Rank: Super forum user 
|
Interesting article in SHP today about a tree surgeon who tragically died whilst cutting a tree with a chain saw which we know is inherently dangerous equipment. Details are bit sparse, but the HSE are quoted as saying it was down to "bad luck". All the more surprising given the HSE have a crystal ball and bad luck does not normally come into the equation. Flies in the face of zero this and that as well.
http://www.shponline.co....HP%20Daily%20Update-CTA-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I agree it does seem an unusual stance from the HSE, especially using the foreseeability test. I love the way the coronor just throws PPE at it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It does seem an extraordinary thing for the HSE to say. Surely there must have been something about the way the chainsaw was being used that made such an 'accident' possible? I'm not an expert on chainsaws, although I have used one in the dim and distant past, and I certainly wouldn't let it get anywhere near my head or neck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
This is now in most newspapers
Speechless - anyone deserves more than "bad luck" as a reason for a death, is it the easy option?
Just hope something good comes of this untimely death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with the comments thus far. Indeed, I can't help but think if the equipment had been fixed machinery the HSE would not have been so quick to dimiss the incident as 'bad luck'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
From the report I read the chain saw "kicked back" having hit some hidden rot within the wood. I'm not a tree surgeon but from the HSE comments I can only surmise that the poor guy was following accepted good practice and had appropriate risk assessments. The judge is suggesting making neck guards compulsory but as we know we cannot make all workplace accidents impossible - and sadly we cannot make all workplace deaths impossible. I don't know if neck guards would be reasonable at all times, or under certain circumstances. If you look at the number of deaths reported in the HSE statistics and the number of prosecutions taken the numbers will not add up. Not all deaths/injuries are because of a breach in H&S compliance.
My sympathies go out to this family and I think the use of the term "Bad Luck" should have been avoided, but then that's a term the average man on the street would use. If the report had said that the accident was as a result of an unforeseeable combination of events, or a combination of events that were so rare it was not reasonably practicable to take any further safety measures we may have understood it, but would none H&S professionals?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The HSE should not have used the term “bad luck”. “Practically
unforeseeable risk” would have been a better; they could have assumed that the guy
had done everything practical, to plan and manage the work and there was
something in the tree, anything that you would not have spotted with just a
simple look, a flaw, or an old nail etc which caused the kick-back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Isn't the usual reason given in this type of circumstance "Accidental Death"?
Edited by user 02 December 2016 09:36:46(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Just had a look the HSE guidance INDG317 and it clearly notes the issues of kick back and states:
Kickback is responsible for a significant proportion of chainsaw injuries, many of which are to the face and parts of the upper body where it is difficult to provide protection
Then within the section, there is a comment about using the chain saw below chest height. I would have thought the training would also suggest that you position yourself so that if there is any kickback that you don’t have your head, neck etc in the potential path the saw blade will take. I also don’t think it that unusual that you may find rotten bits in a tree you are cutting down. The whole scenario does not sound that inconceivable / unlikely, as seems to be made out.
There is an element of Bad luck to all accidents, if only that one piece of swiss cheese was different on that day. Bad luck they fell off the roof or the trench collapsed just when someone was in there etc. We don’t know the full storey, but that sounds like wholly inappropriate comments. It gives the impression that bad luck is an acceptable end to the matter.
Accidents no longer put down as human error, but just plain bad luck.
I feel sorry to the person and more so their family, as others have said I hope something good can come from this.
|
 1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel  The HSE should not have used the term “bad luck”. “Practically
unforeseeable risk” would have been a better; they could have assumed that the guy
had done everything practical, to plan and manage the work and there was
something in the tree, anything that you would not have spotted with just a
simple look, a flaw, or an old nail etc which caused the kick-back.
I agree totally but who knows when or how the term was used! Sadly in my 30+ year H&S working life I have attended Coroners court on a number of occasions. I have been asked to agree to some bazar statements by Coroners, solicitors and family members. Most of these I have managed to avoid and stick to the actual facts, however that does not stop the press making up replies if they don't like what you say. This tragic accident deserved a better report than "bad Luck"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.