their highest. Learning from success and failures is part of the risk assessment process.

Nigel

PS - Reports of the investigation of the Polar Bear attack can be found at the British Schools Exploring Society’s [the organisers of the expedition] website which provide comprehensive details on the preparation for the expedition; the attack itself; and recommendations about avoiding bear attacks for future expeditions.

The web address is:

www.britishexploring.org/AboutUs/SvalbardTragedy.aspx