Hazard verses risk.

The hazard is something falling from height the risk is the likelyhood of it happening and then the result.

Your hazard can always occur unless you prevent the something falling from height by using toe boards etc. Otherwise the hazard is the same.

The risk is it happening and if it does, even if it hits a hard hat it is still an accident and if it is a heavy metal tool box for example then probably a lost time accident or even fatality.

My opinion and I just putting on my Tin Hat awaiting the flack.

Right let’s take cover…
Does it really matter?
The aim of our systems is to reduce the risk to employees and others and since risk is essentially severity x likelihood does it really matter if this is achieved by reducing the severity or the likelihood or whether your particular model of risk assessment allows for a reduction in severity or not?

SJP,

I have found this an age old problem (two camps of h&s).

Ask your Client does an airbag in a car reduce the likelihood of an accident or the severity?
I mainly find engineering controls reduce severity. Although some say always look to reduce likelihood, looking at both is the preferred option. reducing likelihood will reduce numbers affected etc.

I find it to be an academic question that can be argued for ever. A Harness reduces the severity of a fall from height, others say do not do the work at height and reduce the likelihood of a fall from height. but it is the situation you are faced with against cost/balance/sfarp.

I think one of the reasons why this can be a difficult area is because when we undertake risk assessments we often look at the hazard itself rather than the hazardous event that allows the hazard to realise its potential to cause harm.

If we take the OPs example and rephrase it as "How can we stop someone being injured by an object falling from height", then the initial approach would be to reduce the likelihood of something falling in the first place.

But because:

a. we understand that every risk control measure can fail

b. the probable severity of being hit on the head by a falling object is severe

we introduce further controls i.e. hard hats, to reduce the severity of injury if a person is struck by a falling object.

Both these measures would have the overall effect of reducing risk of someone being injured by an object falling from height. One would reduce the likelihood the other would reduce severity.

Take a look at this thread which had many thoughts posted:

http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...spx?g=posts&t=110625

Substituting a weak solution of caustic soda for the concentrated version would lessen the severity of any skin injury just as using a safety razor reduces the severity of cuts when compared to a cut-throat razor.

SJP - Im with you.

A control is only worth having if it reduces severity or likelihood.

I understand that there are two camps however my tent is firmly pitched!

Rusty has hit the nail on the head IMO ('Ask your Client does an airbag in a car reduce the likelihood of an accident or the severity?').
The control you have mentioned will not make the hazard less likely to occur (i.e. if he is going to drop it then wearing a hard hat some metres below will not help him hold on to it...), but will reduce the severity (blunt force trauma, unconsciousness, bleeding even death VS a headache and new hard hat and possibly a bit of a shock!).

On the flip side, a toe board or catch net may reduce the likelihood but not the severity.

As for the "Does it matter?" - I second the second (?) part of kevkels post ("Then the question- does it matter as long as were are controlling hazards?
Well yes it does matter. Control measures are implemented on a prioritised basis. If you cant demonstrate how you have reduced the risk of an adverse event or the severity of that adverse event in a quantitative manner, how can you demonstrate that the correct controls are in place?").

As I said, this is my opinion and this is how I manage controls in my job. I cannot see the point in a control if you cant honestly say a control reduces risk (severity x likelihood).

It depends on the nature of the hazard and the control measures you put into place. Quite often the severity of outcome will not change, only the likelihood of it happening. But not always.

If you imagine assessing the risk of crossing the road for instance. The main hazard is moving traffic. If you are hit by a car at say 40mph you are likely to be killed. If however, you introduce a speed limit of 10mph (unlikely I know, but it's only an example) then if the same car hits you the outcome is likely to be different.
Don't forget the hierarchy of control talks about eliminate, substitute, reduce, isolate etc. if you are able to apply that, then it is perfectly possible to reduce the severity of the outcome.